Was Iraq a mistake?

[King Six]

In terms of the War on Terrorism. Definitely a mistake.

For Iraq itself, I think it might be for the better. Might.

Overall, it's done nothing but increase terrorism (maybe not for the U.S/West) and make Iran even more of an "enemy" and it's put the U.S/Coalition in an even worse light.

[gunnut]

The Republicans had the majority in both houses for 2003-2007 during the worst parts of the war, so if you are going to blame Congress just make sure you get the right party.

Does that mean we should blame the democrats for 116,000 dead US soldiers during WW1, 405,000 dead US soldiers during WW2, and 36,000 dead US soldiers during the Korean War?

Be careful when you play the numbers game. Democrats have a much worse record.

[Herodotus]

Michael Yon thinks the war is over and we won:

The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ind...ches&Itemid=55

[Herodotus]

Does that mean we should blame the democrats for 116,000 dead US soldiers during WW1, 405,000 dead US soldiers during WW2, and 36,000 dead US soldiers during the Korean War?

Be careful when you play the numbers game. Democrats have a much worse record.

Well you are the registered Democrat, for the record I am a Republican. I am just saying that the Republicans had control of both the White House and the Congress during the formative years of this war, so any blame-shifting must take that into account. As I recall though the outcome of WWII and WWI was not negative, and I never said anything about dead US soldiers.

[gunnut]

Well you are the registered Democrat, for the record I am a Republican. I am just saying that the Republicans had control of both the White House and the Congress during the formative years of this war, so any blame-shifting must take that into account. As I recall though the outcome of WWII and WWI was not negative, and I never said anything about dead US soldiers.

You're looking at WW1 and WW2 with 20/20 hindsight. The Iraq War was over in May of 2003. The rebuilding effort is not over yet.

There were plenty of mistakes resulting in hundreds, sometimes thousands of US deaths in WW2. But we don't look at those right now and criticize Roosevelt. We see WW2 as a whole and judge it as a whole. We should do the same with Iraq. Don't look at the initial phase and the rebuliding phase in blocks of months or years. Wait until it's over. Give it a few decades. And then we can have the historical perspective that we afford WW1 and WW2 today.

[astralis]

gunnut,

There were plenty of mistakes resulting in hundreds, sometimes thousands of US deaths in WW2. But we don't look at those right now and criticize Roosevelt. We see WW2 as a whole and judge it as a whole.

part of the reason for this was that roosevelt never hid the fact that beating the japanese and the germans would be anything but a bloody, long affair. the american people knew the price, and were fully willing to pay the price.

for iraq, though (and to a lesser extent, afghanistan), bush has tried as much as possible to minimize the perceived costs. and so when the real costs start going up, people are going to start looking into why that's so- and wondering if the benefits were worth it.

this shouldn't be anything surprising. people were doing the same thing in WWI and WWII, after all.

[Herodotus]

You're looking at WW1 and WW2 with 20/20 hindsight. The Iraq War was over in May of 2003. The rebuilding effort is not over yet.

There were plenty of mistakes resulting in hundreds, sometimes thousands of US deaths in WW2. But we don't look at those right now and criticize Roosevelt. We see WW2 as a whole and judge it as a whole. We should do the same with Iraq. Don't look at the initial phase and the rebuliding phase in blocks of months or years. Wait until it's over. Give it a few decades. And then we can have the historical perspective that we afford WW1 and WW2 today.

As I said the diagnosis is still out on the Iraq war for me; however there are huge differences between WWI/WWII and the Iraq War. For one, Iraq had not invaded anybody and had not attacked, threatened, or aligned itself with any state that had attacked the US. Second, Iraq's capability to make war and/or dominate its region was far, far less than either Imperial or Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan. Its effective territory had shrunk in the time since the 1991 war by virtue of no-fly zones.

Thirdly the cost of not doing anything against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan far outweighed the costs of the war. If Nazi Germany had defeated the Soviet Union, and Japan had subdued the Chinese, and the US had not entered the war, how different would our world look? The same holds for Imperial Germany had they defeated France; the US wanted balance on the continent of Europe not hegemony.

