Treasure Arithmetic in Iraq

[BPSCG]

It appears to me that you are doing yeoman's work in avoiding answering your own question, which I mirrored back at you with:

Then correct my extreme position. Tell me how much you believe we should be willing to pay.

You "answered" by saying what we should not pay:

Too much money.

A penny diverted from catching Osama was a penny too much

Which sounds to me like you're saying even if Bush had had one single flyer printed up saying, "Saddam is bad and should be overthrown" and had crumpled that single flyer up into a ball and thrown it into Iraq from the Kuwait border, that would have been too much money because Osama is still out there

So, so far, your answer is, "We should not have spent a damned penny to liberate Iraq (beause Osama is still out there)."

Your second "answer" is...

You think that $200B is worth it. That's what we're at now, and counting. What's your top number?

...which is a diversion, not an answer, since I already told you I thought $500 billion was not too much (and I don't think we'll get remotely near that figure).

You then go on to say...

I think we've spent way too much. The previous gulf war cost us only about $60B. That was a wise investment.

...which seems at odds with your first answer, since your first answer said we shouldn't be spending a damned penny as long as Osama is still out there. So is it "not one penny" or is it "sixty billion dollars"?

Whatever we WERE paying was a good price for stability in the reigon. We could afford that level to keep the lid on while we protected America from the threat of Islamic terrorism.

[sidestep]
("...protected America from the threat of Islamic terrorism"? But Osama's out there!!!)
[/sidestep]

Now it sounds like we're getting an answer. Since I've never actually looked up what it was costing us to keep Saddam "in his box" (as Madeline Albright used to say), but you evidently have, could you fill the rest of us in? How much did it cost us from the end of the first Gulf war in 1991 through March, 2003? What was the cost of keeping troops in Saudi Arabia to make sure Saddam didn't invade, and of flying continuous air sorties over the no-fly zone? And what was the future cost going to be, since we have to assume our armed forces would have to keep Saddam "in his box" as long as he lived, and probably longer if Uday and Qusay took over after his death?

You're starting to remind me of John Kerry during the late campaign. Whenever he was asked what he would do differently from Bush, his answer would start, "One thing I wouldn't do is..."

Please, don't do a John Kerry on me. Tell me how much you would pay for the liberation of Iraq. And since you seem to think the capture of Osama is of overriding importance, why don't you give us your number assuming Osama is dead, and your number assuming he's simply in hiding.

Note: In case you were wondering, no, I had not abandoned the field. My father died last week, so I had other more important matters to attend to.

At the height of his intellectual powers, he was possibly the most learned and intelligent man I ever knew; doubters should read the first thirty propositions of Baruch Spinoza's The Ethics and when they quicky start finding the intellectual waters too deep, reflect that my father not only read all of Spinoza's works, but understood them, probably as well as any university professor, and did so on his own, without teacher or tutor to guide him.

He was also the only person I've ever known who got the entire set of Will and Ariel Durant's The Story of Civilization and actually read the whole thing.

He also enjoyed reading Einstein and books explaining Einstein, tried to teach himself to play the piano, with somewhat less success than he had with Spinoza, spent years trying to brew the perfect cup of coffee (and everyone who knew him agreed he had succeeded), and could pick out the perfect melon and the perfect peach and the perfect pear at the fruit stand.

And when his adoptive country was attacked in December, 1941, he immediately enlisted, even though he was not yet a citizen. And for that, our family agreed, it is altogether fitting and proper that we honor his memory by enshrining his ashes at Arlington National Cemetery this spring, where he will never be forgotten, as long as there are people who love freedom and are grateful to those who fought to save it for others.

 

[Silicon]

BPSCG,

Great post about your father. He sounds like a person who will be truely missed.

When I said not a penny diverted from Osama, I did mean it. That's not exclusive of the money I'd spend to attack Iraq.

There's more money in the pie than just the money we were chasing Osama with. Sadly, WE DID divert Osama money and resources, rather than OTHER resources. And that was a mistake.


I don't have the figures on what keeping Saddam in the box was costing. But HEY, he was in the box. We had him in the box, and much greater military minds than mine have said so. "Iraq was a diversion" said General Zinni. Saddam was contained, but we were attacked by al Queida, but instead of pummelling al Queida, we went after an enemy of al Queida, the secular infidel Saddam.


