New at Reason
Brian Doherty questions whether the war in Iraq is moving from folly to victory.
Comments to "New at Reason":
iowan | October 26, 2007, 2:47pm | #
Cue joe; cue John; repeatroversaurus | October 26, 2007, 2:52pm | #
I've been saying that for a long time.WE WON THE WAR!
Now let's come home.
What we are doing now is nation building.
Someone could have supported a war
with Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
remove the threat of WMD and STILL
want to come home now. Nation building
has never worked well.
Douglas Gray | October 26, 2007, 2:56pm | #
I have read reports that the U.S. soldiers are so tired, they are not going out on patrols much any longer but just hunkering down. The violence is declining for a simple reason; the Americans against whom the violence is directed are staying home. All we have to do is leave, and the Iraqis will do fine without us.Tacos mmm... | October 26, 2007, 3:04pm | #
Douglas,Other people have pointed out that with the surge, we've had more airstrikes so far this year than in the previous two years combined. The use of airpower as opposed to ground forces has probably contributed to the drop in recent casualty rates, but with a concomitant rise in Iraqi civilian casualties.
Ebeneezer Scrooge | October 26, 2007, 3:21pm | #
Might some long-term good occur out of this?Uh, I kind of really doubt it a whole lot. But I've been wrong before.
Iraq used to be the regional counter weight to Iran. Now there is no one but the US to fill those shoes. So what, are we going to end up moving our troops from S Korea to Kuwait? So we can make sure Iran doesn't just waltz in and aquire Saudi Arabia?
The US will not let that happen, I suspect. Our president will intervene. Europe might even get on board that one.
Oddly enough, it is entirely possible that Iraq really has served as a lightening rod, and kept suicide bombers there instead of them coming to the US. But a) who knows if that's really true, nobody will ever know, and b) in retrospect was it worth the cost? Again nobody knows.
Iraq cost: $ several trillion, and several thousand troops.
Alternately, Cost ofHypothetical Suicide Bombers In US: the rest of our civil liberties?
Who the hell knows. The politicians will spin it all any way they want.
But in fact I doubt things over there are going to stay "calmed down" for the long haul. Unless Iran gets really clever and stops stirring the pot, so the US leaves, so that IIran can then come back and do what they wanted to do in the first place.
matt | October 26, 2007, 3:22pm | #
Any discussion of whether or not "we're winning" must include something about the scores of Iraqi civilians who either were killed or induced to leave.We go stir-crazy on the airstrikes (leaving huge holes in the ground where people's houses used to stand), the former residents either flee or join AlQaeda, the ones who do the latter are killed in more airstrikes, thus perpetuating the cycle, and that's a victory just because troop casualties go down or even out?
ed | October 26, 2007, 3:23pm | #
"Anti-warriors are sometimes accused of wanting the U.S. to lose in Iraq,just so they can be right."
Yeah, but there's more to it than that. I think the need to justify their blind hatred toward Republicans in general and the president in particular plays into it as well. Not that they don't support the troops, of course. But Iraq was a godsend to Gore- then Kerry-supporters who felt abused by two devastatingly close elections. In that regard their distain for the war is almost paradoxical. Would the left have captured Congress without it? Would so many people still believe Clinton's wife could be President? The left owes a lot to the Iraq war.
Ebeneezer Scrooge | October 26, 2007, 3:24pm | #
Nobody wins in Iraq until Iraq props up a good, respectable government.And WE are going to be their teachers?
Uh ha! Uh ha ha ha HA HA HA HA ........ [fell out of chair, broke jaw on floor]
Pro Libertate | October 26, 2007, 3:25pm | #
Please! Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.Pain | October 26, 2007, 3:28pm | #
This whole debate really has become ridiculous. There is no one who can actually prove what is, or what is not, happening in Iraq, good or bad. Because no one has yet to determine a way that you can track the progress of this type of conflict.Some use body count, some how many schools we painted, others seem to use how many headlines are in the news about it. None of them seem to be a very good indicator of really anything. Until someone can figure out how to measure this nonsense (say in the same way conventional war uses moving lines of battle) no one's going budge from what they themselves believe is real, right or wrong.
The Chad | October 26, 2007, 3:29pm | #
I'll let the foolish comparison to the Soviet Union slide, and point out the "nation building" roversaur mentions is an effort to prevent that victory you all acknowledge from dissipating. Our guys needed to be there as a stabilizer to keep the place from relapsing. Whether or not the whole endeavor was worthwhile is another discussion, but it's sad that people are still pushing for a cut and run.Granted, the only 'nation building' we need is globalization and the introduction of free market concepts. That's not to say we should build mini-malls and force them to read Ayn Rand (while a good suggestion), but rather point out to them the levels of prosperity available to all, with simple rational self-interest
shecky | October 26, 2007, 3:34pm | #
Has anyone ever defined what would constitute a win?Scooby | October 26, 2007, 3:34pm | #
Any reason why it can't be considered folly, even if we do end up with something resembling "victory" (i.e., relatively pacified, elected gov't at least as stable as those of its neighbors, self-sufficient, etc.)?VMiokoisneg | October 26, 2007, 3:35pm | #
sure. like. not losing. duh. c'mon. like. c'mon. man. um. yeah. that's how.Ebeneezer Scrooge | October 26, 2007, 3:36pm | #
Has anyone ever defined what would constitute a win?How about "cheap oil"? At least there'd be a tangible mark.
Ryo | October 26, 2007, 3:41pm | #
Has anyone ever defined what would constitute a win?Not leaving until the sun burns out.
Episiarch | October 26, 2007, 3:42pm | #
Pain has it right. Iraq is such a huge, emotional issue for so many people, and so difficult to get information on, that people are going to believe whatever they feel like.Do we want "success" in Iraq, where people are free to live their lives without being blown up, have a reasonable government, and so on? Yes. Do we want our government to say "hey, that atticking countries thing worked, so let's do it more"? Absolutely not.
If we hadn't gotten involved in the first place, then this situation wouldn't be happening, and there wouldn't be a danger of positive reinforcement to the hawks. That's why opposition to anything but purely defensive war is so important.
Ken Shultz | October 26, 2007, 3:43pm | #
I opposed the war for strategic considerations, among others. Strategically, for instance, I had concerns that large portions of Iraq might fall under the influence of Iran, a true state sponsor of terrorism with a WMD program.It would seem my worst fears in that department were realized--a large portion of Iraq is policed and dominated by radical pro-Iranian militias, the largest of which is financed directly by Iran. Indeed, the political wing of one of those pro-Iranian factions dominates what passes for democratic government in Iraq. ...but other than that, and several more where that came from, things are just peachy, I'm sure.
