What Iraq Will Cost Us
Hugh Fitzgerald writes over at Jihadwatch, "Medicare and Social Security Benefits To Be Cut? Blame the Failure to Understand Islam." While the ultimate costs for the war are likely to be beyond staggering, and he's right about our approach to Islam and Iraq, I think the problems with Medicare and Social Security, which will run out in the 2030s, can't be stuck on this war. An excerpt from his otherwise excellent piece:
The huge sums that continue to be spent on Muslim countries should also include the two trillion dollars -- Joseph Stiglitz, with a Nobel Prize in Economics, offers a higher estimate -- already spent, or committed to being spent on the war in Iraq. Stiglitz believes that when such expenses as lifetime care for tens of thousands of severely wounded American soldiers are factored in, the true cost for the war in Iraq to American taxpayers will be close to three trillion dollars.And for what result? How has the Camp of Islam (a camp that unites only on -- but that is quite enough -- its hostility to all Infidels, and in the deep belief that Islam has a right spread all over the world, and then to become dominant everywhere, so that Dar al-Harb becomes enrolled in Dar al-Islam) been weakened by our Iraq venture? So far it has not been. And in fact, the Bush Administration, once it realized the justification for the war, the weapons of mass destruction, were not to be found, rapidly changed its goal, and presented it, in terms always vague and confused, as being that of what I have called the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project. In that Project, American intervention, and tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in American aid went to Iraq, a country that has the second largest, or even perhaps the largest, oil reserves of any country in the world, but apparently no one dared suggest it borrow against future earnings. This was done in order to keep Iraqis united (by bribing some to end their insurgency) and prosperous. And that this prosperous and unified Iraq would bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" -- as if "freedom" could be dropped from a plane onto the waiting Cargo Cultists below, who would simply pick up the parachuted packages and enjoy their contents without having to modify their own views, their own Muslim beliefs and what those beliefs mean for the possibility of a real, advanced, Western-style democracy, with guarantees of individual freedoms and legal equality for all.
Part of this strategy was either to ignore the deep-seated violence and aggression that guarantee -- I guarantee it -- that Iraq will descend once again into violence, sectarian and ethnic, no matter how long the Americans continue to hold on, or what sums are poured into that country, or, if the sectarian and ethnic fissures were recognized, to do everything possible to minimize them, to bind up these fissures, rather than to regard them, soberly and coldly, as offering a way to divide and demoralize and thus to weaken, the Camp of Islam and Jihad.
...The messianic sentimentalism of George Bush, who is grateful to "religion" (Christianity saved him from alcoholism and life as a scapegrace), caused him to regard anything to which the word "religion" was affixed with a deep respect. He could not allow himself to believe that Islam was not a "religion" like any of the others. He could not recognize that it was not "extremists" but mainstream Muslims who accepted Islam in toto, its politics and geopolitics. They accepted Islam as a Total Belief-System that attempts to regulate every area of life, and that is based on a central idea: the division of the world between Muslim and Non-Muslim, Believer and Infidel, and the necessity of permanent hostility toward the Infidel by the Believer, and the duty of "struggle" or "jihad" to remove all obstacles, everywhere, to the dominance of Islam.
No wonder those disgusting illmannered iraqis can afford to throw shoes at the slightest excuse. no matter how much money America pumped to those predominantly grasping islamic countries, they (their islamic leaders and their predominatly greedy islamic people)are still not satisfied.
WLIL at May 20, 2009 1:32 AM
Hugh Fitzgerald: Um you do know that Bush is not a Muslim right. The war cost us all this money cause George was and idiot and Cheney had a hard on for oil money. Are you fucking kidding you want to blame Islam for the war in Iraq? We are not (even if you think we might become) a Muslim country so you can't blame Islam for it.
I'm all for killing Al Queda but Saddam was doing that all by his lone some. We have a bunch of dead and wounded US soldiers and a bunch of dead and wounded civvies with no effect as Hugh points out.
vlad at May 20, 2009 6:54 AM
Yep. Collosal waste. If Iraq is ever to be fixed it will be because the various factions there have been physically isolated from each other and it divided into different states.