So anyway. What would I have done? Kept Saddam in the box for 3 more years, while we mopped the floor with Al Quieda around the globe, and rattled our swords and threatened EVERY state sponsor of terror. I would have gone after Pakistan, and said "We're marching into those mountains and searching every friggin hole for Osama, goddammit, and we're also going to F you up for your loose nukes."

And the rest of the world would still be behind us.

 

[BPSCG]

Great post about your father. He sounds like a person who will be truely missed.

Thanks.

One example of how his mind worked:

You know the old paradox question, "What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?" You hear all kinds of BS answers, and even the usually clear-headed Marilyn vos Savant blew it when someone asked her; she gave some touchy-feely BS about how you get a beautiful blend of something or other.

I had asked my dad that same question when I was about twelve, congratulating myself on my own cleverness. Dad didn't hesitate a second in answering, "It's a stupid question;" (subtlety and tact were not always his strong suits, especially when he thought I was being an idiot) "if there is such a thing as an immovable object, then there can be no such thing as an irresistable force. And if there's such a thing as an irresistable force, then there can be no such thing as an immovable object."

Dad never read Ayn Rand (he would have hotly disputed her belief in the existence of free will), but he would have agreed completely with her argument that there is no such thing as a paradox, that if you think you have a paradox, you should check your premises, because one of them is surely wrong.

An amazing mind; I wish I had appreciated it much earlier than I did. Be thankful his Alzheimer's disease kept him from turning his faculties toward computers and the internet, because he would have made mincemeat of anyone here.

When I said not a penny diverted from Osama, I did mean it. That's not exclusive of the money I'd spend to attack Iraq.

I don't understand what you're saying here. How much money would you spend to attack Iraq?

I don't have the figures on what keeping Saddam in the box was costing.

Then how can you say the money spent on the war was misspent? Even if the money it cost to keep Saddam out of his neighbors' yards from 1991 to 2003 was no more than the cost of the war, look at the extra benefits of the war: For starts, Saddam is gone for good, so we don't have to pay any more to keep him quiet. Secondly - and this is a big benefit, IMHO - the rest of the middle east is becoming restive with its tyrants. You've said we can't go solving all our problems with dictators by invading them. You may well be right. And if the rest of the dictators in the middle east get thrown out because their people have seen Iraq's free election and want the same, and the dictators don't have the stomach to crush them the way Saddam did, wouldn't you consider that a benefit? If Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and "Palestine" are democracies ten years from now as a consequence of what's happened to Afghanistan and Iraq in the last four years, do you not agree that $200 billion was a bargain?

Saddam was contained, but we were attacked by al Queida, but instead of pummelling al Queida, we went after an enemy of al Queida, the secular infidel Saddam.

No, in addition to pummelling al Qaeda, we went after an enemy of al Qaeda, the secular infidel Saddam. Where is al Qaeda today? Have they attacked the U.S. since September 11? Does Osama get carte blanche to go wherever he wants? Does any foreign leader dare invite him for dinner? True, we haven't caught him. But we've severely damaged his organization. We never caught Hitler, either.

So anyway. What would I have done? Kept Saddam in the box for 3 more years, while we mopped the floor with Al Quieda around the globe,

Saddam was going to be around for a lot more than three more years. He's only around 65 years old. Totalitarian rulers have a way of living long lives if they aren't killed: Stalin was 73, I think, when he died, Mao was pushing 80, Castro is almost 80. You have to figure on Saddam being around for at least another ten years, and then Uday/Qusay take over, and by all accounts, they were every bit as brutal as their daddy. No, you'd be keeping Saddam and his spawn "in the box" for many, many years to come. Which means you'd have U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia for many, many years to come. And that, as we all know, is the reason Osama was mad at us in the first place...

 

[Silicon]

Thanks.
If Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and "Palestine" are democracies ten years from now as a consequence of what's happened to Afghanistan and Iraq in the last four years, do you not agree that $200 billion was a bargain?

And if a dirty bomb pulls into the port of Los Angeles next week, full of radiological material from the former Soviet Union we SHOULD have stepped up security on after 9/11, on one of the 98% of containers that doesn't get spot-checked, will you not agree that our $200billion should have been better spent protecting America rather than going after well-contained tyrants?

We can play the what if game with each other forever. But my feeling is that we didn't get our money's worth yet for $200 Billion and counting.

We may eventually. And all the risks of terrorism may be gone, and needlessly beefing up our ports and protecting nuclear materials may be wasted money next to a pacified democratized entire middle east decades from now.

