It's time to admit that our original goals in Iraq will not be achieved...
Francis Fukuyama has left the building. And now Bill Buckley has burned the building down. The house that Bush built - the "liberation" and "rebuilding" of Iraq into a stable, secular, pro-American, Western-style democracy - has been reduced to little more than charred embers. Whatever it was we were trying to accomplish in Iraq has failed.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Bliffle
Me: "Gratitude can't be "asked for" nor "expected". Gratitude is *given* or *received* freely. What and arrogant attitude from you."
Yes, it is arrogant. Did anyone doubt that the mainspring for the neocon invasion of Iraq was anything other than arrogance? Helping the Iraqis was always a laughable pretense.
27 - vang
if the american leave now. then its just going to be like the vietnam war. how they left the hmong there in laos to be genocide or exerminated by the vietnamese or LPDR (something like that) so that theyll (hmong) be no more. and thats what we got for being allied to our fellow american. they didnt say ok! were pulling out and were taking you guys (hmong) with us. the hmong have to go escape on theyre own crossing mekong river on their own to get to thailand. and when they got there in thailand, women get rape and men get beat up...... well im glad my mom escape safely crossing the mekong river with my oldest bro on her back. and im glad i was born here. anywase if the american pulled out now... hopefully they dont regret it!
28 - vang
and one more thing. that war was about oil. my cousin which he was in the marine base in camp pendleton and went to iraq for six month. says that, that war was base on oil. and a lot of his friends there do not even want to be there fighting for something that we got already. cmon now look doesnt bush own some of them oil company here in america. i know he want more. and oil is worth more than diamonds. thats why them terroist be burning up they oil plant. and whos getting mad for that. americans are. did we not see them in the news....? after bush became president, didnt gas price went up?
bush is like my younger bro. which he has dollar signs in his eyes, thats how bush is. money money money.
29 - Dave Nalle
Actually, Vang, Bush does not own US oil companies. And if we wanted oil all we had to do was to be nice to Saddam and he would have given us all we wanted. The idea that this war was about oil is about as ridiculous as can be.
Dave
30 - vang
***I really think that you morons need to start ready some media sources outside the US. One doesn't have to travel far to get the truth, Mexico and Canada have a more independent media than our corporate controlled administration produced speakerboxx. Would you fight invaders of your country...I think you would? We have created more terrorists? Where are you idiots from? Maybe you should think for yourselves instead of just spouting off the ideas of conservative cocksuckers like Rush Limbaugh. Everything you were taught all your lives concerning our history, our culture, and our faith has all been a lie by the time your feeble minds are able to process this it will already be way to late.
hey you are rite!!! i took world history in college and my professor says the same thing too. wow. and people needs to learn about other peoples history NOT u.s. history. and you know what i dont see any white people in that class.............
31 - anonymous coward
The goal was oil, don't be so naive.
32 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Thanks, Dave. The American and European media can afford to ignore threats that aren't against them.
Ok RJ, The one fundamental assertion I disagree with in your article.
"What it was about, instead, was taking the public's post-9/11 rage, massaging it a bit, and then channeling it into support for the invasion and occupation of a weak, isolated anti-American regime in the heart of the Middle East. It was an idealistic Wilsonian attempt to re-make the entire world as safe for liberal democracy, while destroying Islamic terrorism in the process."
John Dolfus tried to sell us the same line of BS in 2003 when he visited here and spoke at the Israel Center at a Root & Branch presentation. Nobody here bought it then, and the same bad shmatteh won't sell now even at discount prices.
I didn't understand myself why the Bush administration went after Saddam Hussein, even though at first I thought it a great idea. Finally, now I do. Saddam Hussein was selling oil in euros. He was providing a "dugmá" - an
example - for the other oil producers to think about.
His overthrow was a message to the neighboring regimes - one which has backfired in Iran.
All that other stuff? Well, if the Americans can accomplish some "improvements" in "Iraq" it will be wonderful. But I suspect that events there have taken on a life of their own that George Bush and handlers did not anticipate at all.