Cheezburg at May 20, 2009 8:59 AM
The worst legacy of our moronic invasion of Iraq will be the new generation of committed jihadists who have valid reasons to hate the U.S. How much will that eventually cost?
Jay R at May 20, 2009 12:29 PM
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no clue about why Jihadists "hate" us.
They don't NEED us to give them a reason. "Allah said so" is all the reason they need. And they already use it.
Iraq needed to be knocked over. Hussein was an affront to our power. He was allowed to stay in power in 1991 only because the Bush 41 administration was afraid that Iran would make a play for regional hegemony. They were right about that, and Iran has been doing so ever since.
The only mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't take down Iran at the same time.
Until the Jihadi have been completely destroyed or demoralized, we won't be rid of Islamist terrorism.
brian at May 20, 2009 1:10 PM
Of course. Because we all know that brown people can't put aside tribal animus in favor of common cause.
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
brian at May 20, 2009 1:11 PM
How so? He was fighting Iran and Iran fighting him. Now we have the threat of a united cave dweller front.
The war did not make jihadists hate us more but it did increase their numbers.vlad at May 20, 2009 2:21 PM
Of course. Because we all know that brown people can't put aside tribal animus in favor of common cause.
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
We all know THESE people can't do that. They've had six years. Fuck em.
Cheezburg at May 20, 2009 2:24 PM
Whenever somebody mentions "cost", I have to ask, "Where does the money go? What do YOU mean by "cost""?
Note the American schizophrenia regarding Iraq: complaints that Blackwater and other contractors are making a fortune - even as they disregard the personal risk - without asking where the company is based. Where does the money go? No one knows - but they still complain.
Surprise. The money wasn't coming to you, no matter what, nor was it going to be made into infrastructure you can use.
What you are looking at when you see talk about costs, and this is not sololy about Iraq, is really a measure of effort. This effort can be graded with all sorts of assumptions about what the time involved would be "worth" if similar effort were expended elsewhere.
This is not doublespeak, and it should not be confusing. I'm just saying that you need to figure out what a claim about money means before you start repeating numbers as if they were facts.
Start with the hysterical "trillion dollars!" Go worldwide and collect $167 from every person on Earth. I'll wait. Two trillion? Two thousand billion? Get $334. You can't. It's not liquid. It's also not the gray-green stuff in your wallet.
And start recognizing hype. Fiscal responsibility is important, but that can only follow understanding of what cost and value really are.
Radwaste at May 20, 2009 3:20 PM
We all know THESE people can't do that. They've had six years. Fuck em.
Posted by: Cheezburg
Acctually its been closer to 1500 yrs
But your right, fuck 'em
lujlp at May 20, 2009 3:54 PM
I'm all for killing Al Queda but Saddam was doing that all by his lone some.
Saddam promised $10,000 (later upped to $25,000) to the families of suicide bombers who killed Westerners or Israelis. I'm not sure I'm in favor of his way of taking care of al Qaeda.
Conan the Grammarian at May 20, 2009 8:26 PM
> Collosal waste.
You had other plans?
> If Iraq is ever to be fixed it
> will be because the various
> factions there have been physically
> isolated from each other and it
> divided into different states.
What? Says who? Jesus fuck, what is the name of your horrible, reeking shit?
After all these years, my jaw still drops when people present these sweeping, trans-cosmic theories about how primitive cultures are to be so violently excused from modernity.
"various factions"... "physically isolated from each other"
You made that up, right? You unzipped your pants, reached down under the the dangling middle bits, and pulled it out of your ass, right?
Who do you read? Honestly, where did that come from?
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 20, 2009 10:32 PM
Sorry. That was mean. I'm just sayin'...
WHATTTTTT???
Crid at May 21, 2009 12:00 AM
Y'know, actually, it's been years since we've done one of these threads.
> How has the Camp of Islam [...]
> been weakened by our Iraq venture?
In the runnup to war, did anyone put it in those terms, either a supporter or detractor of invasion?
> as if "freedom" could be dropped
> from a plane onto the waiting
> Cargo Cultists
Handsome sarcasm, but let's not pretend we had no interest in what happened to the oil.