I guess it depends on what you measure by. The number of suicide bombings per month? If you judge by whether we toppled Saddam Hussein, then, yes, the Iraq war was a stunning success. If you judge by the spreading of freedom, I've got some quibbles--it would appear that the people of Iraq now enjoy less freedom than their counterparts in Iran, for instance. If you judge by the strategic considerations, I have more quibbles still--I don't see how putting Iranian militias on the border of some of Saudi Arabia's most rich, oil producing provinces could possibly be in our best interest strategically.
...but, hey, maybe I'm just a glass half empty kinda guy?*
*Actually, I'm not.
barry payne - economist | October 26, 2007, 3:46pm | #
BUSH FREEDOM FETISHBush sees Iran as much a threat to blocking victory in Iraq as it is a trumped up nuclear threat ... all those Mullah minions crashing his party ... he'll start that war just to save face in the first one ...
Notice how he chided the Cubans the other day to rise up against Castro and Raoul, speaking separately to civilians and then soldiers-government.
Never mind how many citizens would end up killed, the few left living and out of prison would be free, worth it to Bush if they all died ... they tried, and God said they're free, so there.
Bush speaks the same way to Iranians, intentionally infuriating the government and then soliciting its citizens to commit assisted suicide ... along the lines of what Bush Senior did to abandoned Iraqis in Desert Storm.
While the U.S. embargos Cuba and drives it to trade with China, Bush can't explain why China itself is not embargoed for the same reason.
The most powerful man in the world cannot engage in abstract critical thought beyond simple dichotomies, doesn't read and gets most information about the world around him in person.
He already knew something "bad" was going to happen, which is why God made him president. He already knows the war will be won. He already knows in general ... so everything is either obvious or superfalous ... no point in asking any questions that already have answers.
james | October 26, 2007, 3:50pm | #
What you can be sure of those is that our government will lie to the public about what is happening in Iraq.The first casualty of war is truth always has been and always will be.There is no way that you can perform aerial bombing on a city that once had a population of 7 million people without a lot of civilian casualities. My problem with the pro-war crowd is that it appears to be acceptable to them that tens of thousands of iraqis be killed in order to keep our soldiers safe. Frankly that is bullshit Iraqis are human too our media tends to sugarcoat that by talking about collateral damage(husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc humanity just like you and I). Just because they are Iraqis doesn't mean it should be OK to bomb them they are as human as you and I.
Rattlesnake Jake | October 26, 2007, 3:55pm | #
"Notice how he chided the Cubans the other day to rise up against Castro and Raoul, speaking separately to civilians and then soldiers-government."I wonder if Cuba is on the neocons' list for overthrow.
prolefeed | October 26, 2007, 3:59pm | #
From an editorial cartoon in the October 25th Honolulu Advertiser:Picture of donkeys in suits, with a lapel button saying "Dems" -- "The President bullied us on his surveillance powers and on SCHIP. Now he wants another $46 billion for Iraq. I say no more! It's time for us to stand up and pretend to fight back harder than we've ever pretended before."
Les | October 26, 2007, 4:01pm | #
Whether or not we stay or leave should be as simple as a referendum put to the Iraqi people.Rattlesnake Jake | October 26, 2007, 4:01pm | #
"My problem with the pro-war crowd is that it appears to be acceptable to them that tens of thousands of iraqis be killed in order to keep our soldiers safe."The same type of reasoning was used when Nagasaki and Hiroshima were nuked. The government said it was necessary to save our soldiers. Just as Bush and the neocons seem to not care about the lives of brown people in the Middle East, Truman didn't care anything about yellow people. In fact, he called them yellow puke.
Lord Jubjub | October 26, 2007, 4:04pm | #
The invasion starts the day after Castro dies.Aresen | October 26, 2007, 4:24pm | #
If it means letting the neocons declare victory and bring the troops home, I'm all for it.As long as they bring the troops home.
Fluffy | October 26, 2007, 4:29pm | #
Right Snake, but at least at the moment the a-bombs fell, Japan was actually our enemy, and had troops in the field opposing us, supported by their civilian population industrially and logistically.When we bomb Iraqi cities, we are bombing the cities of an ally/puppet. We're not in "unconditional surrender" territory now. We're in "we have to destroy this village to save it" territory.
I'm suspending judgment on the surge. I hope it's working, but right before the civilian casualty numbers started to improve, the Iraqi government announced drastic changes to the rules to media access to bombing scenes and to sites marked by sectarian violence. The whole "New media rules - Voila! Fewer casualties!" thing disturbs me a little.
james | October 26, 2007, 4:33pm | #
Does anyone see the irony in Bush talking about Cuba's lack of democracy while trying to put the US on the fast track to fascism. The PATRIOT Act is an abomination and we should kick all the politicians that voted for it out of the country let them go to Russia or China where that kind of think would fit perfectly.Concerning Iran the media is turning them into this big bad monster here is a little perspective from Newsweek:
"The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.
Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?
When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)"
It amazes me how many "serious" people really believe the garbage about Iran. Bush and crew is setting us up again.
Iraq will never succeed as long as it is a puppet of the United States and if it isn't a puppet of the United States, we will not leave. So sorry Iraqis, your deaths mean nothing to the U.S. govt,(and I don't support it but)we are conquerers, not liberators.
ed | October 26, 2007, 4:40pm | #
This thread is missing some really righteous indignation,not to mention vituperation and vitriol.
Where the hell is joe?
I'm anti-war. It is the health of the state. Under cover of war our government steals our liberty. Surge, smurge, death and destruction is all wars can ever be good for. We are winning in Iraq if you think hired mercenaries killing Iraqi citizens at will is winning, or no-bid contracts to reconstruct Iraq being awarded to companies that have point men in the government. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Capital James Iraq isn't suppose to succeed just enrich those industries that benefit from war.
sage | October 26, 2007, 4:51pm | #
This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.That would be who killed whom.
Pro Libertate | October 26, 2007, 4:58pm | #
Actually, it would be 'oo killed 'oom. I lifted the text from one of the Holy Grail scripts drifting about the Intertubes.It seems quaint to remind people that the war is about natural resources, but then again we live in a country filled with many people who still think Saddam was involved in 9/11...they are called Bush-Americans...and they are an albatross around the neck of this country.
Iraq will be rememberd in history(at least to the Iraqi people)as a mass slaughter.
Episiarch | October 26, 2007, 5:03pm | #
Where the hell is joe?Yeah, I was looking forward to him only blaming the GOP for all this and completely exonerating the Dems.
I say the war ended with the capture of Saddam. It's been a policing action ever since.
TrickyVic | October 26, 2007, 5:15pm | #
"""Iraq will be rememberd in history(at least to the Iraqi people)as a mass slaughter."""From Saddam, then that ally of Saddam?
Guess I meant to say that the Iraq "War" will be remembered as a mass slaughter. Isn't is always bizarre when a pro-war person will justify the Iraq Invasion because Saddam was torturing and killing his people? As opposed to us?
Franklin Harris | October 26, 2007, 5:25pm | #
Please! Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.When I first came here, this was all desert. Everyone said I was daft to build a government in a desert, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the desert. So I built a second one. That sank into the desert. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the desert. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest government in all of the Middle East.