But we seem to be a LOOOOONG way from that. And the threat to America is immediate. So my thinking is, deal with immediate threats immediately, and long term low threats persistantly.

On balance, dollar for dollar, America is not $200B more secure today than we were 3 years ago. In 10 or 20, if the Middle east transforms, perhaps.

But as far as I can tell, we're still breeding mad mullahs and suiciders left and right, and they DON'T go away just because you have a blue finger.

 

[Silicon]

You have to figure on Saddam being around for at least another ten years, and then Uday/Qusay take over, and by all accounts, they were every bit as brutal as their daddy. No, you'd be keeping Saddam and his spawn "in the box" for many, many years to come.

It's very interesting. You've assumed that America attacking Iraq, exactly when and how we did it is the only solution, then arguing backwards from there. It's your a priori assumption. It's either doing it the exact way Bush did it, or Iraq is crazytown forever.

There's probably a billion ways that Iraq could become a more stable democracy than it its today. None of them as quickly maybe. But some more stable.

Hey, what's wrong with just doing EXACTLY what we did, five years later than we did it, while we got our own security in order?

A lot of tyrants have fallen without the US invading. Would you have advocated that we march on the Soviet Union during Gorbachev's era? Marching on Poland before Solidarity shut down socialism? No matter what the costs in lives and treasure and future instability?

Which means you'd have U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia for many, many years to come. And that, as we all know, is the reason Osama was mad at us in the first place...

I thought he was mad because he hates our freedom. Or the fact that our women wear bikinis, or something. Make no doubt, they'll still hate us after we're long gone from Saudi Arabia.

 

[BPSCG]

And if a dirty bomb pulls into the port of Los Angeles next week, full of radiological material from the former Soviet Union we SHOULD have stepped up security on after 9/11, on one of the 98% of containers that doesn't get spot-checked, will you not agree that our $200billion should have been better spent protecting America rather than going after well-contained tyrants?

We can play the what if game with each other forever. But my feeling is that we didn't get our money's worth yet for $200 Billion and counting.

We may eventually. And all the risks of terrorism may be gone, and needlessly beefing up our ports and protecting nuclear materials may be wasted money next to a pacified democratized entire middle east decades from now.

But we seem to be a LOOOOONG way from that. And the threat to America is immediate. So my thinking is, deal with immediate threats immediately, and long term low threats persistantly.

You seem to think that we can be safe by just playing good defense. But good defense, as I've said before, sin't enough. It has to be perfect, as long as you have people who wish you harm.

I believe in playing defense and offense. Every dictator on this planet is our enemy. Some are more dangerous than others, which is why we don't invade Zimbabwe. The threats to us do not come from democracies, no matter how much they may disagree with us. France is a nuclear power and they've been less than good friends since approximately 1800. But they are far less a threat than North Korea.

On balance, dollar for dollar, America is not $200B more secure today than we were 3 years ago.

I'm glad you're able to make that calculation, even though you still haven't been able to tell me how much you think we should have spent deposing Saddam. It's not a hard question, really - just a number followed by a unit of currency.

In 10 or 20, if the Middle east transforms, perhaps.

So you don't think pursuing Osama and a democratic middle east at the same time is a good idea?

But as far as I can tell, we're still breeding mad mullahs and suiciders left and right, and they DON'T go away just because you have a blue finger.

No, they go away when the people they are murdering (or inciting to murder) say "enough" and put down the insurrection. BTW, what's going on in Iraq today isn't "insurgency" any more, since they are targeting more and more Iraqi civilians, Iraqi police, and Iraqi government officials. What's going on there now is insurrection, and there's only one way to deal with that.

 

[geni]

Let's see, Libya disarmed.

Congrats you have humbeled libya you may now assend to the head hights that chad atchived years ago

Syria is pulling out of Lebanon.

Remains to be seen if that is a good thing. Remember Syria interveaned against fundimentalist islam.

Palestinian authorities are now arresting terrorists. (Granted, the last one is mostly due to the death of Arafat). The list goes on.

Ok lets see you continue the list

Oh yeah, BTW; the US hasn't been attacked on US soil again since 9/11.

Any evidence linking that to the Iraq war?

Anyway the US isn't due for another attack for another four years.

 

[BPSCG]

There's probably a billion ways that Iraq could become a more stable democracy than it its today. None of them as quickly maybe. But some more stable.

