American troops and Iraqi resistance fighters have been engaged in continuing combat since 1 May, when President Bush declared the war effectively over.
At least 70 Iraqis were killed in an attack on what the US army calls a "terrorist" camp on Friday.
Nearly 30 US troops have died in fighting or accidents in Iraq since the beginning of May.
The senior US official running Iraq, Paul Bremer, has blamed the ongoing attacks against US troops on organised resistance by Baath Party loyalists.
Is the war in Iraq really over? Or was the US-led coalition hasty in its declaration that hostilities had ceased? What does the future hold for Iraq?
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.
Your reaction:
When you invade and occupy a country the war will never be over, there are enough precedents to look at. Will the US never learn? Afghanistan is one where one problem has created another, and where the war is also just starting. There it was justified but remains unfinished and deteriorating. For the US sake I hope the body count doesn't keep coming one a day for years, watch how quick US public opinion "forgets" the noble reasons why the invasion was carried out, and says enough, leaving the rest of the world i.e the UN and her constituent nations, to pick up the pieces. This war is just starting, believe it. The US and UK will have to stay and try and "liberate" now to save face, to pull out is to again admit failure. God save the poor innocent civilians who are the real victims.
John P, Australia
This unfortunately, seems to be playing in Saddam's hands. Coming from Northern Ireland I know about guerrilla tactics used in conflict. This will tie the American forces in Iraq for quite a considerable time. The losses so far, which appear to be one a day for 40 days will sadly continue.
Rick, N. Ireland
The war is 'over', in the same way that the first Gulf War was 'over' - i.e. it's fallen off the front pages of the media, and the politicians have other fish to fry. But after the first Gulf War, the US and UK continued to launch bombing raids nearly every day in the 'no fly zones'. But we didn't hear about that very often.
Richard, UK
The attacker are not resistance fighters in the patriotic sense of word, they are mostly Saddam loyalists who lost power. The attackers are of two kinds, those who belong to the Special Forces Saddam and a religious and tribal minority that gained so much from having Saddam in power and is upset that their undeserved gains are lost. My message to those who hate the USA, don't get your hopes up, these are not a people based attackers, they are just exacting revenge because they know that they want be the sole ruling group over the remaining 85-90% of the Iraqi people.
Ashraf Alnajjar, Washington DC, United State
Never in the history of humankind has a country been attacked, suffered fly-overs, sanctions, denuded of weapons and then attacked. I for one am totally ashamed of what we have inflicted on the people of Iraq. If they choose to fight back in any way they can then who can blame them. If an invading force were to behave in such a cowardly way towards my country then I would expect all of us to behave in the same way, wouldn't you?
Audrey, USA
As time goes on the casualties on both sides will increase
|
The bombing may be over but the real war has only just begun. While the Iraqi people are forced to endure lack of food, water, sanitation, jobs and some sort of quality of life the coalition forces will be made to pay. As time goes on the casualties on both sides will increase.
I think the coalition are only now starting to realize what a complex society Iraq is, that the Utopian notion of an Iraqi democracy growing out of a nation who have had their passion for Islam restored is remote.
Reap what you sow!
Mark La Brooy, Australia
The war is over. But the consequences of the war are not fully predictable. It's apparent that the attack by American and British forces was fairly well planned but the aftermath was left to improvisation.
Olaf Mend, Chicago, U.S.
The most difficult phase of the war is just starting and the so-called "coalition forces" are in deep trouble. I am thinking of all soldiers who do not know what they are fighting for. It is going to be a long and ultimately unsuccessful mission as fundamentalists will win in the end.
Vladimir, UK/Montenegro
When the Anglo-American leadership admits that more of their troops in Iraq are losing their lives for the fake glory of the warlords and decide to withdraw, then war will be over. This won't happen unless much blood is shed in the streets of the cities of Iraq.
Abutareq, Lebanon
Now there is an opportunity for the Iraqi people to reclaim their country after years of oppressive rule
|
It was never stated that war was over, just that a major phase of the war has ended. Now there is an opportunity for the Iraqi people to reclaim their country after years of oppressive rule. Of course there are those that were part of the oppressive rule that would have it otherwise.