33 - Charles Jillian
Oh I think the federal government accomplished exactly what they set out to do: to put Iraq into such a state of disarray that rather than worrying about the plundering of precious resources by American corporations, the everyday Iraqi must worry about clean water, about dying from diarrhea, and about a fabricated civil war.
This was the plan. And anyone who actually claims that we were their in search of weapons of mass destruction has lost their reason.
34 - Me2
hawaiian_son: Well, kama'aina (or are you a native haole?), the one option that could possibly have avoided most of the mess was the tribal one.
The democracy that ias introduced in Iraq (and worked remarkably well given the circumstance, as I always told people who doubted it) was Western in essence. That is not to go into the issue of values, as in Singaporean-style vs. North american-style governing, but a technical distinction: Western democracy is top-down; even though all the power by the people rhethorics, democracy as we know it is an institution that in our time is set up above the electorate. It is such for historical reasons, it developed that way. There is no comparable thing in the Arab world. What is there, however, is a populations structure (outside the metrolopes, and even there to some extent) that is based on clans, extended families. Clan heads, when deciding on some issue where Ba'ath was not nosing itself into, gathered opinions of clan members, then convened, discussed and decided. Not democratic, as there was no universal suffrage or formal ballots an all the bells and whistles, but proto-democratic enough that something could have been made out of it. The approach would obviously have been bottom-up, not staring with an interim government, but with city councils or such, and Neocon democracy-building doctrine does not seem to deal with this approach.
The advantage would have been threefold:
- Idle hands are the devil's best friends - by having locals decide upon a council staffed by locals they trust and dealing exclusively with local issues such as basic services, there would have sprung into existence a rather effective way of getting things in working shape again. Additionally, there would have been an outlet for grievances pertaining to the conduct of Coalition forces that would have been trusted more by the people at stake than Coalition.appointed governors (who were busy riding the gravy train anyway, as they had not much face to lose). Getting locally elected councils to prioritize reconstruction and assign a workforce would have millions of Iraqis doing something in a productive way, instead of just sitting around in their living rooms unemployed with no air conditioning during one of these midsummer brownouts, until their brains have been fried into thinking grabbing a gun or a bomb belt and killing people is a cool idea. Funding and supporting local reconstruction efforts and a generally sympathetic attitude towards attempts to set up local councils of representatives or contact persons was what won the Allies the hearts and minds of the Germans and Japanese back in 45.
- An Iraqi democracy built from the ground up would have been more acceptable to the Iraqis, by giving them a say in how exactly their democracy would look like. The current solution, while technically workable, still seems "transplanted".
- The great goal of the "model democracy" could actually have been achieved. There is no Near/Middle East country dominated by Muslims that can be called a democracy, excepting Lebanon, and Lebanon is not a model for anything as its ethnoreligious makeup is unparalleled. By giving Iraqis an opportunity to build their democracy, Iraqi-style, as they were eager to do until late summer of 2003 when things noticeably started to sour, there could have been a real precedent, a kind of democracy that would be acceptable and "native" to the Arab world. The Muslim world with its shuras, jirgas and tea-house discussions does have a mind-set that would in theory lend itself to the development of a genuinely novel form of democratic system, one that could even, by bringing up new approaches, breathe some much-needed life again the western democracies that seem to become a bit stale these days. Pro-democracy slogans were one of the most common form of political statements during the Summer 2003 protests in Iraq. Iraqis are quite well-educated and in general probably were, at that time, the most "Western" Middle Eastern people, as for example shown in a rather cosmopolitan attitude, a strong secular tradition and a very liberal view on womens' rights. Especially the latter two have taken a very drastic turn for the worse.