Bobby | October 26, 2007, 5:38pm | #
"but then again we live in a country filled with many people who still think Saddam was involved in 9/11...they are called Bush-Americans...and they are an albatross around the neck of this country."There have been a number of pieces written that show links between Saddam and 9/11. In fact, the ISG mentioned them. However, since they don't fit your narrative, they don't count.
Minion of URKOBOLD | October 26, 2007, 5:50pm | #
BOBBY CAN'T COUNT TO 21 UNLESS HE'S NAKED.AND THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF PIECES WRITTEN THAT SHOW HE'S A TWADDLENOCK.
SINCE HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE FIRST PERSON OMNISCIENT NARRATOR, THEY DON'T COUNT.
If my previos past causes Bobby to provide a link, and you vivit said link, please don't blame me if it's a nut-job website.
Aresen | October 26, 2007, 6:00pm | #
J sub DWanna bet that some of Bobby's links include "9/11-truthers"?
The bus driver in question | October 26, 2007, 6:04pm | #
Brian could be right, but we need to remember in a few months we will be forced to draw down our troop levels (unless we go to a draft in the next few weeks). No political progress had been made. On the other hand most of the violence is sectarian and the neighborhoods are pretty segregated. Oddly enough this is probably the best situation AL Queda could have hopped for.the innominate one | October 26, 2007, 6:04pm | #
minion:I'm afraid you're mistaken. When naked, Bobby can only count to twenty and one-quarter. Report for a taint withering.
I just opened the ISG report and searched the report's text for:
"september 11"- no hits
"9/11"- two hits, one referring to the 9/11 commission, the other to a book title.
"Laden"-one hit, explaining who Ayman al-Zawahiri is affiliated with
Yeah Sadaam was involved in 9/11 and if you ask nicely I'll tell you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried and where you can find the Holy Grail.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 26, 2007, 6:08pm | #
"Yeah, I was looking forward to him only blaming the GOP for all this and completely exonerating the Dems."Episarich-don't be such a tool. I've had plenty of disagreements with joe but
1. just the other day he brought up how Edwards/Lieberman pushed so hard for the Iraq war (he knows they were Dem leaders)
2. and besides, this mess is the GOP's baby. Even in a time of war hysteria a majority of Dems in the House voted AGAINST the AUMF and half of the Dems in the Senate. In fact the ONLY opposition was from the Democratic Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002
If this were a tort case in a state that had comparative negligence we would hold the GOP 90% responsible for this sick puppy and the Dems 10%.
The Dems could end the war if the had cajones. Cut the funding and they will be forced to bring the troops home.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 26, 2007, 6:15pm | #
"The Dems could end the war if the had cajones. Cut the funding and they will be forced to bring the troops home." James, I agree that they should try this, but I'm sure you aware of another party, one with practically half of the votes in the Senate and media minions, which would blast them for "abandoning our troops in harms way" right? That same party voted overwhelmingly (almost unanimously) to back the war, that same party had the President who pushed for it and the pundits who sold it, and the people who will not let a timetable or negative reolution pass (they vote as a block to filibuster it). It strikes me that common sense would say that this is their f*ck-upMr. Nice Guy | October 26, 2007, 6:18pm | #
What gets me in the whole meme of "the Dems are as responsible for the GOP for this war" is how it not only ignores past facts, but even PRESENT ones. Look at the GOP frontrunners, they still celebrate the decision to go to war. The Dem frontrunners all say it was a mistake. Sure, the Dem frontrunners are a bunch of lying backbone-less, but they realize that their party never liked the way while the GOP liked it back then, and actually, amazingly, still does now!Sometimes you just have to do the right thing Mr Nice Guy. Lives are being lost because the Dems are worried about scoring political points instead of the immorality of the war. Frankly I'm disgusted with them and the mindless Bush supporters absolutely disgusted.
I believe blame can be split right down the middle. They are playing politics with our soldiers lives and the lives of the Iraqis its fucked up man
J sub D | October 26, 2007, 6:32pm | #
Wanna bet that some of Bobby's links include "9/11-truthers"?No. I don't do three card monte either.
J sub D | October 26, 2007, 6:36pm | #
Yeah Sadaam was involved in 9/11 and if you ask nicely I'll tell you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried and where you can find the Holy Grail.Dunno about the Holy Grail, But they found Jimmy Hoffa. In the yellow pages under cement.
roversaurus | October 26, 2007, 7:20pm | #
"The Chad" saysI'll [...] point out the "nation building" roversaur mentions is an effort to prevent that victory you all acknowledge from dissipating. Our guys needed to be there as a stabilizer to keep the place from relapsing. Whether or not the whole endeavor was worthwhile is another discussion, but it's sad that people are still pushing for a cut and run.
We won a long time ago.
Saddam is dead. The WMD have been neutralized.
We won. Let's go home.
Or was the real intent of going in to Iraq
an effort to "nation build"? In other
words, Bush lied when he said the war was
about WMD?
Clarence | October 26, 2007, 7:27pm | #
Can you fly, Bobby?DannyK | October 26, 2007, 7:41pm | #
It's a great idea. The Dems should pass a bill calling for 50 million $ to pay for a massive ticket tape parade and victory celebration for all of our brave troops who won the war in Iraq.Then the Repubs will be stuck, because how do you vote against a patriotic parade?
And we can let all the troops come home for the parade, too.
It's so crazy... it just might work!
ed | October 26, 2007, 7:53pm | #
Paging joe....joe, please come to the lobby.
joe, you have a call on line 1.
joe?
herodotus | October 26, 2007, 8:24pm | #
War can not be won.Iraqi's have mommies too.
Bush just did it all to make money for his friends.
Saddam Hussein wasn't all that bad compared to the evil Israelis.
Pro-war people are stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid!!!
crepe maker | October 26, 2007, 8:26pm | #
joe seems to have been replaced by james, who is not nearly as interesting.alphahawk1999 | October 27, 2007, 12:26am | #
I was at least a tad uneasy about the invasion of Iraq as it looked to me as a way for G.W.B. to finish what his dad had started in '91 namely to get rid of Saddam and make-up for the decade of ineffectual sanctions that was being ignored by France, Russia ect. Now not only do I believe that the current "liberation" of Iraq was overall wrong but I have come around to the belief that these U.S. of A. should get our troops out of N.A.T.O., Japan and even South Korea. I really think that the U.S. is an imperial-republic. That is imperial foreign policy with replican domestic policy at least for now. I don't pretend to be a pacifist. I just think that the U.S. has no business having troops stationed world-wide. So yes it is time to bring our troops and equipment home not just from Iraq but from everywhere.Ebeneezer Scrooge | October 27, 2007, 4:17am | #
It seems quaint to remind people that the war is about natural resourcesAt this point, I wish you were right about that. But it's clear from the cluster f*** that we were never serious about the oil.
