Iraq is difficult, unstable, unpredictable and may require our direct presence for another ten years. Does this mean failure? Many say so and rail and scoff about our efforts there daily. But then, if you're honest, something like this puts it all in perspective:
- Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
....The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.
The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population - 6.39 million - and average household size - 6.9 people - to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Past estimates were in the low tens of thousands. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.
The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.
....Richard Burkholder, who headed Gallup's Baghdad team, said the numbers in Baghdad could be high for two reasons: People may have understood "household" to be broader than just the people living at their address; and some families may have moved to the capital from other areas since the executions occurred.
"Anecdotal accounts start to support it, but they don't get you to 60,000," he said in a telephone interview from Princeton, N.J.
Even reducing the numbers slightly because of those possibilities, however, Burkholder said the number of executions the data suggest is higher than previously estimated, in the low tens of thousands.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jonathan
Whether or not Iraq was a mistake is now a moot point. Now that we ( I mean you, I'm Canadian.. but..ya know..) are in there it our duty to help these people as best we can and help get Baghdad back on it's feet.
Although this whole thing may have been motivated by selfish goals, some good can still come out of it..
2 - Eric Olsen
Thanks Jonathan, I agree with the course of action although I doubt the original motivation less than you do.
3 - Dan
I think it was, and is, a noble effort. What pains me is the sacrifice of our young peoples lives seems to go under appreciated. Sometimes unappreciated. I wonder sometimes if the Iraqi people deserve a better government.
4 - Eric Olsen
I understand and share your concerns, we cannot become jaded to death. I don't know what Iraq "deserves" but I think it deserves a chance and that's what we are giving it. Ultimately when we do the right thing, we do so for our own benefit as a people - we are always better for having done right, and of course no good deed goes unpunished. That part seems to be holding, sadly.
5 - Jonathan
I won't lie, I actually protested against the war.
But now if for some reason everyone decided to pull out of Iraq, It'd be a much greater tragedy.
Of course the Iraqi people deserve a better government.. They are just like you and I.
6 - Eric Olsen
So did my daughter, but she has changed her mind as it sounds like you have, at least to a certain extent. Your last statement is very wise - people are people.
7 - Hal Pawluk
I doubt that you'll find anyone who disagrees with your characterization of the Saddam regime as vile, but the invasion of Iraq was still a mistake. Pulling out now would be a bigger mistake, but that doesn't make the initial invasion correct.
Had the US wanted to go to war against vile and sadistic regimes, there were probably several other choices that could have been considered, particularly in Africa, any of which might have been a better choice based on the criteria of vileness.
But the invasion was sold as part of the war on terror, and as such it is a failure. Invading Iraq was an abandonment of the war on terror where the
terrorists were.
Afghanistan, for instance, after an initial good start, was left as a fertile field where terrorists have been able to regroup, and are growing richer and
stronger every day. [Big bomb hits Kandahar market]
The invasion of Iraq in fact gave terrorists a prime target in their own neighborhood, and we see what that has meant every day. [Still
at large, bin Laden and Saddam inspire resistance]
And terrorist acts are now spreading to other countries (e.g., Turkey) against America's supporters. [Twelve
held over Turkey bombing]
The bottom line is that the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake, and so far has resulted in increased terrorism and reduced security.
8 - jadester
i would question the validity of such a survey. I'm not saying hussein wasn't evil - clearly lots of bad stuff happened. But such a survey is relying on too many assumptions to be valid (altho i suppose it is about the same as with many "official" surveys such as political polls and so on but anyway)
it's like saying "Iraw did have nukes because some iraqis who hated saddam say so"
it could be true, but at least a little evidence pointing to it would be useful. 60000 bodies are hard to hide, even if they're skeletons, such that they cannot be found
9 - JR
The mistake was in not doing it twelve years ago. If anything we were better prepared then.
10 - Eric Olsen
Hal, it's all interpretation from here: I say iraq is central to the War on Terror, you say it's a distraction from it. I say it's critical to destroy the worst of the regimes in the Middle East and replace it with a modern democracy to show the Islamic/Arab world what they CAN have if they reject Islamofascism (doesn't matter that Iraq was secular, when the crisis came Saddam reverted to Islamo-speak and is still exhorting the jihadis). Iraq was critical, was the right thing to do, IS critical, and must be completed.
11 - Eric Olsen
And absolutely it should have been finished 12 years ago - that is one of our most shameful failings of the last century.
12 - Hal Pawluk
Eric, Iraq being central is because of the invasion, not a reason for the invasion.
And even then it's only central because we can't abandon it. We're still avoiding real terrorists in, say, Saudia Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from.
In Afghanistan, the doubling of forces seeking out terrorists to 2,000 is a step in the right direction, but it pales by comparison to the number of troops in Iraq.
If I were in a kindly mood I'd give Wolfowitz a D on security, although his actions really deserve an F.
The choice was between improving our security versus getting rid of an Evil regime and showing the Middle East The Shining Path of Democracy. Choosing the latter has reduced security around the world as well as at home.
The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake whose consequences we'll have to live with for a long, long time.