Ruvy and Dave: Don't mean no disrespect, but I have yet to see any reliable piece of evidence, let alone something even remotely like proof suggesting viable WMDs were exported from Iraq in 2003. They did not even have Scuds anymore (the supposed "Scud attack" did neither cause enough damage, nor was the English stencilling on the debris indicative of anything other than a Patriot or Tomahawk gone astray). Is it so hard to accept that you've been duped? (If you don't, odds are it will happen to you over and over again)
"Guess who thy're aimed at?" may be understandable if you are in Jerusalem (if one were in Tel Aviv, more so) - paranoia may be the difference between an ugly death and survival in these parts - but it is, from a purely factual basis, rather ludicrous: even if there had been WMDs that still were viable, they would have come in the form of unweaponized stocks and it is hard to see what technology Syria would employ to "point" them at somebody.
As another side note, the border issue and Far'Falastin suggest that much of the acrimonious rhetoric between Syria and the US is just that. Sure, Washington would love to see Assad gone, but they also do see the advantages to have a predictable regime in Damascus, even if that regime sucks. And assumed Lebanon boils over once again, who would intervene? Israel? Hardly, and if at all, only to secure the borderlands. The USA? Not if they can by any means avoid it. Letting Syria handle the dirty work would be an excellent means to achieve that. Both the Damascus and Washington governments depend more on each other's good will that the public perception suggests. Syria could, for example, actively promote the transit of jihad volunteers to Iraq. They don't; they turn a blind eye every time Condi has a bad hair day, but usually, they fear too much that these suckers will eventually come back armed and trained. If your claim to ruling Syria hinges on a tacit agreement between the Alawite (your guys) and the Sunni (the majority) Muslims, it is a bad idea to actively support the paramilitary/terrorist training of disgruntled Sunnis in an entrenched guerilla conflict (never forget that Syria is still pretty much secular, as these countries go. Zarqawi and his goons like Assad just about as much as OBL liked Saddam: sometimes, their goals may overlap, but generally they'd love to see the other guy dead).
35 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Charles writes,
"And anyone who actually claims that we were there in search of weapons of mass destruction has lost their reason."
Ths is not an issue of locking someone in a rubber room. The gov't knew the weapons had been moved. The weapons were a plausible excuse that sounded lots better than saying "the Iraqis are doing us out of money by selling oil in euros and giving the locals dangerous ideas." That never would have flown. So they stalled and stalled. It was John Dollfus' opinion (what he called "think tank stuff")in 2003 that the government would use the WMD's as an 'October surprise' in the 2004 elections after overthrowing Bashir Assad. He was wrong about that.
That's one of the hazards of making predictions.
36 - Bliffle
Dave: "Ruvy, glad to see you bringing up the relocation of the Iraqi WMDs."
Those dastardly Iraqis hid the WMD in the Bay Of Tonkin. Along with powerful Iraq navy, no doubt.
37 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Bliffle,
Like I told Dave - you can afford to ignore a gun that isn't pointed at your head.
38 - OliveOil
If it wasn't about oil then why did we switch the Iraqis back to Petrodollars from Euros mere days after the invasion?
We don't care about the oil, it's fungible, we do care though if they don't follow the OPEC deal from the '70s and sell their oil for dollars. Those dollars for oil are the only thing keeping our teetering economy alive.
39 - hounddog
Now that I have read the original, and all the not so intelligent comments, here is once more my assertion:
President Mr. Bush should have given the shiites good weapons, and the iraqui problem would have exterminated it's self, the iranian problem would have solved it's self and the syrians would have not received the iraqi's weapons and iran and iraque would be the enemies of the rest of islam, which would hunt for all their terrorists themselves. America and Europe could help the rest of the moslems, that are left, it would be cheaper and fewer to feed in the end, and there would be food and money for the poor africans, that are starving.
The bottom line, let people muck in their own muck without interference, they'll only hate you for any help. This includes my country "Switzerland", which is always striving for a halo, instead of putting help money to help our own swiss.
As far as Israel is concerned, let the palestinians have the whole desert, with their mentality, they'll run it down completely.
Give the Israelis a homeland in Siberia, Canada or the USA, and those countries will have an addition to intelligence and very good fighters and excellent military and civil intelligence (something for the USA), so no country will dare to attack that lucky country.