This is exactly the same claim made by The Fool, AUP, and demon. So I'll ask you the same question I asked them: Since you reject invasion as the preferred method of removing and replacing Saddam Hussein, how should he have been removed and replaced?

 

[Silicon]

This is exactly the same claim made by The Fool, AUP, and demon. So I'll ask you the same question I asked them: Since you reject invasion as the preferred method of removing and replacing Saddam Hussein, how should he have been removed and replaced?

I already told you.

Do it 4 years after we did it.



Or never. I don't care. It's not my priority, it's Bush's and yours.

 

[Silicon]

No, they go away when the people they are murdering (or inciting to murder) say "enough" and put down the insurrection. BTW, what's going on in Iraq today isn't "insurgency" any more, since they are targeting more and more Iraqi civilians, Iraqi police, and Iraqi government officials. What's going on there now is insurrection, and there's only one way to deal with that.

Great. You've got it all figured out, then. Peace ahoy!


Glad to see it was that easy. We'll be out of there real soon now then.

You don't seem to see that the vote, while historic and emotional, doesn't end the carnage on the ground magically, nor the dynamic that creates mad mullahs.



I've said that keeping Saddam in the box was my priority, while we deal with Al Queida. America's security comes first, to me.

You want a number, but are dissatisfied with my saying that the amount we WERE spending to keep him in the box was my idea of a bargain.

I guess you're agreeing with me that he was contained, as General Zinni and others said at the time.

And given he was contained, I submit to you that protecting America should have been a greater priority, and a greater value for the money.

I think we're getting about 10c on the dollar security wise in Iraq, if that. A poor security bargain.

Before the election, I'd say things were going downhill, and we were getting minus 50 cents on the dollar for every dollar we were spending in Iraq. In other words, making new threat elements faster than we were killing them.

We'll see which way that wind blows in the coming years. If it turned out to be a net plus or a net minus.

But I really would rather have rolled those dice after we had a few years of the international backing we had after 9/11, and we really ROLLED against those who attacked us.

 

[BPSCG]

I already told you.

Do it 4 years after we did it.

Oh, my mistake then. I thought you were opposed to the war per se. Now I see you were just opposed to the timing, but you have no objection to the use of military force against him.

Welcome to the side of the angels. Better late (four years...) than never, I guess.

Or never. I don't care. It's not my priority, it's Bush's and yours.

You remind me of one of the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates:

Lincoln: The Democratic policy in regard to that institution [slavery] will not tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he "don't care whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories... Any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in slavery; but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he don't care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, this argument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it.

 

[Silicon]

Wow, is there a godwin's law that pertains to calling your debate opponent a pre civil-war slavery apologist?

You say I have no opinions on Saddam's evils. That's not what I'm saying, but thanks for painting me with that big fat brush you carry.

If Saddam's evils were so bad, and the freedom of those people was so important, why was it like priorityZero to the Bush administration pre-911?

Why were rice and powell both saying that he was contained effectively and not a threat to his neighbors pre 9/11? Obviously THEY thought that saddam's torture chaimbers and wood chippers were just fine then? Were powell and rice just as much like the civil war pro-slavery apologists you compared me to?

Or is it more accurate to say that rice and powell believed then, as I now believe, that America has bigger threats that require immediate action or they will result in further attacks on America. All demonization and comparisons to slavery apologists aside.



You seem to be the one that can't take the slightest hint that getting rid of Saddam was great and all, but not what we should have been doing at the moment when we should have been looking for Osama.

You don't need me to say it. The fact that we had more people searching hidey-holes for Saddam than we had searching em for Osama should have told you that.

 

[BPSCG]

Wow, is there a godwin's law that pertains to calling your debate opponent a pre civil-war slavery apologist?

Call it Silicon's Law, if you like.

You say I have no opinions on Saddam's evils. That's not what I'm saying, but thanks for painting me with that big fat brush you carry.

Correct my misunderstanding, then. When you said "invade 4 years after we did it ... or not...I don't care" (ellipses mine, but I think I captured the essence of what you said), what was it that you didn't care about? I'll grant you, Stephen A. Douglas was more specific when he said he didn't care whether slavery was voted up or down in the territories...

If Saddam's evils were so bad, and the freedom of those people was so important, why was it like priorityZero to the Bush administration pre-911?

Stop trying to derail your own OP. The question you asked in the OP was, how much should we have spent on the war? I said I was comfortable with the $200 billion already spent, and am on record as having said that I would even be comfortable with $500 billion. Pretty clear position, I would say.