But now that Iraq isn't around to counter balance Iran, it could become an issue about oil. Not that I want us staying in Iraq, but now that we've created this little fiasco -- letting Iran waltz down in Saudi Arabia may not be the best idea.
The only thing Bush was ever clearly serious about was smacking down Saddam. And lots of intel said Saddam probably had something going on, but the details were kinda pretty fuzzy and all.
Beyond Bush wanting to smack down Saddam, absolutely nothing is clear about why we did it. And it's not clear how or when we're going to get out.
Julian Fountain | October 27, 2007, 5:52am | #
Prospect? Who reads it that?rick wyckoff | October 27, 2007, 9:53am | #
I think Doherty asks the wrong question in the end. The right question before going to war is whether it is the best available alternative - or put another way, will we suffer more from going to war or from not going to war?Bill Mitchell | October 27, 2007, 10:07am | #
It is now safer to walk through the streets of Fallujah at night than to walk through the street of New York City.What this all shows is that there was NEVER a Civil War in the first place. Studies have shown that 85% of all suicide bombers were NOT Iraqi Nationals.
The "fake" civil war was just trouble being stirred up by foreign Al Qaeda interlopers. Now that they have been beaten back, guess what? No more civil war.
There are many SCARY POINTS about this war, but what is the SCARIEST?
The SCARIEST is that in the USA, the leadership of the Democratic Party is actually unhappy things are going so well. Just this week, despite all evidence to the contrary, Harry Reid declared on the floor of the Senate that Iraq is a disaster and the Surge is a failure.
That's scary.
Minion of URKOBOLD | October 27, 2007, 10:18am | #
NO, BILLY. THE SCARIEST THING IS YOUR FOOD COURT. AND ACCESS FROM I-94. THAT'S SCARY.ozymandias | October 27, 2007, 10:35am | #
"Anti-warriors are sometimes accused of wanting the U.S. to lose in Iraq, just so they can be right. Not so."Actually, so. At least in the sense of wanting the US to lose in Iraq.
A recent survey showed 20% of Democrats think the world would be a better place if the US lost in Iraq. I suppose that's a nobler reason than just wanting to be right.
Minion of URKOBOLD | October 27, 2007, 10:55am | #
AND WE LOOK UPON YOUR WORKS AND GIGGLE.The fact that international jihadists are flocking to Iraq, only to be blown away by their Sunni brothers, tells me the whole plan was a huge success. I can only hope that the fundamentalist bastards who would just as soon kill themselves to hurt an American, will continue to jump into the meat grinder over there. If someone can come up with a better plan to reduce the number of the world's most dangerous fanatics, let's hear it.
Ken Shultz | October 27, 2007, 11:36am | #
"I think Doherty asks the wrong question in the end. The right question before going to war is whether it is the best available alternative - or put another way, will we suffer more from going to war or from not going to war?I think the question you're referring to is:
The real question before a war needs to be: “is this absolutely necessary given a fair consideration of the horrors and unpredictability of war and the purpose of the U.S. military?”
I'd argue that the very least, the threshold should be, "Will the likely benefits outweigh the costs?"
In a war of self-defense, I would argue, that the likely benefits always outweigh the costs--most Americans see it that way. That's why the war was sold to us as a war of self-defense. Initially, it was about Hussein's support of terrorism, and it was about Hussein's alleged weapons programs. I would argue that a war of preemption, by the way, is also a war of self-defense; however, there was no Saddam Hussein era attack on the United States that was preempted by our invasion of Iraq. ...there was nothing preemptive about it.
I remember the pipe dreams about Reverse Domino Theory or democracy as contagion or whatever you want to call it being sold as a function of self-defense.
I heard that we were maintaining the occupation because drawing jihadi terrorists to Iraq meant that we were fighting them over there rather than over here. ...again it's all couched in terms of self-defense. I never bought the suggestion that jihadi terrorists are now somehow distracted from their real objective--murdering Americans here in the homeland--all because we're occupying Iraq, but even if you do...
If we're going to talk about "best alternatives", how does having a coalition of our allies enforcing a no-fly zone stack up against Iraq in the state it is today?
If there was any legitimate WMD found in Iraq, it posed little or no threat to the people of the United States.
If there was a terrorist presence in Iraq that posed a threat to the people of the United States before the invasion, it was nothing compared to the anti-American, terrorist threat we've unleashed now.
We were going to bring freedom to the people of Iraq and it was going to be contagious--in their regular day to day lives, the people of IRAN seem to have more in the way of personal freedom than the people of Iraq.
The al Sadr faction, among the biggest threats to the Iraqi government, is itself a part of the Iraqi government. ...indeed, the democratically elected government we're championing seems to be comprised, primarily, of Islamic fundamentalist militias, financed directly by our sworn enemy, a state sponsor of terror with a nuclear weapons program.
So... While it might be possible to argue that there was no way anyone could have known when we started this little adventure, that we'd end up here--I'd advise arguing that around here. There are just too many of us who argued that this is exactly where we were going to end up and that that was why we shouldn't have invaded. Well that's all spilt milk now, but surely we can look back and make some kid of judgement on the "alternatives".
...and somebody please explain it to me--this is better than what, exactly?
Ken Shultz | October 27, 2007, 11:40am | #
"While it might be possible to argue that there was no way anyone could have known when we started this little adventure, that we'd end up here--I'd advise arguing that around here."Should read, "While it might be possible to argue that there was no way anyone could have known when we started this little adventure, that we'd end up here--I'd advise [against] arguing that around here."
...but then you probably knew that.
Mike Sorensen | October 27, 2007, 12:17pm | #
Although war is hell and nation building is worse, nation building has often worked out well for the world. It was a tremendous success in Germany, Japan, Italy, and South Korea. It fact the only seems to have failed when we have given up, as in South Vietnam.People will be arguing over whether it was a good idea to depose Saddam for years. I may well be years before we know if it was worth it.
joe | October 27, 2007, 12:26pm | #
Doherty, and several commenters, make the assumption that supporting a slow and cautious withdrawal, rather than a fast one with a hard deadline, is an indication of faith that things are going well.In reality, it's an indication of awareness of just how dangerous the situation is. When a patient gets brought into the emergency room impales on fence post, the doctors don't just yank it out. They extraction is done very, very carefully. Does that demonstrate that doctors think it is helpful and healthy to impale people on fence posts? No, it shows that they are aware of the need for caution and deliberateness, to make sure the patient doesn't bleed to death.
joe | October 27, 2007, 12:48pm | #
Getting back to the definition of success and the reason for the war, let's keep in mind Anbar Province.In 2003, the a coalition of Anbar sheiks approached the US CPA and offered to form an alliance with them. The American said, to quote Paul Bremer, "There is no place for (tribal sheiks) in the New Iraq." We were going to create a New Iraq, a liberal democratic ally that would inspire reform throughout the Middle East, remember? That was victory. Older, existing, indigenous political structure like tribal governments had not place in that visions. This was a revolutionary endevor, meant to reconstruct Iraqi politics from the ground up, and the sheiks in Anbar were seen as the enemy of that vision. And so they literally became the enemy, and we went to war against them.