PS: I'm a christian by birth, but don't believe in my religion, but even less in any other. Religion is for people, that can't think on their own or are to lazy to do so. Even the new religion football (soccer), doesn't agree with my way of thinking.
Wow, have I been ranting again, but so have 38 before me.
40 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Me2
I'd have to dig through my e-mails to find the ones dealing with the transport of weapons from Iraq to Syria in 2003. I'd have to check for sources and details. I know I kept hearing the same story over and over. That the weapons were stored in the "Bekaa" Valley - Bekaa means valley - guarded by Syrians.
Was Debka lying? Was Dolfus duped? If they were, the mattter is academic - there are still 10,000 missiles armed and ready to fire at us in south Lebanon. I'm just glad I don't live in Haifa, Ranaana, K'far Sava or Tel Aviv and its suburbs.
41 - Olifante
Sorry, but sorry is not enough.
42 - RogerMDillon
Your sorry isn't good enough because it accomplishes nothing other than maybe alleviating your guilt from all those dead and injured in this failed experiment. Having the best of intentions isn't a free pass to ignore facts and history. I hope this calls into question all your beliefs and hopefully your errors won't cause so much damage to others next time.
By the way, those on the extreme left aren't always wrong. They were right about not going into Iraq, unlike you.
Also, you get a number of post-invasion items wrong as well. While the citizens were happy, that Saddam was gone, you're deluded to think they were ever in love with Bush, not counting those who posed for cameras. Looting started immediately. Everyone in Abu Ghraib wasn't a terrorist. By the way, you don't get to complain about the results of an election just because people don't vote the way you want.
"If you ask the average Iraqi on the street who is to blame for it all, they are likely to say: America."
America is to blame. The country was in the midst of civil war until Saddam took over. We removed him and now it's reverting back. It looks like Dean was right when he said things weren't better off without Saddam.
43 - George Psalmanazar
It's obvious that the 'dead enders' will cling to their fraudulent pretexts: Saddam's DubyaMD stockpiles, a 'nook-yeller' programme, mobile bilabs, al Qaeda collaboration, etc.
Nevertheless, the official conclusions pertain: WMDs destroyed prior to 1994, no nuclear programme, no mobile biolabs, no al Qaeda collaboration.
The bloody chaos those with a bit of foresight predicted is upon us. With 80% of Iraqis polled recognizing the Bush scheme, imposing a permanent US military presence upon them, it is essential that the scheme be unambiguously renounced.
End the nationalistic resistance to US occupation and allow indigenous factions to unite against the jihadist interlopers to whatever extent that is still practicable.
As Army General William Odom, former director of the NSA and head of the conservative Hudson Institute had observed last September, “The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.”
Begin laying a groundwork for recovery now.
44 - troll
the often repeated claim in #29 is obtuse - be nice to Saddam and he would have given us all the oil we wanted
we didn't invade for oil - we invaded for profit
Iraq's oil fields were nationalized and under producing under Saddam's government...US favored companies are now in a position to develop them and make a buck
all the rest is just feel good crapola
troll
45 - lumpy
US companies? what US oil companies would those be? all of the major oil companies are multinationals based outside the US.
46 - Rob
With respect, this is a load of post-failure bollocks.
1. Why is it that the Americans are always the last to see a huge pile of shît descending?
2. It is obvious you rely on the (rubbish) mainsteam media for your information.
3. Your writing screams of "oh crap ... well, too bad, what mistakes can we make next?".
Bush is a lunatic.
There. I said it. Despite your "no personal attacks" rule, you seem in need of a clue if you supported Bush in any sense so there you have it: he's a lunatic. And if you support him, so are you.
PS. Don't just say sorry, DO SOMETHING.
47 - troll
#45 - 1st read more carefully
2nd - it is interesting that US troops are killing and dying for the international corporate world order
troll
48 - Vikas Chowdhry
"What to do from here? I don't know. All I know is this: It Didn't Work.