With Saddam the situation was entirely different, an isolated dictator who had lost two previous wars, and surrounded by stronger states (Israel, Turkey, Iran) was in no position to invade anyone. The war was over in May 2003 you say? In one sense the war was over before it began when Saddam agreed to dismantle his Samoud missiles and was more or less compliant with the UN. It was a war that didn't need to be fought, to defeat an already defanged former enemy, much like the Third Punic War. The refrains of "Saddam must be disarmed" sound eerily similar to Carthago delenda est

[astralis]

herodotus,

well, given your screen-name, i'm sure you'll appreciate the fact that carthage was defeated badly and defanged following the first punic war, too. :))

[gunnut]

As I said the diagnosis is still out on the Iraq war for me; however there are huge differences between WWI/WWII and the Iraq War. For one, Iraq had not invaded anybody and had not attacked, threatened, or aligned itself with any state that had attacked the US.

Iraq shot at our planes patroling the no-fly zone. That's an act of war.

Nazi Germany did not attack us when Roosevelt started his secret war against it in 1940.

Second, Iraq's capability to make war and/or dominate its region was far, far less than either Imperial or Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan. Its effective territory had shrunk in the time since the 1991 war by virtue of no-fly zones.

We did not know this until we went in to take a look. Not Bush, not Blair, not Obama, not you, nor anyone else but Saddam knew the true capabilities or the lack thereof, of Iraq.

Thirdly the cost of not doing anything against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan far outweighed the costs of the war. If Nazi Germany had defeated the Soviet Union, and Japan had subdued the Chinese, and the US had not entered the war, how different would our world look? The same holds for Imperial Germany had they defeated France; the US wanted balance on the continent of Europe not hegemony.

What is the cost of NOT invading Iraq? We don't know. There is no scientific way to devise a repeatable experiment with a controling factor to determine the consequences of our actions. There is only one chance to do it and Bush took the aggresive stance. His job is to make sure America is safe. Nothing else matters. Not oil price. Not global warming. Not rebuilding the theme park town of New Orleans. America has not been attacked since 9-11.

With Saddam the situation was entirely different, an isolated dictator who had lost two previous wars, and surrounded by stronger states (Israel, Turkey, Iran) was in no position to invade anyone. The war was over in May 2003 you say? In one sense the war was over before it began when Saddam agreed to dismantle his Samoud missiles and was more or less compliant with the UN. It was a war that didn't need to be fought, to defeat an already defanged former enemy, much like the Third Punic War. The refrains of "Saddam must be disarmed" sound eerily similar to Carthago delenda est

He complied with 100,000 crack US troops breathing down his neck. Too little too late. He should have complied 10 years before that.

[Herodotus]

Iraq shot at our planes patroling the no-fly zone. That's an act of war.

Not if the no-fly zones were illegal, which they were. They were not sanctioned by the UN, Iraq did not agree to them and thus they violated Iraqi sovereignty.

Nazi Germany did not attack us when Roosevelt started his secret war against it in 1940.

But Japan did at Pearl Harbor, and Nazi Germany later declared war.

We did not know this until we went in to take a look. Not Bush, not Blair, not Obama, not you, nor anyone else but Saddam knew the true capabilities or the lack thereof, of Iraq.

We knew, the Iraqis told us as much at the end, we just didn't want to believe that Saddam was actually telling the truth regarding his WMD.

What is the cost of NOT invading Iraq? We don't know. There is no scientific way to devise a repeatable experiment with a controling factor to determine the consequences of our actions. There is only one chance to do it and Bush took the aggresive stance. His job is to make sure America is safe. Nothing else matters. Not oil price. Not global warming. Not rebuilding the theme park town of New Orleans. America has not been attacked since 9-11.

The last sentence is a post hoc fallacy. How many times was the US attacked before 9/11? To suggest that a state with one-tenth the population, one hundredth the economic power, and no sea or air forces capable of reaching the US is a threat is silly.

I know you will suggest that Saddam would have given a WMD to a terrorist who would have walked it all the way over to the US, but putting aside the enormous impracticality of such a task, what in Saddam's past suggests he would ever give up something that brought him power and prestige (if he did have them) to some third-party actor who could just as easily use it on him.

He complied with 100,000 crack US troops breathing down his neck. Too little too late. He should have complied 10 years before that.

On the whole, reviewing the actual history of weapons inspections, the Iraqis were mostly compliant. Only in late 1997-1998 was there trouble (and again remeber nothing illicit had actually been uncovered in the preceding 7 years) and only in regards to allowing Americans near places that Saddam used (the Iraqis may not have had an unreasonable fear of their leader being assassinated).