Bob, USA
The only way I see for these attacks to be curbed, or at least robbed of their legitimacy, is to give Iraqis a stake in their own future.
It is extremely easy for dissatisfied elements in Iraq to discredit the foreign administrators running their country. Fewer "special envoys" and foreign administrative officials running Iraq, and a bit more democracy please.
Govind Sri Ram,
London, UK
I know one thing - the propaganda war is not over
|
Every time I hear that "Saddam loyalists" attack something, I know one thing - the propaganda war is not over. Just as the world was never shown any proof to support the claim that Iraq presented a grave threat to US and the world as a whole, now we're not shown any proof that the attackers do this sort of thing out of love for Saddam, and not because they don't want to see American tanks patrolling their streets and American soldiers manning the checkpoints on Iraqi roads.
Sergei, Russia
The US and UK solders must suffer the consequences of their criminal leadership who can dare cheat. The war has just started until Bush and Blair come to their senses of distinguishing left and right.
Albert, Tanzania
I hope the Americans are here to help us and not to "Americanise" us and our Arab culture.
|
No, the war is NOT over until the US/UK move their occupying forces out of this country. Sadly, bloodshed will continue and I hope that the Americans are here to help us and not to "Americanise" us and our Arab culture.
Adil Musa,
Baghdad, Iraq
Trade the sand dunes for swamp and you've got Viet Nam all over again. Of course Bush and Cheney dodged the war, so what do they know about it, outside a Rambo movie or two.
Ron, Canada
It certainly isn't over. The Iraqis obviously never heard Bush declare the end of hostilities.
Dan, USA
The massive invasion is over. The tank battles are over, so are bombing campaign and patrolling the no fly zone. The majority of the shooting war IS over, but pacification and education take time. Various Saddam loyalists as well as a wide variety of anti US terrorist groups still need to be cleaned up. Iraq's administration and economy need to be rebuilt.
Whether Saddam is dead or not, the infrastructure needs to be repaired and improved in many places. The people need education about how to live in any kind of government other than Saddam's whether it's a democracy or not. Just getting Saddam out of power was not the sole objective. No one said it would be easy except the ill informed.
gary, USA
Iraqis resisting US Occupation sounds more like "freedom fighting" than "terrorism." If the same convention was used, I suppose the colonists in pre-Revolutionary war in America were "terrorists" who fought against authority -- British colonial authority.
Soreah Sans, USA
Maybe Bush and Blair were hoping no one would notice that people are still dying and the country is still in chaos...?
|
The war won't be for a while yet - not until the Iraqi people are free to govern themselves and have control over their country's natural resources. But, having promised that the war would be short and effective; maybe Bush and Blair were hoping no one would notice that people are still dying and the country is still in chaos...?
Adele,
England
If our leaders are really determined, and our people will really tolerate, to stay there "as long as it takes" (to do exactly what? no one seems quite sure), then we are going to be there quite a long time. So, if we cannot or will not provide water, food, medicine, sanitation, electricity, non-brutal police protection, or -impossible dream- wages and salaries to those citizens still somehow clinging to miserable life in their own country, can we not at least gather up the remains of those we have so far "freed" from earthly existence, identify them, give them decent burials.
Clara Sullivan, USA
Why is it that while the US is criticised for not expending enough effort into rebuilding countries we've invaded, when we finally do put in a considerable amount of effort we are further criticised? Seems like the only time a fair amount of the world liked us was during the Marshall Plan...
Nate,
USA
To Nate from USA: The Marshal plan was not an act of charity. It was in the best interests of the US to keep Western Europe from going communist.
Aristides Garcia, The Netherlands
The coalition never stated an endpoint to their occupation of Iraq. So they are there to stay, giving away contracts to foreign company's. Well that looks like colonialism. The invaders are now paying the cost of this behaviour with lives. Saddam is not controlling this, the Iraqi people are.