Four years later, we've accepted their terms. We're allying with them, and using our resources, both military and nation-building, to maintain and extand their authority. This is not victory, this is containing the damage. The hawks have redefined victory from their neo-conservative vision to a more Kerry-esque, realist vision of keeping the whole thing from collapsing into a Hobbesian nightmare through a combination of providing security and making political deals with power centers in and around Iraq. The initial victory conditions have not only not been achieved, their pursuit has been completely abandoned.
Now that they've given up on the actual purpose of this war - the spread of Democracy throughout the Middle East through the use of American military force - the war's supporters are defining victory in terms of stability. We're seen some progress on that front in term so short-term security improvements - tactical battlefiend accomplishments achieved by the uniformed military - but the underlying political development that was the stated purpose of the surge has made little or no progress, while the status of our forces has made it impossible to sustain the military operations that have produced the short-term security.
I don't think the end-zone dances we're seeing from the hawks are any more justified now than they were on Flight Suit Day, Capture Saddam Day, Purple Finger Day, Captured Falluja Day, or any of the other supposed corner-turnings they've haralded over the years. It's just a downtick in the enemy's operations, brought about by a surge we knew we could't sustain, that hasn't changed the underlying dynamics.
Stevend | October 27, 2007, 12:49pm | #
The Effort to Remove Saddam was worth it! Unless you want a nuclear middle-east and all that entails, there is no question about that.Imagine the current Iranian policy with Saddam still in power. There would currently be a nuclear race in the middle east with all countries participating. Would we bomb them all? Of course not! The policy that was pursued was the right one. History will prove it right.
What is totally disengenious about the original artical (and the posts), is that it fails to mention that a majority of Dems actually voted FOR the war (I suppose before they voted againstt it).
If you are have been consistently anti-war, then I respect you and I respect your opinion. If you - like Hillary - voted for the war and then advocate running and abandoning our allies as soon as things get tough, then you are a spineless hypocrite.
joe | October 27, 2007, 1:02pm | #
As most people now admit, Stevend, Saddam Husseein was not playing the nuclear game, because his regime had been rendered utterly incapable of doing so.How long would the Lion of Mesopotamia have lasted if the inspection teams, backed up by American military units, were poking into every corner of his closets, and announcing that he didn't actually have any WMD aresenal?
Hey, look, no nuclear program, but here's his collection of sci-fi painings of nekkid women.
What is totally disengenious about the original artical (and the posts), is that it fails to mention that a majority of Dems actually voted FOR the war Um, no. Congressional Democrats voted against the AUMF by a 58%-42% margin. It's really not that hard to look these things up.
Ken Shultz | October 27, 2007, 1:26pm | #
"Imagine the current Iranian policy with Saddam still in power. There would currently be a nuclear race in the middle east with all countries participating. Would we bomb them all? Of course not!"If Iran develops nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will almost certainly follow. ...and one of the reasons we're so limited in what we can do about Iran is because we're sitting on top of a powder keg, and they've got the detonator.
"The policy that was pursued was the right one. History will prove it right."
Historical determinism via time travel! Wow.
"What is totally disengenious about the original artical (and the posts), is that it fails to mention that a majority of Dems actually voted FOR the war (I suppose before they voted againstt it)."
Again, people seem to think that being against the war is about party identity--as if the question of whether the invasion and occupation were a success or failure ultimately boiled down to the personal qualities of George W. Bush.
I understand Moonies think in this way. Not everything has to do with Republicans and Democrats. Not everything is about George W. Bush.
"If you are have been consistently anti-war, then I respect you and I respect your opinion. If you - like Hillary - voted for the war and then advocate running and abandoning our allies as soon as things get tough, then you are a spineless hypocrite."
The American people thought this was a war of self-defense--that turned out not to be the case. Support for the war in Afghanistan remains high, I think because it's seen as a war of self-defense.
Blaming people for changing their mind about supporting the war after finding out that it wasn't a war of self-defense is like blaming the victims of fraud for being bamboozled.
When I gave that bum at the highway entrance some money, I thought he was going to use it to buy food. If I find out he was just buyin' booze with it, I'm not givin' him any more money. ...I just don't feel the same way anymore.
iih | October 27, 2007, 1:32pm | #
Does anyone really believe that if Iraq is pacified then US out? As long as Iran sits next to Iraq, there will always be enough reason to maintain a protracted and significant troop presence in Iraq (a la DMZ). The only way that would end is if Iran moves out of the region.Ken Shultz | October 27, 2007, 1:32pm | #
"If Iran develops nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will almost certainly follow. ...and one of the reasons we're so limited in what we can do about Iran is because we're sitting on top of a powder keg, and they've got the detonator."Just to be clear...
Yes, I'm saying Iran wouldn't feel so free to flaunt its nuclear program if we weren't dangling our soft, exposed underbelly in its face.
...and just to be clear to Stevend, that has nothing to do with how Hillary Clinton voted on the Patriot Act.
joe | October 27, 2007, 1:57pm | #
iih,Follow the money - specifically, the money for the military bases. The Bushies have been spending $billions to build a series of permanent bases across the country to support a large, long-term U.S. troop presence. This was part of the original plan.
FWIW, every Democratic candidate has declared that we need to renounce these bases. Hillary, Biden, and Kucinich have sponsored or supported bills that would forbid the use of taxpayer dollars to fund their construction.
On the Republican side, only Paul has denounced this construction, while all of the candidates serving in Congress have voted to build the bases.
joe | October 27, 2007, 2:03pm | #
It seems to me that the war is now being fought to ward off a certain set of threats - the threat of a civil war that will draw in neighbors and split Iraq; the threat of al Qaeda establishing bases of operation in the Sunni triangle or Baghdad, comparable to what they had in Afghanistan prior to 9/11; the threat of Iran expanding its hegemony across the Middle East.Each of these threats 1) is more serious than those threats we went to war to pre-empt, and 2) came into being as the consequence of the war itself. Those initial threats, once again, being the Iraqi WMD program, and the Saddam regime providing aid to al Qaeda. Neither of which actually existed.
free from delusion | October 27, 2007, 2:08pm | #
Libertarians have many valuable things to say about preserving personal freedoms.Brian Doherty, however, provides additional support that the libertarian world-view is unfortunately detached from reality.
iih | October 27, 2007, 2:09pm | #
joe:I still think that the US should not leave unless Iran entirely moves out of the region ;-)
But seriously, condemn as much as they would neither Dems nor Republicans (who aren't condemning the bases anyhow), one should never ever take their pronouncements seriously or literally. Haven't people learned already? "Saying" is one thing, but having the credibility is another. None of the candidates has any credibility.