When asked the same question, OTOH, you have been all over the map, with "not one penny" and $60 billion being a couple of figures you threw out. And you further fogged your position by saying we shouldn't have gone to war with Saddam until after we caught Osama or until March 2007 (four years later than we did)* or never, and you didn't care anyway.

Please forgive me for asking if you are John Kerry's sock puppet.

You seem to be the one that can't take the slightest hint that getting rid of Saddam was great and all, but not what we should have been doing at the moment when we should have been looking for Osama.

Okay, so:

1. when should we have removed Saddam?
2. how should we have accomplished it? and
3. under your scenario, if Osama was still out there in March, 2007, should we postpone dealing with Saddam?[/list=1]
   * Whichever comes first?

 

[RandFan]

If Saddam's evils were so bad, and the freedom of those people was so important, why was it like priorityZero to the Bush administration pre-911?

I think the evidence refutes this. Bush critics have noted IIRC that from day one Bush had decided that regime change was in order. BTW, regime change was a Clinton policy also. How to go about that change was in question.

You don't need me to say it. The fact that we had more people searching hidey-holes for Saddam than we had searching em for Osama should have told you that.

Can you support that claim? If so how many more? I will concede that there were more troops in Iraq but I don't think that they were all looking for Saddam.

 

[Silicon]

Okay, so:

1. when should we have removed Saddam?
2. how should we have accomplished it? and
3. under your scenario, if Osama was still out there in March, 2007, should we postpone dealing with Saddam?[/list=1]
   * Whichever comes first?

1. 
   
   1. When he was the primary, grave or even a credible threat to the United States.
   2. Depends on what the circumstances of that threat were.
   3. It depends on the level of threat of Osama vs Saddam.[/list=1]

 

[Silicon]

I think the evidence refutes this. Bush critics have noted IIRC that from day one Bush had decided that regime change was in order.

Invading Iraq wasn't the stated policy of the Bush Administration. After 9/11 it became so. So what I'm saying is that it is unfair to compare me to slavery apologists unless you'll also call pre 9/11 Dr. Rice a slavery apologist.

I'm criticizing BPSCG's comparison to me. I'm saying that a setting of security priorities is not the same thing as giving in to Saddam, or being an apoligist for any wrongdoing.

Can you support that claim? If so how many more? I will concede that there were more troops in Iraq but I don't think that they were all looking for Saddam.

Do you agree that if they WEREN'T in Iraq doing whatever, that they could be put to use chasing Osama?

 

[Silicon]

When asked the same question, OTOH, you have been all over the map, with "not one penny" and $60 billion being a couple of figures you threw out. And you further fogged your position by saying we shouldn't have gone to war with Saddam until after we caught Osama or until March 2007 (four years later than we did)* or never, and you didn't care anyway.

Forgive me if I've been less than clear. I'm not a politician, so I tend not to speak in absolutes.

I've explained before that "not one penny" specifically refers to money diverted from the hunt for Al Queida and Osama to Iraq. The Bush administration did divert money. That's been documented, and it was a mistake. That's the one penny I spoke of. I hope I'm not confusing it with the more general question about Iraq.

Assuming not one penny of Osama money or resources was diverted, THEN how much to remove Saddam from Iraq?

Ten trillion.

Just Kidding.


Because that's not my question.

My question, poorly stated perhaps, was for those who support the war.


I asked, at what point do the risks exceed the costs we are willing to bear?


Those who oppose the war, it make sense that they don't have a price.

It's like asking someone who doesn't want a sandwich how much they'd pay for it. It's a pointless question. "I don't want it."

So this war? I don't want it. How much would I pay for it? I don't want it.

But now how much would you pay for it?

I don't want it.

So I don't have a price.

I think that there are reasonable amounts, assuming you support the war, and there's a certain amount that I would find reasonable if it were to be argued that we should enter into this war.

But see, that's a different question from the one you're asking, BPSCG.

I'm asking "at what point do the risks exeed the costs we are willing to bear" and the question I think you're asking is "how much would you pay to free the iraqi people?"

Leaving aside the very real possibility that we've bought one without the other, the risks for me have always exceeded the cost. So I answer my own question by saying that.

You can ask the question "What would you pay for a free, peaceful Iraq." and that's a seperate question. And I tried to give you answers that addressed that. My answers to that question deal with issues like timing and threat assessment of Osama vs Saddam. You didn't want to hear that, and just badgered me for a number, I think.

