The Iraq Invasion. Leaving aside the WMD issue, was it really worth it?

[Praktik]

A few more years?

Try "a couple more decades of Saddam" if you want to frame the question in a realistic temporal scale. The question of "can he be contained" was "sorta" by the various UN sanctions regimes. Trouble is, the containment was eroding, starting in the mid 1990's, with itching and grumbling among numerous parties who had approved sanctions. Containment is not so much of a solution as an "all we can manage."

Does that meet your "good enough" standard?

DR

Actually yes. I believe more Iraqis would be happier, healthier and alive if the Americans didn't launch their invasion and occupation. Of course, the sanctions regime would have needed to be re-tooled (really, this should have been done in the 90s) so that people could get their medecines and graphite pencils (yes, graphite pencils were apparently "dual use" technology) and not have to brave drinking dirty water. EDIT: we should really add the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that died due to deprivation under this sanctions regime to the "death total" caused by American policy in Iraq.

I do think that another decade under the same sanctions regime and Saddam would have been pretty miserable for the Iraqis. But also - the Shia/Sunni split would not have been aggravated - the consequences of which WILL be played out over a "realistic timeframe" of decades - and not just in Iraq.

If american policy were not so afraid of a Shiite government there, maybe the uprising in 1992 would have had American support and been more successful. Instead, they allowed "exceptions" for Saddam's helicopters to fly around in the no-fly zones and mop up anyone their ground troops didn't nail for their resistance.

So my criticism of American policy here goes back further than 2003, all the way back to the eighties really, when everyone was quite pleased to let the Iraqis live under Saddam's thumb, as long as he kept the Shiites in Southern Iraq under control and as long as he was gassing Iranian troops and Iranian villages.

Iraq would have been better off without American involvement - and they would have been WAY better off if American policy was truly geared to their best interests, instead of the self-interest of the American policy apparatus.

If America was truly there to build a better Iraq - and if the lives of ordinary Iraqis were really even a small part of the calculus to invade - then there would have been 500 000 troops on the ground and a lot less aerial bombardment.

 

[Elizabeth I]

The worst problem here isn't whether the administration lied or not; it's whether they accepted incomplete data without reviewing contradictory data because it didn't fit their world-view.

Thank you! That has been my argument all along. I don't think the administration lied. I think they committed an even more intellectually dishonest act: they stopped asking questions as soon as they got the answer they wanted.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thank you! That has been my argument all along. I don't think the administration lied. I think they committed an even more intellectually dishonest act: they stopped asking questions as soon as they got the answer they wanted.

Yep.

Praktik, I don't think you appreciate that the "aerial bombardment" was less in 2003 than in 1991.

Shorter by quite a bit.

More sorties went to CAS/supporting ground maneuver, among other things. More infratstructure not targetted, for the explicit reason of having it around for post conflict ops.

As to troop levels, Zinni had about 300K as the requirement during his CENTCOM tenure, and Shinseki when COS of the Army was, for missions assigned, suggesting something in the mid 200-300K before he got shot down for doing his job.

500K: did you assume many more thousands of international/multinational folks in that number?

DR

 

[Praktik]

500K: did you assume many more thousands of international/multinational folks in that number?

DR

Well, of course the US was incapable of fielding that kind of force. I'm too lazy to pull the quote now, but in Cobra II they quoted a general who said they'd need about 130 000 just for Baghdad. If the international support was lacking - they shouldn't have done it. They didn't have the manpower to accomplish the mission.

And as for the "shock and awe", sure it was less than in the first gulf war, but there have been ongoing airstrikes since that time, and the most I'd be willing to concede was that in 2003, it was less inhumane than a more prolonged bombing - but we're talking matters of degree of inhumanity here.

The accuracy of these weapons are touted constantly to assuage our guilt - but there's no denying that many thousands of innocents perished alongside valid military targets.

Maybe never having been bombed by cruise missiles and bombers makes it easier to detach ourselves from that fact.

Look - all I'm saying here is that the appalling human cost of the whole Iraq Mess is - alone - enough to say it wasn't worth it. Because any "gains" for common Iraqis are still far off and the longer it takes the more it "isn't worth it".

That's a value judgment on my part. And I guess on this score we'll have to chalk up our differences to a different way of valuing things.

 

[Schneibster]

Thank you! That has been my argument all along. I don't think the administration lied. I think they committed an even more intellectually dishonest act: they stopped asking questions as soon as they got the answer they wanted.

The only difference being, I'm not entirely convinced they weren't incompetent because they were dishonest. If that's even a difference; rereading your statement, we appear to be saying the same thing.

 

[Praktik]

Thank you! That has been my argument all along. I don't think the administration lied. I think they committed an even more intellectually dishonest act: they stopped asking questions as soon as they got the answer they wanted.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm willing to concede that even if they did lie, they lied with what they interpreted to be America's best interests at heart.

It's just they have a very skewed way of looking at America's "best interest" - skewed enough to work in the opposite way intended once put to the test.

I don't think they're so callous for wanting war for war's sake, or to pad their coffers. If friends ended up with nice contracts, if senators got their weapons system component manufacturing in their districts - then that's just a byproduct of the endeavour to do their best to "save America".

They're true believers. And that makes them more scary than if they were the Dr. Evil caricatures (a la South Park on 9/11 truth - lol) we hear about from troofers in my opinion.

At least then they'd be a bit more fathomable..

 

[New Ager]

Of course the Bush family profited financially. It is pretty damn stupid to claim otherwise. There's no conspiracy theory, no crazy logical leaps.

Yes, it is a conspiracy theory.

I think you qualify as a leftwing kook.

You seem to believe every conspiracy theory out there.

