Can someone remind me why we're in Iraq?

[73ss454]

Yup, and I bet both are going to promise to lower our taxes again during the next presidential run.

 

[clifp]

Beside Turkey, several other Muslim countries in the region have had periods where they actually had real elections and real elected leaders. Lebanon before 1975 and just recently, Egypt during some of Sadat's rule, Pakistan, even Kuwait has a reasonably powerful legislative body. (Ironically, the Kuwait Parliament voted to over turn the Amir decree giving woman the right to vote). Indonesia, the most populus Muslim country is also democratic.

 

[JPatrick]

Here is a letter to the editor I am working on. It is my attempt to answer the question.

"liberty".


Total Deaths Deaths Per Millions Freed People Liberated
Million Americans per American Death
Civil War (Union) 350,000 15,975 3.9 11
Korean War 33,651 224 20.3 603
Iraq War 3384 11 26.8 7920

Sorry, but something about your scoreboard turns me off.
You might want to be careful where you spin that stuff.

 

[savedapile]

per cnn

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/


There have been 3,658 coalition deaths -- 3,385 Americans, two Australians, 148 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, six Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 32 Italians, one Kazakh, three Latvian, 19 Poles, two Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of May 11, 2007, according to a CNN count

try to tell one of these parents or spouses that their loved ones death was worth it. If you can do that also post it here. I am curious.

 

[Nords]

try to tell one of these parents or spouses that their loved ones death was worth it. If you can do that also post it here. I am curious.

What sort of letter would the platoon leader or the CO be expected to write? One that kvetched about being little bitty cogs of the machine, or one that said their loved one died while pursuing a goal that they deemed worthwhile? The instructors don't hand out the boilerplate CDs at infantry officer's school.

Ever wonder what kept the Civil War's Confederate troops going during Pickett's charge? There's not enough testosterone in the world to account for such an apparently useless and ultimately futile gesture. It wasn't their desire to assert their state's rights or to preserve the plantation way of life or their profitable share of the cotton market. It wasn't to oppress the enslaved or to avenge the Union's atrocities, either. The troops certainly didn't have Lee or Longstreet's overall view of the battle strategy and their tactical execution of that part of it. In fact they were missing quite a few crucial elements of the big picture.

A number of historians claim that what kept them going was family & camaraderie. They were marching alongside their brothers or their cousins or their uncles or other kin. They were thinking of how their families would feel about their upholding the family's reputation & honor, or they were thinking about watching their buddy's back.

But essentially they thought it was their job to put themselves in harm's way to take care of someone else, and ultimately to protect their own families.

Nearly 144 years later, I don't think much has changed.

 

[bosco]

in order to be a true muslim you must follow the koran. from what i have had read to me from the koran, democracy can't exist following what is written. there is more to democracy than elections. human rights, tolerance of others, womens rights etc it all goes against whats written. . these things make up a true democracy.

since we're into uneducated prejudice, how about

In order to be a true christian, you must follow the bible. from what i have had read to me from the bible, democracy can't exist following what is written. there is more to democracy than (rigged) elections. human rights (as in not torturing), tolerance of others, women's rights etc. it all goes against whats written. these things make up a true democracy.

having read both the bible and the koran (and believing neither), I find them similar, especially the old testament and the koran. Anybody that believes word for word, in either of those books, is going to have trouble with democracy. But literal interpretation isn't necessary, and both Christians and Muslims are capable of establishing and maintaining democratic institutions.

 

[bosco]

and as for the original question about why we're in Iraq, the best explanation I've heard is that is was to secure the oil as a resource denial ploy against China. US doesn't need the oil, but wants to make sure China doesn't get it. I first heard this theory from the Stratfor company but it makes sense.

Why we obviously AREN'T there is WMDs, democracy, and just about any other lie that came out of Bush's mouth.

 

[eridanus]

Turkey is the best exampe we can hope for of a nation with a majority Muslim population that respects individual rights and has a secular government.

Except for the military coups once a decade, it's a shining beacon of Democracy in action.

 

[eridanus]

Here is a letter to the editor I am working on. It is my attempt to answer the question.

Seven score and 4 years ago our nation was engaged in a great civil war, testing our national will. Much like today, a war of words was also waged between those who declared the war lost and demanded an immediate peace and those grimly determined to persevere in order to achieve victory for freedom.

You're comparing the United States Civil War to the Iraq war? This is a joke, right?

 

[clifp]

You're comparing the United States Civil War to the Iraq war? This is a joke, right?

I am comparing the sacrifice American have made to free the slaves to those we have made to liberate Iraq. Now obviously there are many differences. But the Civil war like the majority of the US war had national security component (secession) and moral component (abolishing slavery) The opinion of almost all whites of the day (even Lincoln himself according to Goodwin latest book Team of Rivals) that blacks were capable of handling freedom and democracy, was about on par with the "Muslim countries can't have a democracy" elitist crap I'm reading here.

There existed a huge anti-war movement, complete with draft riots, President Lincoln was extraordinarily unpopular, and considered by many even in his own cabinet, to be an unsophisticated monkey. (No I am not comparing Lincoln to Bush, just pointing out the passion generated.)