Pierre Beerkens, Netherlands
Yes, the war is over - just like it is between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Steve Baran,
USA
The US and UK are occupying forces. They must expect opposition, and whilst they are bound to defend themselves, they have neither reason nor right to expect perfect safety. I'm afraid that the current US overreaction has more to do with the political cost at home of steadily mounting casualties.
Julian Symes, UK
The war was fought to liberate Iraq, but now one of the few secular countries in the Middle East is suddenly sinking into fundamentalism, with Christians being threatened, alcohol forbidden, beauty shops closed, and women who have been free to study and work for the last 46 years are now going to be forced into purdah. They have had bad leaders all this time but were freer than most women in the Moslem world.
Anna, Spain
The coalition forces are trying, albeit somewhat clumsily, to restore law and order and public utilities
|
The war will last as long as it takes. Some of these comments are absurd. The US and Britain aren't in Iraq to conquer it and plunder its resources. The coalition forces are trying, albeit somewhat clumsily, to restore law and order and public utilities so the people of Iraq can get on with their lives. There is obviously no intention to "occupy" the country any longer than it takes to safeguard the freedom of its people. Furthermore, the Iraqi resistance is certainly not fervent nationalists trying to shake free a foreign oppressor, patriot farmers who just happen to know how to operate artillery pieces. The "resistance" is clearly remnants of Saddam's own army.
Chris, US
Why is it that those who resist and fight the American invasion are known as "Saddam Loyalists"? Can they just not be people who hate America as much as they hate Saddam? I hate Tony Blair but if someone invaded this country, I'd fight for the people and the country. Not Tony, nor would I like to be known as a "Blair Loyalist"!!!
J Bloom, England
The war is effectively over. We are now playing a security role. We engage the enemy everyday to provide the same security to Afghanistan. We owe it to these nations, after bombing their homeland, to restore the security and cement the stability they long for.
ROB, USA
The war will never be over until the US and the so-called coalition forces do what they promised the Iraqi people which is to give the country and their freedom back to them and quickly. Unwanted occupation will only lead to more resentment - and that could well lead to a bigger war and more deaths, than in the previous one that the US claim to be over.
Bashir Shah, UK
For those being accused of resisting the US occupation of Iraq I have to ask: are they really Saddam loyalists as we are led to believe or are they simply citizens resisting the US occupation and, as a result, getting labelled as "Saddam loyalists" so we do not think them to be innocents when the US army "interrogates" or kills them?
Canadian Joe, Canada
Its relatively easy for resistance fighters to hide behind civilians
|
Its relatively easy for resistance fighters to hide behind civilians. As long as there is a section of Iraqi people sympathetic to them and/or have anti US/UK views, these fighters will have their presence. Occasional raids here and there will reduce the resistance, but can't eliminate it completely. If one perceives this as a war, its much different from the earlier one.
Maan, India
President Bush was very careful when choosing his words. He NEVER said the war was over. You keep saying that he did, but he NEVER said the war in Iraq is over. It is ridiculous to think that things in Iraq will get better in the time it takes to snap your fingers. It takes time to re-build and re-establish and a bigger mistake would be to hurry through things. While I love the international aspect of your coverage, your "take a jab at the U.S. whenever possible" approach gets tired very quickly.
Mark Thomas,
United States
As we have been told, one of the primary objectives of the war nicknamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. If this objective has not completely failed, it sure looks as though its achievement is a long way off. From the day the statue fell, enthusiasm for the American presence has lessened each day. With no sign of basic vital utilities being restored on a large scale, and with Iraqi people being killed seemingly by the dozens, it's no wonder this particular battle is dragging on. If the US government would give a time table for a departure, a new interim authority for the people (which there seems to be no sign of), and double their efforts to restore their most basic dignities, like clean drinking water, then perhaps much headway will be gained in this fight. Until then, we have won the war, but we are losing the peace.