Sorry..."
Sorry! Now that is something that we will never get to hear from Mr. Bush. The first step towards rectifying a mistake is owning that you made one. "Incurious George" is however unable to see that.
A lot of people forget that before 9/11 helped rescue Mr. Bush's administration and took him personally to soaring approval ratings, his administration was essentially a bumbling and fumbling operation that managed to loose Jim Jeffords (and with it the Republican majority in the senate)and was a fodder for late night comedians.
Then 9/11 happened and the nation united behind Mr. Bush and for a while that helped this administration navigate the waters. However, that aura is gone, the gloves are off and people are again starting to see this administration's incompetence. Scarcely a week passes by in which the news cycle is not dominated by YABAB (Yet Another Bush Admin Blunder).
Yearn! Bill Clinton !Yearn
49 - Dave Nalle
Why 'sorry'? We tried like hell to do the right thing, and the Iraqis were too caught up in their own issues to take advantage of the opportunity we offered them. We should be sorry that things worked out that way, but there's no reason to apologize.
Plus, as I've said before, the story is far from over. When it turns out that this 'civil war' is the violent and desperate last gasp of the Sadrists things may look a lot different.
Dave
50 - MCH
This apology and admittance of a failed invasion/occupation by the poster does not surprise me. [Intolerable cliche deleted]
51 - Dave Nalle
[deleted]
Dave
52 - RogerMDillon
"We tried like hell to do the right thing"
That's crap. The administration made a number of mistakes and bad decisions while never letting the facts get in the way of their decisions. The administration constantly illustrates that their arrogance is matched by their ineptitude.
CE, please just delete and save the fuckin' commentary. We all understand you have a job to do, but I'm pretty sure adding your two cents isn't part of the deal.
53 - Christopher Rose
Er, if you mean me, actually, that's what is currently being used for certain cliches that we've collectively decided to give a rest for a while. Personal opinion it ain't. Nor a job actually.
And unless you mean the technicality of invading someone else's sacred comment space, my two cents have just the same value as anybody else's, apart from their polish and wit of course!
54 - Dave Nalle
Of course, my comment which he deleted wasn't even a personal attack, but we're very liberal with our definitions these days. Censorship being one of the few things where being liberal is not a good thing.
"We tried like hell to do the right thing"
That's crap. The administration made a number of mistakes and bad decisions while never letting the facts get in the way of their decisions. The administration constantly illustrates that their arrogance is matched by their ineptitude.
I didn't say the administration did the right thing WELL, just that their intentions were positive.
Dave
55 - nh
this piece really impressed me, it is the best thing ive read on iraq for quite a while. It could almost be about vietnam...
56 - Aus trade
This piece is scary in its inability to look at why Iraq was obviously wrong from Day 1.
The WMD never materialised because - they were clearly debunked by the science world. A number of very good articles were printed in the the scientific and popular scientific press pointing out that the only people threatened by IRAQs WMD were the iraqis and there bordering neighbours. All the rest of the myth was and is an impossibility. You can make all the WMDs u can get.. Delivering it on a scale to make it worth while and any appreciable distance was well beyond Iraqs capabilities. (Even assuming there wasnt rapid and precise retailiation)
Secondly - Having the best intentions is the worst possible excuse. As my father said - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even hitler has good intentions. How about some simple ethics and morality. Things like truth are important if you want to make a difference. Neocons look so much worse now BECAUSE they lied and cheated to get to their good intentions.
Also Its palpably clear the best intentions were not there... only dreams and hope - because any intelligence or knoweldge that might have helped made this a success was ignored. It didnt fall soon after. It fell apart when the decision was made to ignore facts for faith based action. The middle east is culturally very different from the west and is very polarised. Most Westerners have no idea of how different things are. Esp. a president who had never left the USA. Nonetheless just as good intentions are no excuse. Neither is ignorance that could have been easily rectifed.