The only reason one would believe Paul is that he has the voting record. The fact that he is always unhinged and not PC is good enough reason to believe this man.
Ken Shultz | October 27, 2007, 2:10pm | #
iih, joe, et. al.I imagine something like Subic Bay was or maybe Guantanamo Bay Naval Base would be a better example.
I'm not familiar with the plans for these facilities or their locations but long term plans don't necessarily mean a long term occupation. ...certainly a long term presence.
We may have the capability to strike from Guantanamo, but we're not occupying Cuba. Cuba isn't under American occupied, martial law. Know what I mean?
joe | October 27, 2007, 2:15pm | #
Ken,I understand exactly. Long-term presence is the plan. If we can get a stable and effective client state in place, great. If not, then we continue the occupation/counter-insurgency. That's the plan, anyway.
iih | October 27, 2007, 2:20pm | #
Ken,I imagine something like Subic Bay was or maybe Guantanamo Bay Naval Base would be a better example.
And not a greater, longer term presence as with the DMZ? I do not think that it will merely be a few big bases here and there. Remember Cuba today is not the same as Iran. The only way to stop having a DMZ type presence, is that the Iranian regime is replaced, which sems to be what the neocons want anyways. They'' promise the American people to leave if they (The American people) allow them to bomb Iran and get over with it.
Neu Mejican | October 27, 2007, 2:27pm | #
true state sponsor of terrorism with a WMD program.Saw Hans Blix on Charlie Rose the other day.
His take on this was interesting. He seemed to think that Iran was clearly very, very tentative about their nuclear weapons program if they had one at all. The push for wmd in Iran is more about security guarantees than exporting power/terror. They can do that easily without the nuclear weapons. As long as the US responds to the situation with posturing and threats, we are increasing the chances that Iran will move its tentative nuclear weapons program into an enthusiastic push to provide itself with a security guarantee. Direct talks, diplomatic relations, and the like are the ONLY way to prevent a nuclear Iran. Military action/threats just assures/postpones their eventual building of a bomb.
imho,
Blix seemed to have a similar position.
Ken Shultz | October 27, 2007, 3:15pm | #
"The push for wmd in Iran is more about security guarantees than exporting power/terror."I don't know for certain what they want. I'm inclined to agree on this, but even if they just want to be left alone... I was talking about reasons not to go to war--the damage has already been done. ...and there seems to be this misconception hangin' out there...
Perhaps the biggest misconception among Americans about Iraq is the idea that the democratically elected government there is a bastion of pro-American interests in a sea of Shiite fundamentalism. ...this misconception that if we leave Iraq before the democratic government we installed can stand on its own feet, that the Shia portion of Iraq will fall under Iranian influence. I think this has it halfway backwards.
The democratically elected government of Iraq is already beholden to Iran. It was always beholden to Iran since the first election. We have removed Saddam Hussein from power, and to replace him, we have installed a government that is beholden to Iran. If the United States withdraws from Iran and the elected government of Iraq can stand on its own feet, then we will have delivered the Shia portions of Iraq to Iran's influence.
When I talk to people in real life, much like some of the visitors who are posting in this very thread, they don't seem to understand that. There's no good guys to hand this thing off to, and there aren't any good guys that are suddenly going to grow out of the woodwork if we just give them enough time either.
I'm starting to suspect that the American people just aren't prepared to deal with the realization that the guys we've been heralding that are going to come and save Iraq, that they're beholden to Iran.
I listen to people talk about how we need more time, that we need to wait for the new government to get on its feet, that pretty soon they'll start winning hearts and minds--they're waiting for Godot!
Here's a pretty good piece I read recently:
"The United States cannot now undo President Bush's strategic gift to Iran. But importantly, the most pro-Iranian Shiite political party is the one least hostile to the United States. In the battle now underway between the SIIC and Moqtada al-Sadr for control of southern Iraq and of the central government in Baghdad, the United States and Iran are on the same side. The US has good reason to worry about Iran's activities in Iraq. But contrary to the Bush administration's allegations—supported by both General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker in their recent congressional testimony—Iran does not oppose Iraq's new political order. In fact, Iran is the major beneficiary of the American-induced changes in Iraq since 2003.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20651
I don't think it requires a subscription.
Minion of URKOBOLD | October 27, 2007, 3:18pm | #
STEVEND WANTS A NUCLEAR UNDEROO ONESIE.ALTHOUGH HE CERTAINLY DOES HAVE A DEFINITE TALENT FOR RECOGNIZING THE YELLOW BELLIED INVERTEBRATE FLIPLFLOPPER, USUALLY FOUND IN THE SPICE MINES OF KESSEL, THE FIRE SWAMP, AND IN A TERRIFYING PLACE CALLED THE BELTWAY
iih | October 27, 2007, 3:20pm | #
NM:By the way, you may find this interesting (you partially inspired me to comment on that article). This is part of a new effort that I will attempt. I am not sure though whether I will have the time and talent to continue. But time will tell.
Neu Mejican | October 27, 2007, 3:32pm | #
iih,I can't speak to time, but talent is not an issue.
You should include a link to your blog in your comments here (just put it in the url box).
iih | October 27, 2007, 3:37pm | #
NM:The only reason for my skepticism is that I really do have a very demanding job. I will eventually, when I feel that I can commit more time and effort to the blog, include it in my url. For now, I will keep it low key and refer people to it when I have something useful to share.
Neu Mejican | October 27, 2007, 3:38pm | #
Ken S,The democratically elected government of Iraq is already beholden to Iran. It was always beholden to Iran since the first election.
I agree.
Did you see the recent Frontline on Iran?
It is worth checking out.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/
douglas Gray | October 27, 2007, 4:25pm | #
I know one Iraqi expatriate who, since the war began, has suffered the following losses in his extended family:11 People died in the initial American bombings
7 Have died from U.S. Friendly fire
12 have died in Insurgency - U.S. crossfire
3 have been lost from car bombs
5 were killed by militias
A number of others have been wounded
I'll be sure to tell him that the war is "being won"
And you Rank third | October 27, 2007, 11:21pm | #
Nice to read another installment of insightful sniping from Reason. Just joking. I'm sick of people's opinions and third-hand insights. I like facts, and you'll get none here. Just more bile.LT Jason Nichols | October 28, 2007, 3:25am | #
We went to Iraq because it was the best and possibly the only strategy to defeat the threat of Islamic extremism made obvious on 9/11. Most people who oppose the war offer no alternative strategy and are therefore not honest or rational opponents.Victory in Iraq is a stable, democratic government able to defend itself.
There has been a significant change in the overall war in the past several months, not only due to the surge but also due to a significant change in overall strategy. It's not won, but we are clearly winning.
