Blogcritics: Comments on From a Position of Strength

Comment by mike

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 17:59:23 EDT

I call this financially ruinous: "But for the United States, Iraq was at best a pyrrhic victory. Invading and occupying Iraq has proven to be a financial disaster. The invasion cost $105 billion US in direct expenses - the price of five complete carrier battle groups, or one million low-cost apartments. Occupying Iraq costs $9 billion monthly. Pre-war neo-con plans to finance the occupation by plundering Iraq's oil have been frustrated by sabotage. Congress estimates the overall cost of "pacifying" and "rebuilding" Iraq for fiscal 2003 and 2004 at a staggering $200 billion. This money will have to be borrowed by the empty treasury, which, thanks to Bush's reckless "war" spending, is running huge deficits heading toward $400 billion, risking an explosion of inflation that threatens to undermine the long-term bond market and further weaken the dollar." http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/03/26/397414.html

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 15:44:46 EDT

It is completely unrealistic to look at the increase or decrease of terrorism in the short run: this is a very long war that must be viewed as such. Would there have been "less terror" in the last year if we hadn't invaded Iraq? I don't know, but iraq was NEVER going to go away - it was only going to get worse. When Iraq is a functional democratic nation, it will be a major victory for the war on terror.

Comment by JR

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 15:32:00 EDT

I don't see any drop off in terrorist attacks to indicate that we're making inroads against terrorism. I guess we're supposed to believe that things would be worse if it weren't for Bush and his Iraq adventure. Sorry, not buying it.

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 15:29:49 EDT

Mike, Sorry, thats a lame excuse. When terrorists struck on 9/11, the cost to our economy was over 1 million lost jobs, tens of billions of dollars, and a plunge in the stock market, further enhancing the nation's losses. That was ONE attack on our soil. If we run in Iraq, we'll see no end of such attacks in this country. The money we are spending now in Iraq is a pittance. David

Comment by mike

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 15:25:25 EDT

One main reason we need to get out is that we can't afford it. The war is sapping the country financially. One more such great victory, as the saying goes, and we are ruined.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 15:17:48 EDT

I don't believe anyone has said that all of the terrorists have been drawn to Iraq, but some have.

Comment by JR

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 15:07:10 EDT

That "flypaper" didn't do much good for commuters in Madrid, which last I checked is a couple thousand miles from Iraq.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 15:01:14 EDT

"Flypaper" isn't a philosophy for a course of action, just an explanation of what is happening on the ground and how to best take advantage of it.

Comment by P6

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 14:21:46 EDT

C'mon, guys. You can't still be working the Flypaper Theory, can you? Wasn't that the defense of the day like, two month's ago?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:53:05 EDT

Turning and running would literally be suicidal and equal in infamy our failure to complete the first Gulf War, our failure to support the Kurdish uprising after the Gulf War and our failure to deal with Islamist terrorists prior to 9/11. And David is right: this is EXACTLY the war on terror, and establishing a constitutional democracy in the middle of the Middle East is something that all of our terror foes fear and abhor. That is exactly why they are drawn to Iraq: to do all they can to thwart this effort. Even if you don't recognize that this is the same war, they do.

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:26:01 EDT

Yes, absolutely, we should turn and run. In military history, there is a general finding that more people die when retreating from battle than from the actual battle itself. While probably not true in every case, it is true on a general level. If we cut and run from this fight, we are going to pay dearly later. If we show these terrorists that, as soon as they put enough pressure on us, we crumble, despite the fact that we are militarily superior in every way, then there'll be no place on earth that you can run and hide afterward. If we run now, then we have given terrorism its greatest and clearest victory since 9/11. President Bush knows that, even if it means he won't be reelected in November, there is no running from this battle. Thanks. David

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:19:59 EDT

The invasion of Iraq is a continuation of the war of terror, the mere fact that we have found Iranians and Palestinians sneaking into Iraq to fight US forces and to try and prevent the creation of a democratic government is proof of that. That's so illogical that Karl Rove would be proud of you and I am frankly breathless. To fight terrorists, American resources should have been used where the terrorists were, rather than in invading a country to set Americans up as more accessible targets. And the neocons were warned by many that this ideological invasion, which had nothing to do with terrorists or terrorism, would act as a terrorist magnet. Worse, it is now creating more radical Islamists, faster even than Rumsfeld posited a while back. It's time to stop blindly echoing ideology - stark reality is here and it looks far different than the picture painted last year by Cheney and Wolfowitz and Kristol and ...

Comment by mike

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:17:54 EDT

Yes, absolutely, we should turn and run. Iraq is like one of those Internet start-ups multinationals ventured into during the late 90s. After a while, you realize you made a mistake, cut your losses, and get out.

Comment by JR

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:15:59 EDT

"...only violent men of honor can save us from the violent thugs who beset us." "Men of honor" like mercenaries...er, I mean "contractors"?

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:06:04 EDT

The invasion of Iraq is a continuation of the war of terror, the mere fact that we have found Iranians and Palestinians sneaking into Iraq to fight US forces and to try and prevent the creation of a democratic government is proof of that. The fact is, hard-line fanatics understand the impact that a democratic government will have in undermining their efforts everywhere else. Terrorists know that they have a short window to disrupt this process and, if they don't stop it, everything they do in the future will be less effective. These folks are desperate and, now that their offensive is beginning to crumble, are taking hostages to try and bully the coalition partners into leaving the country. What does that say about these folks? Should we turn and run? Not if you ever want to feel safe again in your life. David

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:52:42 EDT

Troops may indeed have to "be ruthless" but that isn't going to show anyone that Western democracy is something that they, the poor benighted Middle Easterners, should aspire to. I think what "the current struggle in Iraq proves" is that the neoconservatives didn't have a clue as to what they were getting into when they decided to invade Iraq instead of continuing the "war on terror." Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice et al. need to be held accountable for this and other of their actions and inactions. It's a totally incredible Bush adminstration screw-up, with massive consequences for the future. Even kicking Bush out of office isn't going to fix this one. Ever.