And now ... when what was obvious to most of the world before hand happens in Iraq... you try to look reasonable and say ... hey we meant the best. A unlicensed driver ploughing into a crowd of people is not allowed to please ignorance and good intentions. It DIDNT WORK. ITS the fault of people like you for being ignorant and not listening to the facts.
Now is the time to understand what has been done and ensure that in future actions are made that will atone for the incredible eneptitude that has gone before....
57 - g.c.
"There was also the PR nightmare of Abu Ghraib. I, personally, am still unable to get too worked-up over what basically amounted to a harsh fraternity hazing for terrorists."
In case you missed the 50,000 times this has been stated in the newspapers: THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN DETAINED IN IRAQ ARE 100% INNOCENT of any crimnes, arrested at traffic stops or for other mundane reasons just to question them. And once they are arrested, they are presumed guilty. If they were'nt terrorists, before your freindly "hazing", you can bet that they are afterwards.
58 - RogerMDillon
Give him about a year, g.c. RJ is just now figuring out that the war was a bad idea. He's a little slow.
59 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
Jesus, what the fuck is wrong with all you lock-step liberal damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't, jump-down-the-nearest-available-throat commentators? I thought conservatives were supposed to be the mean-spirited, intolerant ones--where'd I get that idea? Oh yeah--from your own hypocrital, sanctimonious lips. Give it a rest.
60 - Christopher Rose
Gordon, great passion mate but please don't force me to scrape the rust off my "hmm_was_that_a_personal_attack-dar?" Thanks.
61 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Troll writes:
"...it is interesting that US troops are killing and dying for the international corporate world order"
You're 100% right, of course. But where's the news here? Reporting that a man bites a dog is interesting. American troops dying for the international (read giant American firms gone international or multinational) corporate world order has been going on for over a century.
Which dog did you say Bush bit? That's news!
62 - Bliffle
I don't buy the argument that "maybe it's wrong that we're there but we can't pull out now".
By that logic we have an indefinite stay. The worst mistake that a strategist can make: putting the initiative in your enemies hands. But Rumsfeld and cronies talk about "the long war", which might last decades!
We pursued that strategy in Vietnam and it worsened the outcome, as well as wasting several more years than necessary and costing many lives. By contrast, Eisenhower got out of Korea expeditiously. Please note that in the first case decisions were made by amateur civilian warriors and in the second by a seasoned military strategist.
63 - Myster
Virtually none of the Iraqis imprisoned at Abu Ghraib were "terroristst. But go ahead and tell the parents of those who were killed or raped there that it was all a harsh fraternity prank.
Yes, we're talking about civil war in Iraq, but the fun doesn't stop there.
The true monetary cost of the war has been estimated at 1 trillion dollars. In the years to come, as the political and economic consequences take hold and you see this country transformed into something you will not recognize, "it didn't work" will hardly seem like a sufficient response to the outrage of this unnecessary and ill-conceived war.
Your children will be paying the price for your foolishness for years to come.
64 - hawaiian_son
Me2: local boy here cuz! Born and bred!
Maybe we shouldn't be quick to pick on the man in the big white house. For all we know, he could be controled by other forces (like the CIA), as Johnson was in the 60's. Or maybe he's been given all the wrong scoops as to what's really going on in the world, which causes him to make such decisions on where to send our troops.
Whatever the reason was for actually invading Iraq, Bush has to now decide on how he's going to leave in a fashion that would save face for the U.S., and not let it end as it did for us in Nam.
Isn't it great how we as US citizens, can enjoy the freedom of voicing out against our government without fear of retribution (to a certain extent)?
65 - MCH
"Bush, and his supporters (myself included), had the best of intentions. WE were going to topple a cruel dictator and bring democracy and freedom to a land and a people that had been brutalized and oppressed for decades. WE were going to help the Iraqi people, by golly, and all WE asked for in terms of repayment was their gratitude. And for a week or two after the fall of Baghdad, WE got that gratitude."
Since the "WE" expressed above refers to the actions and sacrifices of others, wouldn't that also be cliche?