> what those beliefs mean for the
> possibility of a real, advanced,
> Western-style democracy, with
> guarantees of individual freedoms
> and legal equality for all.
The United States had just had a graphic demonstration of what happens when cultures without those things –and upon whom we are dependent– confront modernity from a posture of incompetence.
> ...The messianic sentimentalism
> of George Bush [...] caused him
> to regard anything to which the
> word "religion" was affixed with
> a deep respect.
And I'm all, like... Well, apparently not, fella. This guy twists a few insights which make sense into many more that don't. It's not really a surprise that Amy wants to think it's about belief in God, any more than that socialist types think Cheney pressed forward to benefit Halliburton. Bush hatred is apparently going to burn in many hearts for years to come, and not always righteously.
Anybody want:
• Saddam back?
• His sons back?
• The wetlands re-drained?
• (etc.).... Wuddever
After all these years, it's hard to get enthusiastic for this blogfight. History has branched. The United States will perhaps permanently maintain a military presence in some corner of the nation or its fragments.
We'll still get our oil from Canada and South America and greater Africa, just as Europe will continue to get theirs from the Middle East (especially if Ivan chokes the gas lines). Europe will not be grateful.
Having recently passed a big birthday, it's important to resist creeping neurological crankiness about those crazy kids nowadays. But so many Americans seem quite content to have the engines of our wealth gutted by the most incompetent, bloodless technocrats history can devise. Simultaneously, these voters (and other agents) feign sophisticated patience with other means of governance and wealth distribution, as if we should be patient with authoritarianism... Not just showing patience, but expressing abject fealty for systems which we've struggled so hard to escape for the last 200 years.
This is not just fuddy-duddyhood: Civilization is losing its hard-on. Western culture doesn't recognize its own sacrifices and discipline which have made living within it so rewarding: Those efforts are being discontinued, because people prefer to think we just got lucky. It's funner to imagine high school success as a prom queen by birthright of high cheekbones than to be the guy who got scholarship to a good college by studying like a dog.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 21, 2009 3:22 AM
Who do you read? Honestly, where did that come from?
Don't be a douchebag. I'm far from the first to argue that a tri-state solution at separates Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds is the only thing that makes sense.
Iraq and the rest of the world would have better off had we never invaded and Saddam were still in control. He was contained, Iran had someone to worry about other than Israel, a foil to their plans of regional hegemony.
At this point, I really could not care less what happens there. We just need to leave. They've had their chance with our help, now the need to do it on their own, whether that's succeed, or descend into civil war, or whatever.
Cheezburg at May 21, 2009 7:44 AM
Gee, I've heard that same argument posed in this very country. That perhaps we ought to separate the coastal liberal elite states and the middle-America conservative states into separate nations and see who survives.
Hint - the conservatives will have Texas.
If we'd had people with your attitude in charge after WWII, Germany and Japan would have been failed states.
This whole "instant gratification" thing is fucking shit up. Is the new standard the first Iraq war? If you can't finish it up, declare victory, and bug out in 6 weeks, you lose interest?
Get a grip, man. Nation building takes time. Which is why we were so loath to engage in it in the first place. It's also why we didn't take Saddam out in 1991. Nobody wanted the responsibility for turning it into a functioning republic when we were done killing the douchebags in charge.
brian at May 21, 2009 8:56 AM
Yep. GHWB had it right the first time. Don't try to take them over. Used to be conservatives understood foreign policy, now they've gone all stupid about it. Trading the realism of the Kissingers and Bakers for dreamy idealism about fixing the world. It would make me LOL if the implications weren't so awful.
Comparisons to Germany and Japan are inapt; there was no meaningful post-war insurgency in either one, and both were well on their way to being rebuilt by this time after WWII.
The other great empires of the modern world failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There's no reason to think things have changed. As I wrote before, fuck 'em. And if they misbehave, bomb 'em. But fixing it is their problem not ours.
I'll happily take the coastal states & you can have the rest of the country. You can have Alaska, too. We get our country's economic engines, its most productive farmland, its best climates, its best schools, and ya'll get the dregs. Done and done.