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/98-386.pdf

And anyway since these inspections were mandated via the Security Council any violations of said inspections would have to be approved by the Council and the necessary action also voted on. Iraq was never found to be non-compliant with any resolution to the point that force was authorized; this goes for both Clinton and Bush-their actions against Iraq were not sanctioned.

[Parihaka]

Saddam was a horrible dictator and there are many horrible dictators in the world, should we go oust all of them?

Why yes, we should.

[gunnut]

Not if the no-fly zones were illegal, which they were. They were not sanctioned by the UN, Iraq did not agree to them and thus they violated Iraqi sovereignty.

Wait...did Iraq sign the cease fire? Did the cease fire agreement include the no-fly zone? You're telling me that we need UN's sanction on the cease fire agreement now? If Iraq did not agree, why didn't it protest to the UN BEFORE signing?

But Japan did at Pearl Harbor, and Nazi Germany later declared war.

We actively participated in WW2 when we were "neutral." We shot at, and killed the members of German military BEFORE Germany declared war on us. Roosevelt lied us into the war. We entered the war under false pretenses.

We knew, the Iraqis told us as much at the end, we just didn't want to believe that Saddam was actually telling the truth regarding his WMD.

So your information is better than the leading intelligence agencies of the world. Tell me, what is North Korea's capability? How about Iran? How far are they along? How much of a threat are they? Maybe we should put you as head of world intelligence.

The last sentence is a post hoc fallacy. How many times was the US attacked before 9/11? To suggest that a state with one-tenth the population, one hundredth the economic power, and no sea or air forces capable of reaching the US is a threat is silly.

USS Cole, 2 embassies in Africa, Khobar Tower, 1993 WTC bombing, and those were just in the 1990s. Our homeland has not been attacked since 9-11. Our world wide interests have not been attacked in 5 years until this recent shooting in Turkey(?).

Al Queda showed the world that you don't need ICBMs to strike at America. Do you want to take a chance of even the remotest possibility that AQ might get an unconventional weapon and launch it in America?

I know you will suggest that Saddam would have given a WMD to a terrorist who would have walked it all the way over to the US, but putting aside the enormous impracticality of such a task, what in Saddam's past suggests he would ever give up something that brought him power and prestige (if he did have them) to some third-party actor who could just as easily use it on him.

If anything, we know Saddam did not follow logic in his actions. He invaded Kuwait. No one thought he would do that. Did you know he's going to to that? He gassed his own people. He invaded Iran. He was a loose cannon, unlike the Soviet Union which we could predict with fair accuracy.

On the whole, reviewing the actual history of weapons inspections, the Iraqis were mostly compliant. Only in late 1997-1998 was there trouble (and again remeber nothing illicit had actually been uncovered in the preceding 7 years) and only in regards to allowing Americans near places that Saddam used (the Iraqis may not have had an unreasonable fear of their leader being assassinated).

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/98-386.pdf

And anyway since these inspections were mandated via the Security Council any violations of said inspections would have to be approved by the Council and the necessary action also voted on. Iraq was never found to be non-compliant with any resolution to the point that force was authorized; this goes for both Clinton and Bush-their actions against Iraq were not sanctioned.

Resolution 1441

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15 to 0 vote, which included Russia, China and France, and Arab countries, such as Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).

How final is final? Is final opportunity the last resort? Or is it just before? What is the last resort? Usually military action is the last resort, unless it's the last last resort, a resort after last.

CNN.com - Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq - Nov. 8, 2002

[Blue]

The Republicans had the majority in both houses for 2003-2007 during the worst parts of the war, so if you are going to blame Congress just make sure you get the right party.

Oh I am. They did such a sh1tty job I am almost glad they are gone. Nothing like being let down by the ones you voted for! I have never voted for a dem so they can't let me down when they do exactly what I expected them to do.

The GOP had the brass ring and then they threw out the contract with America and we paid the price. Thanks a lot jerks, for doing exactly the opposite of what I elected you for!

[gunnut]

Actually I don't believe Congress was to blame. The blame lies squarely with Rumsfeld and Bush. Rumsfeld pursued a failed strategy and Bush's stubborness prolonged it.

However, the turn-around success is also Bush's. He finally gave in to reason and hired someone with a different strategy.

Question: which congressional democrat supported the "surge" strategy that turned things around?

[Bluesman]

There are SO MANY stupendously bad assertions being made here that it would take me all night to demolish them, not due to their reasoning, which is execrable, but just the sheer numbers of really awfully poorly-made points.