66 - Nancy
What's this "we" business, RJ? 49% of Americans tried to vote against it. There is no "we": it's "you", i.e. Bush & the neocons, along with the GOP who mindlessly supported him, and the congress - Republicans & Democrats - who spinelessly handed over authority to do whatever he wanted, thereby ducking their own responsibility & accountability.
Having said that, it was a really, Really excellent article, well written, honest, and very well done.
I think BushCo & Dubya also realize it's Over & they Lost, or he wouldn't be going around now bleating about alternative fuel sources, and weaning ourselves off of foreign fuels; he's getting ready to cut & run, at least economically. I suspect he intends to leave our military to take the fall for his failures, in which case he doubly deserves to be tried for treason; it's just a pity he can't be tried for incompetence, stupidity, and arrogance as well.
As noted above, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, altho I doubt Dubya ever had good intentions towards anything but the aggrandizement of his own fellow billionaires. He never does.
67 - Tyler
This was a war that took the taliban out of control of Afgahnistan and made Afgahnistan a democracy. This war also dismantled al quada as they are on the run and are getting little funding to pull off another big attack on the U.S. Also removing saddam and ridding the wmd threat from him is worth the money that we will be paying back for years to come.
68 - Nancy
The Taliban are making a big comeback in Afghanistan, in case you missed recent news, Tyler. So much for 'democracy' in these benighted places. They aren't ready for democracy, and frankly, if I were they, I wouldn't want the current US brand of pseudo-democracy (actually plutocratic oligarchy) either. They were going along fat & happy with what they had, which was no worse than what they'd ever had. IMO the cost in US lives as well as dollars is way, way too much, considering how little its appreciated.
69 - SFC SKI
I am on my second tour in Iraq, and I disagree with your assessment. Unfortunately for most of you, you only know what you read in the papers, which no longer inform, but editorialize.
Iraq is actually shaping up along realistic expectations, but most people are not patient enough to see them to fruition. The New Iraq is about like a year old child; just because it can pull itself up and walk a few steps alone does not mean it's ready to walk unassisted.
Pulling out at this time would be the worst mistake we could make, and we will have to come back here to intervene again in the near future if we leave today.
70 - tommyd
SFC SKI says "Iraq is shaping up along realistic expectations".
Sure, realistically a Police State, maybe not too different from what they had before the US invaded.
71 - SFC SKI
it may be a few days before I can read your explanation behind your last comment, but Iraq today could not be compared to its past as a police state, neither the government nor the police have that kind of control yet.
72 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
Sorry, Christopher--it was the meds verbally abusing.
73 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
although the meds never lie--so I take nothing back.
74 - td
SFC SKI,
The argument is that regardless of the state the country is in when the US departs, once the US is gone the government will breakdown.
Stay another 5-10 years it won't make a difference. Look around the world. Every month another fledgling democracy undergoes revolution. And it will certainly happen in Iraq where there are larger lines of division than many other countries going through internal conflict.
But the fate of Iraq is really beside the point. This war was supposed to fight terror. It was supposed to make us safer. If it has accomplished this, then it is only very marginally so. And this is a big, big if.
When you talk about Iraq not working, you can't just look at how Iraq is developing. You have to look at Iraq for what it was. A strategy to fight terrorism. And you have to balance it's results against the resources the strategy cost.
In short, what is the opportunity cost of Iraq in terms of the war on terror?
Hundred's of billions that could have been spent on:
The CIA, FBI, NSA, Border Security, etc.
And most importantly, on the energy independancy that would allow us to apply economic pressure on the middle east that no current military or politican pressure can come close to.
Iraq didn't work because now we can't afford to spend money on a strategy for fighting terror that would work.
75 - Dave Nalle
Hundred's of billions that could have been spent on:
The CIA, FBI, NSA, Border Security, etc.
Well thank god for Iraq then, because we sure don't need them spending more money on domestic spying and Patriot Act rights erosion.
Dave