Cheezburg at May 21, 2009 10:09 AM
Cheezburg - it is the "realism" of Kissinger and Baker that extended the cold war and the life of the Soviet Union twenty years longer than they had to be.
Think of the millions that died for that.
Intel's major fab is in Texas. All the profitable automakers are in the southeast. You don't get the south, because you don't want to get any of that Godbotherer sauce on you.
All the businesses in CA and NY involve moving money around. And we've seen how easy it is to collapse that. The rest of the country has all the farm and range land (unless you plan to live on wine and cheese, anyhow), most of the manufacturing, and the headquarters of most of the major non tech corporations in the US.
I'll trade prosperity for a nice day and the ability to be free of nanny-state liberals.
brian at May 21, 2009 10:38 AM
Anybody want:
• Saddam back?
• His sons back?
• The wetlands re-drained?
• (etc.)....
or this?
There is nothing cold about the faces one sees on the walls of the Red Museum, where from 1979 until the uprising in 1991, Saddam tortured and killed in pursuit of the Kurdish rebels. Though Saddam usually buried his victims in mass graves as far as possible from where they lived, he had no scruples about compiling a photographic record of the killing. The first photo one sees freezes the blood. It looks like a picture in a college yearbook: a class of 13 young men, perhaps a debating or a Latin club, except for the anxiety evident in their eyes. The legend informs that it was taken in the prison in 1986 and that all but one of these young men were tortured and executed. Then photo after photo shows a bloody body crumpled at the foot of the stake to which the victim was tied to be shot. In one photo, two Baathist security men, grinning widely beneath their mustaches, hold up a headless corpse, their free hands raised in the victory salute. Next comes a picture of three women—child, mother, and grandmother—with faces frozen in fear just before their execution for suspected connection with rebels in the mountains. Numerous images record the last minutes in the lives of such women and children. (h/t Little Green Footballs)
Hard to know who wins the thread: Brian, Conan, or crid.
The rest start with amorality, then descend straight into incoherence.
Pretend this is a college assignment: For the period leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, list the actors, their actions, and goals. If you are against deposing Saddam, pose and defend an alternate course of action that includes leaving Saddam in power.
Your answer is incomplete without considering the UN (resolutions and Food for Oil corruption), France, Russia, Iran, al Queda (its casus belli and beliefs about US decadence). Also, consider the consequences in the region if Saddam was perceived to have prevailed over the US.
Hey Skipper at May 21, 2009 10:52 AM
I got too many damn degrees already. I'm done with college assignments. Thanks. I would have been fine with the status quo, the no fly zones, a bit of UN corruption and all the rest because it was a far cheaper way to advance our interests in the Middle East: a Sunni-Shia stalemate, containment of Iran, preservation of Israel, and continued energy production. We created a radically less stable and mangeable situation for somebody's pipe dream of a democratic Iraq. It will be regarded as the biggest blunder in our foreign policy history and the point at which American hegemony began to crack.
Chreezburg at May 21, 2009 11:49 AM
> Don't be a douchebag.
You make it too easy, fella.
> Iraq and the rest of the world
> would have better off had we never
> invaded and Saddam were still in
> control.
That is not sane. It's not worth refuting; just quoting it correctly demonstrates the insanity of Bush Hatred.
You'll say he was a stupid chimp out his depth or he was a cunning bastard in the service of evil; he was a warmongering savage or an addled believer drunk on God-love.... But no matter what, no one must ever be allowed to say that anything good ever came from Boosh, ever. The infantilism of this madness demands exactly that simplicity. 'No! No! Waaaaaah!'
Anyway, it would be a lot easier to believe if we could build a super-mondo time machine and drop you in Baghdad airport with a passport and a bottle of Coppertone in a about June of 1999. You'd have been "better off".
> At this point, I really could
> not care less what happens
> there. We just need to leave.
It's tempting to cut you some slack, because maybe you haven't thought about it at all.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 21, 2009 11:53 AM
Hey Skipper:
That's pretty august company to be in. I'll take the compliment.