I don't have a number for that, because that presumes a different set of circumstances, OR it presumes that the war was fought the right way at the right time, and I just need to assign a number to it. Implicit in that question is a set of assumptions that I do not subscribe to, and I was pointing out to you, in my own sloppy fashion, by way of suggesting a time in the future and a number of manners by which different strategies could also provide for peace. At the same time, our current strategy leaves a lot of room for unintended terrible consequences.

What I'm trying to say, and you don't seem to be willing to accept, is that in my view there should be BIG priorities and small ones. And as far as national security priorities, the list should have read something like:

Osama.
Jihadists.
Muslim Unrest.
North Korea.
Iran.
Syria.
That dude in Iraq.

Instead Saddam was on the top of that list. Not even SECOND on that list. And that's where my priority would have been different.


I don't know, I've probably just dug my grave further with you, and you won't understand this. Or you'll say I'm waffling or flip-flopping or something. I don't care, I'm not running for anything. I'm trying to give you my true answer, not win an argument.

I'm not trying to "fog my position". I'm not a politician. I'm a person, and I don't see this in absolutes. Hell yes, I want a peaceful, free and secure Iraq. I see some good signs. Hell, some great ones.

We'll see what happens. I do hope to hell that the president has made some good decisions here. They seem to be finally getting some ◊◊◊◊ right over there.

Hoping they eventually get around to getting rid of the torture, though. It doesn't do to replace Saddam's torture chambers with a slightly less deadly one. That ain't freedom either.

 

[Elind]

You conveniently forgot to mention the billions of gallons of free oil that has caused gas prices in the US to plummet and stay around 25 cents a gallon...

You know, the *real* reason we went to war.

Yes. One wonders what rock all the "no war for oil" crowd have crawled under? It's always interesting to see how thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?) of people who marched under that particular banner just evaporate without the slightest commentary from anyone on whether they were wrong or not.

No doubt they have just come up with another slogan that they consider just as valid.

 

[Elind]

Well the "worth it" questions as far as casualties divided pretty predictably along old JREF lines.

What's "worth it" in American lives drops out to most people either saying numbers closed to zero, or numbers so astronomically high that we have carte blanche to be in Iraq for decades at the current death rate.


So let's look at money.


My questions about the war and American security come to the question of how is the money being spent.

Sure, America is safer without Saddam, but are we $200 Billion safer?

You are probably right in the sense that it would not have happened if the aftermath had been accurately predicted as being as costly and messy as it has, even though the naysayers have still been wrong on the main fundamentals, like 8.5 million Iraqis voting.

However, I'm one of those who happen to believe that we would have faced a nuclear Iraq in a few more years, as we likely will with Iran soon enough thanks largely to Europe and Russia. I don't know exactly what 9/11 cost the US economy, but I suspect it can easily be equated to $200 billion, and Saddam with such weapons could cost us far far more in the blink of an eye down the road.

I'd rather spend the money this way than the other.

 

[Elind]

What I'm trying to say, and you don't seem to be willing to accept, is that in my view there should be BIG priorities and small ones. And as far as national security priorities, the list should have read something like:

Osama.
Jihadists.
Muslim Unrest.
North Korea.
Iran.
Syria.
That dude in Iraq.

Instead Saddam was on the top of that list. Not even SECOND on that list. And that's where my priority would have been different.

But priorities have to take into account practicalities. Yes, we know now that Saddams WMD programs were not active, but all the people were there and they could have been acitivated the day after sanctions were eliminated, and in full force again within a year or two, if the Europeans had had their way. Do remember that Iraq has the second largest oild reserves in the world, and the means to do anything they wanted, and the history that says they would have done so.

Syria was not above Iraq in the sense that they are a relatively poor country with limited capabilities, beyond hosting some terrorists. We are already seeing examples of how to deal with them.

Iran should have been at the top of your list, followed by N. Korea. The latter is dangerous, but they know that they would ultimately commit suicide by using their WMDs; but Iran works for god and is therefore infinitely more dangerous.

The other three you mention are all the same and are being addressed in all the many ways that we can count. Right now many of them follow their noses to kill and be killed in Iraq instead of elsewhere, but if you are one of those who think the suicide bomber would have been peaceful shopkeepers if not for the unjust removal of Saddam by the US, then we have little to discuss, since we must think with different parts of our bodies.