Matt, USA
When will you stop attributing attacks on American troops in Iraq to supporters of Saddam? Since there is no hard evidence of their politics, this characterization is entirely speculative. They just might independently object to the American and British presence - as the Americans and British might object to an Iraqi occupation force.
Steve, USA
The transition to an Iraqi government is taking far too long
|
One war is over, another is just beginning. This time it cannot be won by force of arms. The transition to an Iraqi government is taking far too long. Do we really want to turn Iraq into another version of the West Bank, because that's where we are heading.
Richard, UK
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was a cruel dictator who should not have been in power. What the majority of us were opposed to was the US trying to "solve" Iraq's problems. They promised the world they would make Iraq a better place by disarming Saddam and crippling his regime. Saddam is nowhere to be seen, much like the WMD that were meant to kill us all. Iraq is also not safer than it used to be. Incidents of rape are rising, looting continues, people are dying of thirst. Women are being forced to give up their rights as human beings. How can people say the war is over when human beings are forced to live in disgusting, degrading conditions? Saddam may be gone but the war against Islamic extremists, the war against hunger and poverty, and the war against inequality have only just begun.
Faseeha Khan, Bangladesh
I do not think that the war is over. What we can see in recent days is the opening of the second phase of the war. But now it is really quite uncertain how long it will last, and that is the scariest part of the story. Who is behind the resistance? Is the resistance an organized one? But the major question still is: where is Saddam Hussein himself?
Mary McCannon, Hungary
Of course not. Anyone who thought this was going to be quick was seriously deluded. It is a complex issue and cannot be solved through simplistic approaches. History, I believe, will conclude that this was a US administration bent on using force in ill thought-out approaches to solve socio-economic, social problems. I believe John Kennedy was correct when he stated, "All wars start from stupidity."
Ed Matheson,
United States
Sure the war is over, the Presidents said it, the press repeated it, and as long as we Americans don't see or hear about it on the evening news it might as well be over. Out of sight, out of mind. It's the perception of reality, not reality itself that matters. And our wonderful US media knows that.
Chris, Texas, USA
I think we have opened a "Can of worms". This war will never come to an end unless United States make major economic commitments to the development of the region and hit hard on religious extremists and their zeal to subdue women. This is unlikely to happen with George W. Bush in the "driving seat", and I don't even think that the American public wants to spend that kind of effort and money. The Middle East will be a curse for the Bush administration in spite of all the good intentions. However, I do not have a solution to offer the readers. I just think we need to become independent of the fossil fuels from the Middle East and leave them to solve their problems themselves.
Paul Jensen, USA
It was quite clearly foolish to state the war was over... soldiers are still being killed or wounded in a war that is still taking place.
Roger Anderson, England
As we have been told, one of the primary objectives of the war nicknamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. If this objective has not completely failed, it sure looks as though its achievement is a long way off. From the day the statue fell, enthusiasm for the American presence has lessened each day. With no sign of basic vital utilities being restored on a large scale, and with Iraqi people being killed seemingly by the dozens, it's no wonder this particular battle is dragging on. If the US government would give a time table for a departure, a new interim authority for the people (which there seems to be no sign of), and double their efforts to restore their most basic dignities, like clean drinking water, then perhaps much headway will be gained in this fight. Until then, we have won the war, but we are losing the battle.
Matt, USA
When will you stop attributing attacks on American troops in Iraq to supporters of Saddam? Since there is no hard evidence of their politics, this characterization is entirely speculative. They just might independently object to the American and British presence - as the Americans and British might object to an Iraqi occupation force.
Steve, USA
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was a cruel dictator who should not have been in power. What the majority of us were opposed to was the US trying to "solve" Iraq's problems. They promised the world they would make Iraq a better place by disarming Saddam and crippling his regime. Saddam is nowhere to be seen, much like the WMD that were meant to kill us all. Iraq is also not safer than it used to be. Incidents of rape are rising, looting continues, people are dying of thirst. Women are being forced to give up their rights as human beings. How can people say the war is over when human beings are forced to live in disgusting, degrading conditions? Saddam may be gone but the war against Islamic extremists, the war against hunger and poverty, and the war against inequality have only just begun.