Cheezburg:
Except that the no-fly zones were on the verge of going away because we were the only ones maintaining them any more, the UN corruption was far more than a bit, the sanctions were on the verge of collapse - which would have necessitated the end of the no-fly zones. Iran was not contained, they were funding Hezbollah, and pushing the takeover of Lebanon through their puppets in Syria. You'll recall they were using the Golan Heights as a launchpad for rocket attacks on Israel.
Oh, and Iraq's energy production was a joke. It was decreasing because they had no repair parts on account of the sanctions.
Only because Obama and the liberals who supported him want it to. They wanted us to fail in Afghanistan and Iraq because they feel guilty about being the world's lone superpower.
Question for you - how do you think things would have turned out in the middle east after the sanctions regime collapsed, and France and Russia were taking Iraq's side every time Hussein did something stupid?
Let me give you a hint: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be part of Iraq, and they'd be at war with Iran, shooting at Israel, and oil production in the Persian Gulf region would pretty much have stopped.
The problem with you and most who share your view is that you are basing your opinion on false information. You seem to think that the middle east was stable and peaceful until we walked in. It was not. Iran and Iraq have been engaged in a struggle for regional hegemony for almost thirty years, which is ultimately an extension of a Persian/Arab rivalry that dates back to the very inception of Islam.
The official reason we didn't take Saddam out in 1991 was that we didn't want to leave a power vacuum that Iran would try to fill. I'm guessing that in 2003 it was assumed that Iran was too weak to be able to impact our operations in Iraq, which turned out to be wrong. Mostly because of legislation that made human intel virtually impossible in that region of the world.
You're out of your element, Cheezy.
brian at May 21, 2009 12:21 PM
Iran and Iraq have been engaged in a struggle for regional hegemony for almost thirty years, which is ultimately an extension of a Persian/Arab rivalry that dates back to the very inception of Islam.
Exactly! And now Iran has no power that rivals it in the Middle East except Israel. Yay us!
Cheezburg at May 21, 2009 12:28 PM
Anyway, it would be a lot easier to believe if we could build a super-mondo time machine and drop you in Baghdad airport with a passport and a bottle of Coppertone in a about June of 1999. You'd have been "better off".
How is this relevant to anything?
That is not sane. It's not worth refuting; just quoting it correctly demonstrates the insanity of Bush Hatred.
Why isn't it sane? Why are marshes and Saddam's sons and all the rest of that stuff you mentioned relevant to our strategic interests? How is that mess worth hundreds of billions and thousands of American lives? You are the one that isn't sane. Why do you think Republicans got crushed in 2006 and 2008? Because Americans started to wake up to the fact that these wars are insanity.
Let me give you a hint: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be part of Iraq, and they'd be at war with Iran, shooting at Israel, and oil production in the Persian Gulf region would pretty much have stopped.
Well, this wouldn't be all bad ( the war with Iran part), but the rest is fantasy. Saddam knew he'd get crushed if he aggressed outside his borders; hell, if he did that, I'm guessing we could have gotten a proper mandate to whip his ass.
Cheezburg at May 21, 2009 12:52 PM
Cheeezy:
Okay, don't pretend it is a college assignment. Assume it is a real world problem that you should at least give the appearance of having thought through.
As noted above, the sanctions regime was reaching a dead end, thanks to France and Russia. The moment you suggest maintaining the status quo ante, you clearly reveal a complete lack of either understanding or curiosity.
Just as troubling, you don't seem to have much considered the very real and (thankfully) damaging consequences of Sunni-Shia sectarian savagery upon Islamism.
Also, you give no hint you have considered the Islamist mind set regarding the West. One of its primary components was that we are so decadent we will not risk lives to defend ourselves. Remember Somalia? Remember what bin Laden expected to happen after 9/11?
Since Operation Iraqi Freedom, they no longer entertain that notion.
You make the classic mistake of citing all the negatives of the path taking and the presumed positives of the path not taken.
Hey Skipper at May 21, 2009 1:16 PM
> How is this relevant to anything?
First of all, just because it mocks you.