So those are the objective facts. Here's my subjective opinion:
The magazine Reason seems to have abandoned logic and reason on the subject of the Iraq war, apparently because its editors think America can only be attacked by a large foreign army crossing our borders. Ayn Rand didn't foresee all future threats, and the idea an army can just sit behind bunkers on the beach no longer matches reality.
More facts: 9/11 was an instigation of force, and establishing democracy in Iraq was the most rational response. We're succeeding and the entire free world will be much better - and larger - because of it.
Ken Shultz | October 28, 2007, 3:50am | #
"The magazine Reason seems to have abandoned logic and reason on the subject of the Iraq war, apparently because its editors think America can only be attacked by a large foreign army crossing our borders."Gillespie may have been against the war, but there were at least four on staff, by my count, and probably more, who fully and publicly supported Iraq War. ...so speaking of Reason as being of one voice on the topic just doesn't make any sense.
Go ahead and look it up in the archives--there are a couple of posts, as I recall, where the Reason staff spell out their positions on the war, one by one.
"Ayn Rand didn't foresee all future threats, and the idea an army can just sit behind bunkers on the beach no longer matches reality."
I'm not an Objectivist, and I don't speak for Objectivists. However, it's my impression that Objectivists were more likely than libertarians to support the Iraq War, and, like I said, there were plenty of libertarians who supported the Iraq War.
Anyway, while I think most libertarians have read Ayn Rand at some point, most self-identified libertarians don't identify as Objectivists because they disagree with Ayn Rand on any one of a dozen issues. Quoting her to most of us is no more persuasive than quoting anyone else. ...just for future reference.
That having been said, I don't think Ayn Rand ever told anybody to sit in a bunker behind a beach, and if I had to guess from what I know of her and her work, my bet would be that Ayn Rand would have supported the Iraq War.
LT Jason Nichols | October 28, 2007, 7:07am | #
Ken,I looked and I couldn’t find any recent Reason articles that support the war; certainly none with the courage and clarity a magazine purporting to be dedicated to freedom should wield. They seem to have surrendered their reason to the emotion of fear.
LT Nichols
ed | October 28, 2007, 7:47am | #
most libertarians have read Ayn Rand at some point, most self-identified libertarians don't identify as Objectivists because they disagree with Ayn Rand on any one of a dozen issuesIt's a fact that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists. If objectivists examine the world from A to Z, libertarians get stuck at around T and gradually regress. Or to use a baseball analogy, they never make it out of Double-A ball.
J Ladika | October 28, 2007, 8:32am | #
Admittedly, I have never read any of this author’s material before. Is he always such a downer? He quotes all the right numbers but he doesn't discuss how life has improved on the ground for our soldiers or the average Iraqi, and that is an equally important piece.Does he seriously want to continue arguing the justification for this war? I think that intelligent people can disagree on the utility of war in general, and especially that of this war.
Things have changed on the ground. He sites Michael Yon, but has he actually read his recent dispatches which, by the way, he is now offering for free to large scale publications?
It is possible to enter into a war for the wrong reasons and yet win it for the right reasons. I could argue that most wars start and end this way.
Congratulations to our troops and the Iraqis for all their recent successes.
wayne | October 28, 2007, 8:40am | #
Douglas,Get your nose out of the fiction section...
I have read reports that the U.S. soldiers are so tired, they are not going out on patrols much any longer but just hunkering down. The violence is declining for a simple reason; the Americans against whom the violence is directed are staying home. All we have to do is leave, and the Iraqis will do fine without us.
J Ladika | October 28, 2007, 8:49am | #
Hey Douglas Grey,Concerning your most recent post about the family of your Iraqi friend; That is not the measure by which intelligent people determine if a war was won or lost. There will always be people who are disproportionately effected. Whether or not we have met our stated goals is the true measure of success. By the way how was life under Saddam for your friend? Or is he a Sunni?
BakedPenguin | October 28, 2007, 9:42am | #
We went to Iraq because it was the best and possibly the only strategy to defeat the threat of Islamic extremism made obvious on 9/11.We went to war in Iraq because Bush wanted Saddam Hussein. As nasty as Hussein was, he was not connected with al-Qaeda. His ability to strike beyond the borders of his own nation was nearly destroyed. If you want to speak of objective facts, and be taken seriously, you need to acknowledge this.
Most people who oppose the war offer no alternative strategy and are therefore not honest or rational opponents.If the alternative is perpetual war, anything is a better strategy. So long as we are there, we are creating militants across Muslim lands. The messages of hate being preached by imams would not find such fertile ground absent our occupation of Iraq.
There has been a significant change in the overall war in the past several months, not only due to the surge but also due to a significant change in overall strategy. It's not won, but we are clearly winning.We are doing better. Since we are obviously going to be there at least until the end of this presidency, I hope it continues. However, as we can adapt, so can they.
But even "winning" in Iraq has come with a price. We all know the body count, both our soldiers, and Iraqi civilians. We all know the billions of dollars spent. Beyond the math of destruction, there are the intangibles.
We have emboldened every thug on the planet who can now be certain there is no way the US will intervene. With the events at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, we have damaged our ability to discuss human rights on the world stage. In order to have moral authority, you have to first be moral. "We're not as brutal as the terrorists" doesn't count.
kwais | October 28, 2007, 10:05am | #
9/11 was the result of the containment of Iraq.Where I disagree with Joe is that containment was a success, and that continuing that policy was possible.
For me, prior to 9/11 a pull out and let Saddam be was possible, if maybe not a desirable solution.
After 9/11 it was not, it would have signaled military and moral defeat through terrorism, and I believe that many attacks would have followed.
From my conversations with locals all over the Arab world, from Saudi, to Egypt to Iraq, they believe that their local secular tyrants are propped up by the US. They believe that if we fall so will Israel and their anti Islamic oppressors.
wayne | October 28, 2007, 10:14am | #
From my conversations with locals all over the Arab world, from Saudi, to Egypt to Iraq, they believe that their local secular tyrants are propped up by the US. They believe that if we fall so will Israel and their anti Islamic oppressors.How convenient. Since our tyrants are just figureheads, there is really no point in opposing them, so let's just sit on our fat, cowardly asses and shake our fists at the infidels.
kwais | October 28, 2007, 10:16am | #
So Baked Penguin,It depends what you mean by not connected.
Also, I don't think that at this point abandoning Israel would help US with these guys. We are blamed for their losses in the various Arab/Israeli wars. I have talked to many educated Arabs who have told me that the only reason the Arabs lost was because the US put our troops dressed as Israelis into the war.
I am going to vote for Ron Paul, and I hope his method works, and I think we should cease to give Israel and Egypt the Billions.
And I think that will eventually ease hatred of America.
But I don't think pulling troops out of Iraq will do us any good. I think winning there will do us ample good, it will do the region well, and the world in general.
And I think we can win.