Faseeha
Khan, Bangladesh
I do not think that the war is over. What we can see in recent days is the opening of the second phase of the war. But know it is really quite uncertain how long it will last, and that is the scariest part of the story. Who is behind the resistance? Is the resistance is an organized one? But the major question still is: where is Saddam Hussein himself?
Mary McCannon, Hungary
Of course not. Anyone who thought this was going to be quick was seriously deluded. It is a complex issue and cannot be solved through simplistic approaches. History, I believe, will conclude that this was a US administration bent on using force in ill thought-out approaches to solve socio-economic, social problems. I believe John Kennedy was correct when he stated, "All wars start from stupidity."
Ed Matheson,
United States
The war is not over until Saddam is dead
|
In my eyes the war is not over until Saddam is dead and terrorism is abolished. I was for the war from day one and anyone who opposes the war is foolish.
Ashley, England
To Ashley, England:
Do you reckon Saddam is leading the sporadic Iraqi resistance against the US forces? Saddam is politically dead. Until WMD is found the US/UK invasion is illegal. And the resistance against the US troops can hardly be called terrorism. No, the skirmishes will never end. And Iraq will be in chaos for long years.
Mustafa Yorumcu, UK/Turkey
Seventy Iraqis were killed. Who were they, uniformed soldiers, armed civilians, unarmed civilians, people dragged from their houses at gunpoint, people accused by neighbours? A terrorist camp - sounds impressive but what exactly is that? Are there any journalists left in Iraq or are editors not running it as it's no longer topical?
James Scobbie, Scotland
It does beg the question... was it not the media that was hasty in broadcasting the US declaration? What has happened to investigative and objective reporting?
Amir Sanei, UK
Does war ever truly end?
Dan Mead,
Surrey, UK
What I don't understand is why BBC News 24 kept referring to the Iraqi fighters' camp as the 'terrorist' camp. Since when has resistance become equal to terrorism? Is there any evidence to support that the people operating out of this camp were responsible for attacks on civilians? I wish the BBC would remain objective on this and not swallow US propaganda. It seems that an Arab with a gun = terrorist!
Umer Nalla, UK
With no second UN resolution, with popular support outside the US, with no sign of WMD, with no Middle East peace, with no stability in Iraq the real war (against US and British imperialism) is just beginning.
David, London, UK
If an American can be patriotic what is wrong if an Iraqi being so?
|
I think anybody has the right to fight against occupying forces, they are not terrorists. If an American can be patriotic what is wrong if an Iraqi being so?
Rizwan,
USA
"Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please." Niccolo Machiavelli: History Of Florence (1521-1524)
Andrew Richards, Australia
The future for Iraq does not look good, partly because the US seems to have forgotten why it supported Saddam for all those years he was fighting Iran. We now see increasing infiltration by Islamic hardliners. In some areas women are being forced to wear the veil, in country that was secular just three months ago. My guess is that as the hardliners' grip tightens, we will see more attacks against US and British troops, not less.
We simply do not have enough forces in the country to install law and order. George Bush was under political pressure to quickly declare that the war was over in order to give the impression of a swift surgical strike. However we only have to look at Afghanistan for a pointer toward the true picture. After two years, US forces are still fighting the Taleban and outside Kabul the country is a lawless, no-go area.
George, UK
The coalition is seen as an occupying force which must be opposed
|
The people who talk about the people fighting for the old regime are clearly deluded. There is a difference between fighting for Saddam, whom most Iraqis hate, and fighting for your country, which most Iraqis love. The coalition is seen as an occupying force which must be opposed. And until some people in America realise that they aren't the flavour of the month in Baghdad, the problem will not go away.
Tim, UK
Why are these Iraqis called "Saddam loyalists"? Why can't they be called what they really are - anti-occupation groups?
The pro-war lobby refuses to acknowledge that many Iraqi people want the coalition forces to leave their country.