Second, it suggests that a lot of people who think civic brutality is a tolerable state of affairs only think so because they themselves aren't subject to it. These people would protest grandly if they were the ones suffering dictatorship, but they want to think all that nastiness can be contained within the borders of a single nations– Even as they argue that the nation is disintegrating! Ironic, no? (The morality of this distant suffering apparently does not register.)
> relevant to our strategic
> interests
Not all our interests are strategic. It's been argued that Saddam Hussein was the greatest single violator of the natural environment the world had ever seen. He ignited the oil fields, he flood the gulf with crude while in retreat, and he drained a singularly important regional marshland. (Imagine his industrial policies regarding waste disposal.) For these things alone he deserved a violent takedown.
> these wars are insanity.
You didn't mean that. The depth of your argument is clear: You're not against "these" wars, you're against all wars. Which would be cool, if only you could convince adversaries to share your pacifism.
> we could have gotten a
> proper mandate
Your posture is tellingly subservient. Who would we petition for this "mandate"?
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 21, 2009 1:26 PM
Were you paying attention? While we were busy keeping Iraq bottled up in no-fly, Iran was funding the expansion of Hezbollah in Lebanon and doing an end-run around Iraq. They already had no rivals, thanks to our short-sightedness in 1991.
Oh, and they've been developing long-range missiles and atomic weapons with North Korea. I wonder who they were gonna shoot those at.
Hint - the first nation in the middle east to nuke Israel is the de facto ruler of the middle east, and becomes the leader of Dar ul Islam.
I say again, you're out of your element. And I'm not talking about the Honda in your driveway.
brian at May 21, 2009 1:36 PM
Brian:
The war you're so proud of took Iran's biggest enemy and turned them into an ally. You want to know why Iran's so strong, it's because we have eliminated threats on two sides of them. They are - far and away - the biggest beneficiary of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They're also not going to nuke anyone; they know the moment they do that they will be utterly destroyed. Hard to lead the next caliphate if everyone there is dead.
You're not against "these" wars, you're against all wars.
I'm against conquering and then trying to fix places that history tells us are ungovernable and unfixable. I'm for wars when needed. I thought that Afghanistan should have been in flames on 9/12. But we didn't need to come in and try to run the place.
The morality of this distant suffering apparently does not register.
Yeah, not so much. The world is full of suffering, all over the place. We can't make all of it our business. When did conservatives get all bleeding hearts about this stuff?
Cheezburg at May 21, 2009 3:22 PM
> places that history tells us are
> ungovernable and unfixable.
History only tells us that until it stops telling us that. Japan was a problem for awhile there.
> I thought that Afghanistan should
> have been in flames on 9/12
Then I don't think you understand who was responsible for 9/11.
> We can't make all of it our business.
> When did conservatives...
So you feel that way about the inner cities as well?
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 21, 2009 3:57 PM
Uh.. yeah. Iran is now surrounded BY HOSTILE FORCES. In other words, US. You'll notice that they don't try boarding our ships in the Persian Gulf. You'll notice that they only offer their support on the sly to splinter groups in Iran (which is on the rise again because they feared Bush, but do not fear Obama).
Bullshit on stilts. It's their official national policy. Their head cleric said several years ago "An Islamic nuclear attack on Israel will destroy the Zionist entity, while a Zionist attack cannot possibly destroy the entire Islamic world" (paraphrased, but you get the idea).
You are making what I call the Rational Actor fallacy. Iran's foreign policy is not rational. The people of Iran and their desires are irrelevant. The mullahs that run the show want to control the middle east. They also want to destroy Israel. And they don't care if they die in the process, because killing the Jews is the most important thing to them. Everything else is secondary, and can be pissed away if they can just kill Jews.
Until you have grokked this in its fullness, you will never understand the middle east.
The only ways to stop this from happening are as follows:
You decide which one puts the smallest stain on your soul.
brian at May 21, 2009 4:02 PM
Japan was a problem for awhile there.
People love the Japan and Germany comparisons, but they are utterly facile. We might have been at war with them, but they were both modern countries, with educated people who were used to following the laws of their nations. Neither were riven by ethnic and religious strife like Iraq and Afghanistan. Their citizens' allegiance is to tribe and sect, not country. It's not the same.
