Was/is a war with Iraq a winnable war?

I realize that this Administration is as incompetent as they come but say if a Competent Administration like Clinton's were to have launched such an endeavor could it have been won? I don't think so myself since there is no defined enemy. We are fighting the Iraqi people themselves and not an Army. Does any one here believe we could have actually won a war with Iraq and what would that definition of winning be? I think the Iraq War is the height of epitome for the Bush* Cabal.

He'd want a lot of countries to be a part of the rebuilding and he wouldn't have allowed half the shit that's gone on.

This thing would have been handled correctly from the beginning and I'd be willing to bet Iraq would be a hell of a lot more peaceful than it is now. The troops would have proper body armor, torture would not be tolerated, more countries would have been involved from the beginning, corruption wouldn't be what it is now and overall we'd be in a hell of a lot better shape.

Clinton would never have gone into Iraq unprepared with a John Wayne mentality.

I don't think anyone could have gotten the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to get along with each other. The only way we can achieve stability over there, IMO, is a three state solution.

I think he could have brokered something between all three groups. It would be real shared power. Clinton was a hell of a negotiator.

I think he could have accomplished a lot and it most certainly wouldn't look anything like the clusterfuck that's going on now. We wouldn't have the mess we've got now.

I heard Bill Clinton speak at the University of Kansas in 2004, and an underlying theme for getting things done was "You got to do the deal!" This was his strategy for getting things done on the world and domestic stages: "You got to do the deal!" Find commonground between two opposing factions and "work the deal." Compromise, in the democratic sense, was the way to get things done. I thought, "Why can't this man still be in the White House?" Compared to the "My way or the highway" cowboy-logic of King George the Torturer, which has gotten us nothing but a lot of grief, Clinton's diplomacy-based approach was a breath of fresh air.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/may/22/clinton_calls_for/

Edited to add:

was a war crime, and a unliateral one carried out by the same 'coalition' as Bush. It was Washington and London killing Iraqis from the air and by embargo from 1991 - 2003. In 2003, unsatisfied with killing Iraqis by bomb and embargo, Washington and London decided to go in and kill even more Iraqis from the ground.

A great coalition of nations killing Iraqis would not make it right.

From the sanctions against Iraq through the nineties until now the policies of the U.S. regarding Iraq have been one long series of monstrous crimes against the people of this small defenseless country. Every time we denied medicines to the Iraqi people or bombed their water and sewage treatment plants we were committing atrocities against them. With the invasion, destruction, contamination and general plundering of Iraq we are guilty of some of the worst war crimes and crimes against humanity of the past one hundred years in my opinion.

Is there a proper way to conduct such crimes? Such a question is nonsensical and foolish to the extreme.

But what exactly does "height of epitome" mean? You ought to look up "epitome".

By the way, there was no war as Iraq, for all intents and purposes, had no army. We simply invaded and occupied Iraq. What we have had since three years ago was an occupation. There is no 'winning', there is only the inevitable decision to leave.

whole class or subject. IOW the Republican Party or especially the NeoCons. The Iraq War in my mind epitomizes the GOP and it's total incompetence.

If it was to rid Iraq of Saddam, yes, it could, and was done.

If it was to establish Democracy? in Iraq, that's different. The definition fo democracy seems to be different for almost everybody. Some say it's a gov't elected by the people of the country. But then, when the results of an election is like the one in Pakistan, where Hammas was elected, these same people say "that's WRONG!"

Many have tried to invade Iraq in the past and failed, and although Shrub has done a particularly bad job, every one of the invaders of the past have failed and retreated with their tails between their legs!

I don't this Clinton would have ever put the US into a war in Iraq, so winning or not isn't applicable.

I said essentially the same thing you did, but you said it much better.
:)

In a sense, we already had a "victory" in the conventional war. We overthrew the regime. But as far as stablizing the region -- getting the three factions to form a unity government and achieving good stability -- no, I don't think that was ever possible.

I agree with another poster that Clinton would have handled it much better, but I still don't think the situation would be stable right now, no matter what we did.

Saddam?

or putting the burden of a police action upon the backs of the military, in order to free up the oil fields by placing a US-"Friendly" (read: us puppet) regime in power, so that we may then menance Syria and Iran and exert control upon the Middle East, in order to re-align that area of the world to conform to America's wishes for the next 50+ years?