Rick B,
UK
The problem lies with the fact that the US intention has always been questioned in the region (and perphaps in the world). This also applies to the US role in Afghanistan. The Iraqi people will never accept foreign occupying power no matter how noble its intention. An occupier is an occupier. And let's not kid ourselves by believing that these attacks are only by the remnants of the old regime. There is an arabic saying "the enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine" These attacks will continue until the last of the American forces leave the Arab land.
A Sayed,
Dubai,UAE
If the war is over like Bush declared, I wonder how "legal" it is to send in the military to a "camp" and kill 100 people. In a democracy like the US pretends to be, you are not sending military to kill, but police to arrest. Well that is at least my concept of a democracy.
Patrick, Canada
There were Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender and continued fighting into the 1970s. Just because a few diehards don't want to give up and can carry out a few pinprick attacks doesn't mean that the war isn't over.
Peter, UK
As a Japanese, I need to correct Peter(from Britain)'s comment on Japanese soldiers.
They refused to surrender not because they want to fight but just because they did not know in the jungle that war was ended.
I just do not want to give a false impression of Japan to the world.
FN, Japan
If there is a show of resistance against the occupation, all America has to do is call them "terrorists that are loyal to Saddam". That way they can kill as many as they like and get away with it. Now where have I heard that one before?
Gerry Noble, UK
The war can't be over, or else the Iraqi POWs would have released, or are we admitting now we're in breach of the Geneva Convention?
Jonathan Kelk, UK
The war will never be over. Our troops are being killed almost one a day, and this will continue indefinitely. The people who call this a successful war need to realise that we have made things worse over there. The tyrant Saddam may be gone, but there is continuing chaos, and people are suffering even more than before. This has been an unnecessary war, and all the claims of WMDs and terrorist connections seem to be misleading information to attack a weakened nation. It is time people realized that the Bush administration has caught the tiger by its tail!
Roseanne S., USA
Ashley, England, if by terrorism you mean indigenous people fighting against invading forces then I think we have a long wait. Would you consider yourself a terrorist if you fought against an army invading England? No neither would I
Dave, England
This war was just a case of 'might is right' and a mighty demonstration of US military power. They argued that Saddam did not oblige by UN resolution 1441. But did the USA care for the UN itself? Now people cannot rely on the words of Bush or Blair.
A B Hassan,
Bangladesh
I think that question will never properly be answered.
Yasmin,
UK
Like in Afghanistan we see increasing resistance against occupying forces. High-tech means nothing when faced against the power of the people. It was wrong to invade Iraq and it pulls our world into a whirlpool of extremism.
Rudi Dewilde, Belgium
Apparently not, since there are still people around who want to fight for a regime that was responsible for mass slaughter on a horrific scale.
John C,
New York, USA
I hate to say it but the war is not over
|
By invading Iraq, the Bush and Blair administrations have basically put Iraq at risk of being torn apart from within. All this comes from ignorance of the real problems facing the region and the same self-righteous attitude that basically drove the colonials of the 19th century to spread their vision of civilisation. If you don't believe me, look at most African countries today and you would know that Iraq's woes are unfortunately, only beginning. I hate to say it but the war is not over!
Charles Vogt, Nigeria
There was never a 'war' to start with. American and UK troops have invaded and occupied Iraq illegally and they are now witnessing the response to this. American terrorism is being met with Iraqi terrorism.
Craig Milne, Scotland
Well said Craig Milne - as Bill Hicks said about the first Gulf War: "There never was a war. Why? Because a war is when two sides are fighting."
Tim, UK
It was only a formal gesture to signify the end of the war campaign
|
Bush made it clear, as have Blair and other military experts, that it was only a formal gesture to signify the end of the war campaign. They made it clear that the overall operation (humanitarian, law and order, rebuilding, destroying resistance, finding WMD etc.) was far from over. This question is just another excuse for anti-war people to be negative. Iraq has a better future now that Saddam is gone no thanks to those people. They need to get over it.
Andrew, London, UK
The guerrilla war has just begun.
Ralf,
Germany
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
One-Minute World News
News services
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