13 - Jonathan
It's hardly 'delivering a message' to terrorists.
If you invaded Saudi Arabia, now that would deliver a message.
14 - Al Barger
Granted, most of our specific 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, but toppling that weak regime would not have been that much of a message.
For starters, they're militarily almost nothing, and it would be only too easy to knock that government out. Thus, it would not impress the people we need to impress. Even if the wimp is a dirtbag as well, you need to knock down the biggest bully in the schoolyard to make the point.
Also (as a side point)- although our particular 9/11 bombers came from Saudi Arabia, the Iraq government overall clearly did ten times more killing than anything associated with the House of Saud.
Also, if we took out the Saudi government, what would replace it? It could well be something worse- a real Wahabbi government rather than just amoral appeasers. Whereas it would be highly unlikely that we would ever come up with a worse regime than was in Iraq.
As to Dan wondering whether the Iraqis deserve a better government, I sympathize with the frustration- but what they deserve isn't the point. Whether you think it successful to that end or not, the point of going into Iraq is ultimately our own security.
As to Jonathan's comment #1, yes that IS absolutely a "selfish" goal. Not wanting people to come kill you definitely constitutes selfishness or self-interest- and there's nothing wrong with that. There's a big difference between that and, say, GREED- wanting to mug people and take their stuff. That would be something significantly different.
15 - Jonathan
"Granted, most of our specific 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, but toppling that weak regime would not have been that much of a message.
For starters, they're militarily almost nothing, and it would be only too easy to knock that government out."
People said the exact same thing about Iraq's military strength.
Isn't Saudi Arabia MUCH richer? And I'd say nearly as corrupt a government. I'll have to look into that now, do some research.
16 - JR
Are we missing something here? Mecca and Medina have always been occupied by Arabs. If Americans waltz in and take over Mecca that would have to go down as the most humiliating defeat for any religion ever.
We could probably build a defensive perimeter so no one goes in or out... Hmmm, no more Hajj. Yeah, that would register with the Muslim world. They'd go fuckin' apeshit. But then they'd have to decide whether they want to be allowed to fulfill one of the five "pillars of Islam".
They'd probably get the message.
17 - Hal Pawluk
Al, I hope you weren't responding to me because if you were, you misunderstood my post.
While I mentioned Saudia Arabia, it was simply that if the Bush/Wolfowitz agenda needed a target to avoid getting bogged down in Afghanistan like Russia had been, they could have at least picked a country that had something to do with the terrorist attack on the US.
The point of going into Iraq was not "our own security," and doing so has clearly compromised that security in a significant way.
One reason was to avoid "getting bogged down in Afghanistan", as is plainly documented in Woodward's book "Bush At War."[1] Another was the neoconservative agenda. Taking out Saddam was part of a program put together for the Iraeli hard right, and was then pitched (unsuccessfully) by Netanyahu ot the US Congress back in 1996. [2]. They kept at it.
Control of the oil fields appears to be almost incidental from what I've seen so far.
[1] Relevant excerpts from "Bush At War"
[2] Summary of neo steps to removal of Saddam
18 - Al Barger
Saudi Arabia nearly as corrupt as Iraq? "Corrupt" perhaps, but obviously the Iraqi regime has done far, far more out and out killing than anything associated with the House of Saud- even if you count the actions of al Qaeda against them. Saudi Arabia has nothing to compare to Hussein gassing most of a couple of hundred thousand Kurds- not to count the war with Iran and other wickedness.
And JR- I hadn't thought about it till you mentioned it, but being MECCA and all, a US invasion would likely infuriate Muslims far worse than going into Iraq. Now, we might sometimes have to do stuff to infuriate people, but should probably avoid it whenever reasonably possible.
19 - Sandra Smallson
No. Iraq was not a mistake. They had to get that Tyrant out of there. It is central to the war on terror. It is irrelevant whether direct evidence was shown. The point is, due to that man's dislike for the western world, he allowed his country to be used as a breeding ground for terrorists, he may have sold some of them weapons. That alone is not enough because Syria etc fall into that category but it is the multitude of Saddam's sins that make the invasion of Irag justified.
He was always in negotiation to buy weapons. Let the exiled Iraqis tell you how they were being tortured..with all the mass graves that were found how can anybody call news of his violent regime exaggerated? An unpopular decision ofcourse, but someone had to do it. Who likes War? Not many. So, all these people against had no alternative to offer. We could not go back to the UN. As far as I am concerned, they lost thier clout years ago when they let that man keep flouting thier resolutions. Now, you find that the likes of Iran dare not put themselves in that position. Syria..is slowly panicking. Even North Korea have offered to freeze thier nuclear testing if they are removed off the axis of evil list. Sometimes, taking action is a deterrent of some sort.
The lunatics will always be lunatics so taking action cannot be blamed for thier particular acts of violence. Those sorts of people would have always found reasons to be violent.