Winning in Iraq would for me consist of a free market, a free press, and free elections. (no matter who wins that election the first two or three times).
kwais | October 28, 2007, 10:20am | #
""How convenient. Since our tyrants are just figureheads, there is really no point in opposing them, so let's just sit on our fat, cowardly asses and shake our fists at the infidels.""Well in fighting their figure heads they are going against ruthless tyrants that don't have to answer to an opposition party or the free press.
So going after us, the big cheese, is easier.
Also, unless westerners are killed, no one hears about it for the most part.
wayne | October 28, 2007, 10:33am | #
"I have talked to many educated Arabs who have told me that the only reason the Arabs lost was because the US put our troops dressed as Israelis into the war. "I did not realize the Arab is so profoundly delusional.
BakedPenguin | October 28, 2007, 10:50am | #
tak, Elg.kwais, winning is better than losing, to be sure. But if we have to stay there for 4, 5, 6 more years to "win", then I would definitely disagree with you. At some point, the blowback from our continued occupation will outweigh any gains made, even if a liberal Iraq can be established.
I understand the argument that if that liberal Iraq can be established, it can be used as evidence to the Muslim world that we don't want to conquer them (as well as being profoundly better model of governance for the rest of the region). The further we go along without that happening, however, the closer that gets to "peace with honor".
Furthermore, to my mind, even the best case scenario does not absolve the Bush administration of lying to the American public to start such a costly war.
kwais | October 28, 2007, 10:52am | #
""I did not realize the Arab is so profoundly delusional.""I think it is the inevitable result of no free press. I have heard of similar and worse coming from China and North Korea.
So really they have a good excuse. I am not sure what the excuse is for the 9/11 truthers, or the people that think FDR was a good president.
kwais | October 28, 2007, 10:58am | #
Baked PenguinI have many disagreements with the Bush administration, including:
- making the war about WMD's
- Asking for the UN's permission
Also;
- Not being more open to the public
- Being loyal to incompetent bureaucrats
kwais | October 28, 2007, 11:11am | #
Baked Penguin,Also the 5 to 6 years thing is a hard one.
5 to 6 years of the same old back and forth like Israel with the Palestinians, yes I agree.
And if that is how it is going we should fire the multi billion dollar Army and DoS.
5 to 6 years where peace and prosperity are continuously increasing, I don't know. 5 to 6 years against the next 50 of bloodshed and war?
Either way, realistically we only have until the election of '08 at most. By then it would seem that things have to be dramatically improving (unless Hillary is lying and she is twice the hawk that Bush is, which is also possible). (I really don't know how the military would work under her.)
Ken Shultz | October 28, 2007, 11:30am | #
"I looked and I couldn’t find any recent Reason articles that support the war;..."Yeah, well, by my count, at the very least, Freund, Michael Young, Bailey and Cathy Young all supported the Iraq War, quite clearly, actually.
Freund, as I recall, was a Reverse Domino Theory enthusiast, Michael Young and Bailey both affirmed their support when asked point blank and Cathy Young wrote things like:
"It is certainly true that the war in Iraq has been mishandled; it may have been misguided in the first place. It is, regrettably, true that the cavalier attitude toward prisoner abuse has undermined our moral authority in the war on terror. But acknowledging our mistakes and misdeeds should not undercut moral clarity when it comes to terrorism. The jihadists are driven primarily by hatred of Western civilization and its freedom; their primary targets are innocent civilians; and they cannot be defeated except by force."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32032.html
There were other Reason staff writers, as I recall, who weren't entirely against the invasion even if they weren't wildly enthusiastic about it either.
"...certainly none with the courage and clarity a magazine purporting to be dedicated to freedom should wield. They seem to have surrendered their reason to the emotion of fear."
It doesn't take courage and clarity to print something you don't believe. ...and freedom, by definition, means different things to different people. Gillespie doesn't have a monopoly on defining what it means to everyone and neither do you.
You don't have to agree with them, but if you can't see how someone who loves freedom might oppose using armed force to impose our will on other people, then you need to clean out your thinking cap and start over...
I might oppose the war, but that doesn't mean I can't understand what the opposition is talking about. ...disagreeing with me on any given issue certainly doesn't make people without "courage" or "clarity" and it certainly doesn't mean they aren't committed to freedom.
So, anyway, back to what I was talking about...
"The magazine Reason seems to have abandoned logic and reason on the subject of the Iraq war, apparently because its editors think America can only be attacked by a large foreign army crossing our borders."
That's a bunch of hooey. The magazine didn't abandon logic and reason on the subject of Iraq--it didn't even speak with one voice on the subject. ...and its editors don't think America can only be attacked by a large foreign army crossing our borders. You're just plain wrong about that.
LT Jason Nichols | October 28, 2007, 11:35am | #
Baked Penguin,That’s just silly speculation with no proof. Even if it were true, that wouldn’t explain all the other leaders, civilian and military, who thought (correctly) we should invade Iraq. We went into Iraq because bringing democracy to the Middle East is the only workable strategy to defeating the Islamic extremist threat, and Iraq was the best means to start.
We went to war in Iraq because Bush wanted Saddam Hussein.
That isn’t an alternative I offered. And I notice you didn’t offer any at all. The lesson of 9/11 was that there was a serious threat we couldn’t ignore, we didn’t create it by invading Iraq. Yes, fighting the extremists will make them angry. Fighting extremists usually does.
If the alternative is perpetual war, anything is a better strategy.
…and that would matter, if freedom were a numbers game. But it’s not, and it is a price we should all willingly pay.
But even "winning" in Iraq has come with a price.
Quoi? How does actively fighting thugs like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq send the message we can’t intervene? Just the opposite. True, we can’t attack another country now, but because of Iraq we don’t need to, and hopefully won't in the future. We didn't stop the Normandy invasion because it would prevent an invasion through Belgium.
We have emboldened every thug on the planet who can now be certain there is no way the US will intervene.
kwais | October 28, 2007, 11:46am | #
Why thank you VM (assuming the K is me).Does that mean that the taint is safe?
JB | October 28, 2007, 11:49am | #
That was an interesting article. I found this little bit of “reasoning” enlightening."Anti-warriors are sometimes accused of wanting the U.S. to lose in Iraq, just so they can be right. Not so."
Wow. I guess that's settled. How about something to back that up? I guess that "Not so" is a valid rebuttal to why OBL's videos read like a Democratic talking points memo and that at every juncture the Left puts up roadblocks to America coming out on top in this struggle.
LT Jason Nichols | October 28, 2007, 11:54am | #
JB - good point.Ken,
Gosh, how could I have missed such an ardent defender of our efforts.
"It is certainly true that the war in Iraq has been mishandled; it may have been misguided in the first place.
Michael Young is clearly an opponent of our mission in Iraq. I didn’t read the other three, but if what you say is true then there are 3 writers who don’t ‘strongly condemn’ our mission. That hardly makes this magazine neutral. At the very least I can safely say it is overwhelmingly dominated by war opponents, none of which are able to support their