Everything else is secondary, and can be pissed away if they can just kill Jews.
I'm sorry, but there's just no evidence to support that everything they do is secondary to Jew-killing. It might be up there on the list, but Iran and North Korea both wield the club of their potential nuclear armament because it's the best way to manipulate geopolitical events to their advantage.
Then I don't think you understand who was responsible for 9/11.
So Bin Laden's crew weren't being sheltered in Afghanistan by Mullah Omar?
So you feel that way about the inner cities as well?
We hold a higher responsibility to create conditions of success for Americans than for other people in the world. Duh.
Cheezburg at May 21, 2009 4:21 PM
Assume it is a real world problem that you should at least give the appearance of having thought through.
I've thought these things through. You just don't like the conclusion I've reached - that it is utter folly to try to use remake the most dysfunctional part of the world in our image. And that the better plan would have been to hang around the periphery of Iraq and use military force on an ad-hoc basis ad infinitum.
We would be a richer country, with a healthier military and better ability to react to other threats in the world if we did not have a huge part of our military committed to this adventure for the last six years and the foreseeable future. Even had we done nothing, and the sanctions crumbled, Saddam would not today be a serious threat. As was clear from the inspections, before and after the war, his weapons infrastructure was shattered and would not have been rebuilt easily.
I've also heard all of the commentary that falsely conflates Islamic terrorism - a real threat (though far smaller, in practical terms than popularly thought) - with a basic tyrant like Don Rumsfeld's old buddy Saddam. It ain't the same form of nastiness, and the one-size-fits-all approach of bomb 'em and make 'em democracies cause everyone wants freedom is just spectacularly stupid.
Cheezburg at May 21, 2009 5:32 PM
> but they were both modern
> countries
We're not allowed to fight, and correct, primitive ones? I guess I can't quite figure out your principle. Apparently, if a certain threshold of difficultly is presented (whether in our own culture or the rest of the world), the appropriate response is to simply set the troubling context "in flames", and no more complicated morality applies. This gives the impression that this is more about teen boy frustration for you than policy.
> So Bin Laden's crew weren't
> being sheltered in Afghanistan
> by Mullah Omar?
They were essentially hiding out there together, in a land of sufficient lawlessness that no one was going to give them a hard time. The average nearby villager doesn't therefore deserve incineration... Maybe not even every nearby mountain-road warlord.
> Duh.
Don't talk like a seventh-grade girl.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 21, 2009 5:37 PM
We're not allowed to fight, and correct, primitive ones?
The principle is pick your battles. Regardless of political rhetoric, we don't have the resources to do anything we'd like to. Iraq simply doesn't merit what it has taken - and it still would collapse into civil war if we left it today.
Don't talk like a seventh-grade girl.
I will if I want to!
Don't act as though we should care in the same way for Iraqis or Afghanis as we do for Americans.
The average nearby villager doesn't therefore deserve incineration.
Yeah, would have been some horrible misfortune for people around Kandahar. But we would have exterminated the leadership of two of the foulest organizations on the planet in the process. It's a trade I'd make.
Cheezburg at May 21, 2009 6:00 PM
Cheez, now you're talking like I did on 9/12 when I was in full hate mode.
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
brian at May 21, 2009 6:40 PM
"We created a radically less stable and manageable situation for somebody's pipe dream of a democratic Iraq. It will be regarded as the biggest blunder in our foreign policy history and the point at which American hegemony began to crack."
Back up and look again. If a secular government could be formed in Iraq, the expansion of Islam - that stuff alarming France and Britain right now - could be stunted.
And, "biggest blunder"? I suggest that has to be modified with "that I'm talking about right now". There's an embargo of pre-WW2 Japan and a whole bunch of other actions to be considered.
The USA has to die from within. External forces can't do it. When the Presidential electorate is fascinated with the question "boxers or briefs?" and sound-bites, you get "leaders" who aren't. The public is busy clamoring to know why the actions they forbid by popular vote aren't happening. There's your mode of failure.
Radwaste at May 23, 2009 8:11 AM
Leave a comment