Originally Posted by JAD_333

Our ideas of being 'better off' are clearly different. You see having food, electricity, running water, and relative security as better than having rights, such as equal protection under the law; ability to criticize government without threat of summary execution; freedom of speech and so on as better. I don't.

But I don't think arguing over it gets us any closer to understanding why the US felt it necessary to take out Saddam. Obviously, we viewed his oppressive totalitarian government as an impediment to our objectives in the region or, to put it more abstractly, we viewed him as a threat to one of our vital interests.

Now if you want to argue that the US did not handle itself well in Iraq; did not fully understand the Iraqi mind, the dynamics between Shite, Sunni and Kurd; or was unprepared for an insurgency, then we can agree. But I would not agree that these shortcomings make a case for abondonning the original objective. On the contrary, they make a case that the US should get smarter, fight better, change tactics, whatever... Let's be clear about one thing: the insurgency is the main impediment to security in Iraq. No one can convince me--and I would be surprised if you could--that the killing of innocent Iraqis in car bomb attacks is a pure reaction to US occupation. Let's be honest: a power struggle is underway between Iraqi religious factions and it will not end with our departure.



Of course, they don't care about our global interests. They are Iraqi.

And as for US collateral damage, it pales by comparison to what the insurgents inflict. Are the insurgents so impatient for the US to leave that they must kill their own people? Perhaps that is their stated justification, but you know as well as I do that the massive power shift from Sunni to Shite brought on by the US toppling of Saddam is the problem. It's going to play itself out violently whether we are there or not. In fact, our being there is getting in the way. That's why they want us to leave. But even you say we shouldn't leave all at once. What will happen if we do?




I am not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, the conditions on the ground must be accepted and dealt with when executing a strategic objective. During WWII the US deemed it necessary to clear the Japanese from some islands in the Pacific in order to set up forward air bases. When they landed on islands like Iwo Jima they were surprised at how well dug in and tenacious the Japanese were and never expected such high casualties, but they went ahead. Why? Because the value of the objective overrode the deadly conditions on the ground.

Finally, the US does not claim to own the planet, but by the same token the US is not going to lay down and let people like Saddam and Bin Laden threaten its interests without taking action.



That Hitler analogy won't fly and it is somewhat offensive. We are not on some Wagnarian quest for Liebenstrum. We are in Iraq for one reason and it's not to create the 51st state. Nor are we there solely for the good of the Iraqi people, but we believe our interests will be served by helping them construct a secure, modern state governed by democratically elected leaders. What's wrong with that?