If you have a 401K or a stock portfolio, you probably profited from it. If you are in the oil business, like the Bush family, how could you NOT profit?

That's because we didn't take any of their oil.

Sweet Satan, how can anyone be so delusional....

It seems to come natural for you.

 

[New Ager]

Even if you lowball the figure, when you add in the refugees, something like 10-20% of the country is dead, wounded, or displaced. For those millions, I doubt "gratitude" is what they feel towards America... and who can blame them?

I've seen Iraqi's cheering American soldiers on their arrival. I've heard testimonials from Iraqi citizens thanking America for bringing Saddam to justice and freeing their country.

Again, did you think no one would die to free their country?

 

[New Ager]

Facts:
1) No connections between Iraq and AlQaeda;

So. Not the reason we went in.

2) No WMD in Iraq - the Bush adm lied on this;

Nope, no lie.

3) Bush and Cheney both worked/have connections with the oil industry;
4) The US are, by far, the no1 consumer of oil;
5) Iraq has one of the world biggest reserves;

So.

err..

Yep, you did.

Try again. Did you have any valid points or do you just utter the leftwing liberal playbook excuses?

 

[New Ager]

I really can not understand how an intelligent person can not see this obvious point.
It is a mystery to me

I can't understand how anyone can't see that deposing an evil dictator, bringing him to justice, ending the killing fields of Iraq and giving freedom an opportunity to a country a bad thing?

Maybe you could explain that.

I'm expecting no rational answer, but more of the liberal playbook.

Go ahead, any of you liberals, give it a try.

 

[New Ager]

You missed:

6) Oil companies have logged record profits since the occupation.

Oil profits have nothing to with the Iraq war. More of the liberal playbook. Does it ever end?

Joe, you are living in the Land Of Oz.

 

[New Ager]

We are talking about hundreds of thousands of (innocent?) people dead in an unneccesary war.
How can anyone have the slightest doubt that it was a crime?

Because we are intelligent people who don't buy into liberal conspiracy theories.

I can see that many Americans can have been swayed by the terrorist attacks, so, I do not really blame on them that much if they were pro-war in 2001, but, today is 2008, and it has been clear that they were all lies

Was Saddam an evil dictator who tortured and killed 100's of thousands of his own people? Did they break 14 UN Resolutions? Did they use chemical weapons in the past?

You might need to brush up on your Iraqi history and stay out of your liberal playbook if you want to learn something.

 

[New Ager]

Certainly, the amount of electricity, clean water, and employment haven't gotten there yet.

Interestingly, another thing that isn't there is an evil dictator killing his own people.

 

[New Ager]

Part of the problem is that a lot of the people in charge have shielded themselves from dealing with the realities of Iraq because of political ideology.

Yep, most liberals.

Part of the flaw in their plan was that they did a whole lot of believing, and not nearly enough thinking and adapting and considering the overall situation as it developed. They have further avoided dealing with problems by claiming that any and all criticism is solely politically based, and has no relation to reality.

With liberals, that's all it is. They don't care about Iraq or its people, only bashing America and the President.

Yeah, it is Bush and the Republicans(with plenty of complicit Democrats) who got us into this current mess. That doesn't mean we're calling it a mess BECAUSE they're Republicans.

Yeah, because liberals are never political, have nothing but love for our country and our President.

 

[New Ager]

(New Ager)

It seems no one was concerned about the Iraqi's dying under Saddam, but now are so concerned about people dying for the freedom of their country. I wonder why?

This is exactly what I am talking about, here and in the other thread. With all due respect, How can you possibly dare to make this claim when we leave people all over the world to the utter mercy and ferocity of their dictators?

My statement was why are liberals so unconcerned about those past deaths?

Fine. But for God sake, stop claiming this is out of compassion for the people's suffering under a dictator.

Arguing a point I didn't make.

Again, with all due respect, stop grabbing that cake and eating it.

You need to read a little better and then maybe you could form better arguments.

 

[New Ager]

We gave a country a chance at freedom

Standard cliche's.

And there you have it. Freedom is a cliche to liberals.

And people wonder why we don't want them in charge of our country.

 

[Praktik]

Anyone else have trouble reading those quote-for-quote posts all stacked up on one another like that?

I'm going to bed....

 

[New Ager]

Or better, yet, stop the dictators of Burma from murdering their people, keeping their democratic leader under house arrest, and having the largest child army on the planet.

If a conservative did, liberals would just bring out the usual playbook criticism,...Hitler, war crimes, and stealing whatever Burma has.

And how come the mighty UN isn't doing something about this?

I thought they were in charge of peace in this world.

Or how about the other countries in this world doing something other than moaning and complaining when we actually do fight back.

I'm not particularly liberal.

Why do liberals always want to run from their liberalism?

But I have to say, both yours, and Ron's repeated claims bashing liberals makes both of you appear...

...highly intelligent and politically aware.

..frustrating, bitter, and incompetent with rational insight.

A good description of a liberal.

Quit these daft claims against the 'looney left' and grow a backbone to defeat an ideology with words that don't contain the manipulated rantings of a playground bully.

Let's see...Bush is Hitler, Bush is stealing oil, Bush is a terrorist....yep, rantings of the loony left.

It's easy to defeat liberalism. I just repeat what they say.

 

[danielk]

Yawn. Now that New Ager has successfully declared everyone but himself liberal, I'm going to bed too.

 

[SezMe]

I can't understand how anyone can't see that deposing an evil dictator, bringing him to justice, ending the killing fields of Iraq and giving freedom an opportunity to a country a bad thing?

I'll ignore the poor writing and respond by asking why, if "deposing an evil dictator" is such a high value, we don't invade Burma, North Korea, Pakistan, China, Cuba, Russia, and probably many others? Why just Iraq?