What I cannot believe and understand is that, with all the technology in the world, America and Britain cannot find Mr Hussein in Iraq? Do you mean to tell me they cannot find Osama? What on earth is going on here? Men can be sent to space, to the moon..they can tap your computers/phones you name it. Yet..they can not find these people? Are they looking? I am puzzled that with all the technology of the western world and supposed know how..the tracking down of these two men is proving so difficult.
I am not pro-Bush at all but at the same time I have no patience for all these protesters. Especially the idiots that gathered in Trafalgar Sq when the man came to England. They are enjoying the rights that if thier views were followed would not be enjoyed by the people they claim to be protesting on behalf of. How many of them were on the streets when exiled Iraqis were complaining about thier families being slaughtered? I really have no patience at all for the stop the war people..none whatsoever.
20 - Eric Olsen
Sandra, that was absolutely logical, sensible, refreshing, and I am thrilled to hear it coming rom the UK. I can't understand the massed intelligence of the Western world not being able to track down these grease farts either, but that shows you the importance of human intelligence, which we had shamefully neglected prior to 9/11.
I have no idea what Hal is talking about that we are less secure, obviously we are much more secure now in the big picture and we will continue to become more secure as the Islamic world democratizes with Iraq as an example, hence the fundamental importance of finishing the job.
There is no need to invade Saudi Arabia, we have to let it be known that change is required there, that we no longer support a terrorist-appeasing autocratic theocracy, and tht if the Sauds want to continue to have a role they must become a constitutional monarchy with clear separation of church and state, the Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers must be actively rooted out and crushed.
Regime change in Iraq was obviously not a mistake, will never be seen as a mistake by any objective observer, is the part of the "neocon agenda" that has always made sense, and if you think it is only the "Israeli hard right" that wanted Saddam out of power you are hallucinating.
21 - Hal Pawluk
Sandra is simply wrong in her basic premise, stating a conclusion ("They had to get him out of there") as if it were a fact.
And Eric, you're doing the sliders again: nobody said that it was "only" anything that wanted Saddam out.
But the facts do show that it was the Israeli hard right and the American neoconservatives who took the steps that resulted in the US executing and funding the ouster of Saddam through invading Iraq.
It was not in the best interest of the US, and it did not improve our security.
22 - Eric Olsen
As you have said Hal, saying it does not make it so.
23 - JR
"It was not in the best interest of the US, and it did not improve our security."
I have to agree with Hal on this. Ousting Saddam Hussein was great for the Iraqi people and it served justice, but the way it was done has probably done more harm than good for the more narrowly defined interests of the U.S.
Saddam was a menace to his neighbors and his own people, but he was never going to attack the U.S. He just didn't have the reach. And he clearly had more lose by provoking the U.S. into a war. Unlike bin Laden, Saddam wasn't specifically looking for trouble with us; he was thoroughly invested in maintaining the status quo. He could probably be dissuaded from supporting terrorism much as Qadhafi was.
At the same time, exercising military dominance is exactly what breeds terrorism, because that's what the weak turn to when they have no other way to assert their will. Palestinians resort to suicide bombers because they've been totally defeated militarily and politically. U.S. victories may send the message that we are militarily unassailable, but that doesn't make people agree with us. Our enemies are human beings just like us, and human beings aren't submissive creatures - beat them down and they'll just wait for a chance to strike back, no matter how "cowardly" or symbolic the act.
And now with all the stumbling in our postwar efforts, we risk the goodwill of the people we're trying to help. It may eventually turn out that Iraqis believe they got their country back in spite of us, not because of us. America has an unfortunate history of receiving more blame than credit for the good we do; I don't see that changing right now. The war we should be winning is the propoganda war - it would do us a lot more good if we convinced the Arab world that their leaders suck before we start knocking them off.
The war is also hugely expensive, and at a time when we're already facing a budget crunch. What good is a free Iraq to the states that can't balance their budgets? Meanwhile we continue to alienate many of the allies who could help shoulder the burden. And if, for example, we take the Russians to task for not supporting the war, how does that help us when we need to look for alternatives to Middle East oil?
The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. But is the United States of America a better place since it took on this task?
24 - Sandra Smallson
If it wasn't Sadaam, it would be Osama, if it's not Osama it would be Hezbolah..Face it..The USA is a target. So whether anything had been done to Sadaam or not was not going to affect your security either way. The Western world is a target to these lunatics. Leaving Sadaam there, was not going to stop Hezbollah from blowing up western interests. Indeed, Sadaam was in power on 9/11.
Therefore, any discussion as to what the Iraq war has done to U.S security is wrong and worse still, pointless, because it starts on a false premise. You are basically saying that had the War happened, U.S security would have in some way been better. We all know thats total nonsense.
25 - Sandra Smallson
Sorry, I meant to say, "had the war not happened..." in my post above.
It is and was TOTALLY in U.S interests to get rid of Sadaam, it was in the interest of the free world and the only reason Germmany and france did not want it to happen is because they were trading behind doors and a lot of money was owed to them that will not now be paid. These things are no secrets. The U'S is still a targety, as is teh U.K as is Moscow(even with their reluctance to the War)..We are all targets for lunatics and to suggest that, trying to stop them is making us bigger targets is not a very sensible argument to make.