I certainly do think it is valid to compare situation to places where have intervened in Post WWII civil wars like Korea, Lebannon (twice), Vietnam, and Kosovo.
Why do you think it is joke?

 

[clifp]

Except for the military coups once a decade, it's a shining beacon of Democracy in action.

If you eliminate any country that has experienced a coup from being a democracy, I think you are pretty much down to the US, Britain, Canada and few commonwealth countries, Switzerland, Sweden and few others, you certainly eliminate France, Germany, Japan and anybody in South America..

The last coup in Turkey was 1980, but I guess your definition of a decade is a flexible.

 

[bosco]

I am comparing the sacrifice American have made to free the slaves to those we have made to liberate Iraq. Now obviously there are many differences. But the Civil war like the majority of the US war had national security component (secession) and moral component (abolishing slavery) The opinion of almost all whites of the day (even Lincoln himself according to Goodwin latest book Team of Rivals) that blacks were capable of handling freedom and democracy, was about on par with the "Muslim countries can't have a democracy" elitist crap I'm reading here.


Why do you think it is joke?

puleeze!! The US Civil war, at least according to the history I was taught, was not fought to free slaves. It was fought over the balance of power between slave and non-slave states. Ultimately, it was fought over whether or not a state had the right to secede. Nobody was going to kill millions of whites in the 1860s to free a bunch of slaves. It wasn't what the war was about, and the war could never have been sold to the public on that basis.

I find this ironic--a nation that ballyhoos 'freedom' left and right (is there anything--anything at all that the US can't reduce to a marketing slogan?) killing millions to maintain a mafioso princicple of "once you're in, you're in for life." After the carnage, revisionists rewrote the history books to make it a war to 'free the slaves.' In fact, the emancipation proclamation was made as an attempt to strike an economic blow against the south.

If you eliminate any country that has experienced a coup from being a democracy, I think you are pretty much down to the US, Britain, Canada and few commonwealth countries, Switzerland, Sweden and few others, you certainly eliminate France, Germany, Japan and anybody in South America..

in the US, you have to go clear back to 1963 for a coup....

The Iraq War, on the other hand, is a resource grab and act of unmitigated imperialism.

 

[bssc]

The Iraq War, on the other hand, is a resource grab and act of unmitigated imperialism.

I think that you give W and Company too much credit. If it was a resource grab, you would think that they would have arranged it so gas would be below a dollar a gallon.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

since we're into uneducated prejudice, how about

Is there any other kind?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

If it was a resource grab, you would think that they would have arranged it so gas would be below a dollar a gallon.

Heres the thing.

Who exactly would that benefit?

Nobody except the average josephine. On the other hand a lot of people are making some pretty good money in the oil biz these days. And a whole lot of people from this administration will be working for them in a couple of years, if they arent already.

Not that theres anything wrong with that.

In any case, in answer to cube rats original question (and how they heck can a young babe have a son old enough to be a soldier?)...

The primary concern is the proximity of radical nutjobs to the greater middle easts oil supply and Israel. Saddam was a fine buffer, disallowing radical religion and terrorists in general within his sphere of influence. Due to a number of issues, including his invasion of kuwait, and the politics thereafter...he wasnt really able to defend his own country.

In his absence, and without institution of a better buffer, its plausible that radical religious elements would seize much of the regions oil supply, lean on saudi arabia to fall in line, and start pushing the israeli's into the ocean. In that scenario, we end up going to war, its a much larger one, with possibility of nuclear exchange since the nutjobs dont have as much restraint as the soviets or chinese have. In fact, they'd like to die, en masse, and take us with them.

So the decision was made to insert US troops early, prop up iraq until such time as they can once again stand alone in a manner compatible with our meddling influence and hopefully avert a larger regional affair of likely greater consequences.

Unfortunately, the administration didnt want to tell the public "we're going in there to prop up our oil interests and political interests because we fracked around with saddam so long he cant hold up his own country anymore", so they made up a bunch of BS 9/11 stuff and WMD stuff, which let them get their foot in the door.

All that having been said, we walk away now and we've essentially accomplished nothing. In fact, we may easily accelerate the very process we wanted to avoid.

But theres no public sentiment to do otherwise.

I know this viewpoint is oft pooh-poohed. I suppose we'll know in time. Within 5 years either Iraq will work things out and resume their buffer role, the nutcases will take over but we'll successfully negotiate a reasonable peace, or we'll be engaged in world war III with tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties.

We'll see.

 

[Caroline]

Cube-rat:

Lest your message of love and worry be lost in the political dust-up, let me return to your original post for just a moment and say that I'm so very sorry your son is in harm's way.

I cannot come close to imagining what that must be like, or how you are holding up as you wait for his return. Neither can I imagine what I / we could say to ease your mind. Words seem so useless at times like these.

The best we can do, perhaps, is to hold you and your son in our thoughts and in our prayers, and prepare to celebrate his safe return with you. In the meantime, I hope you have someone (counselor, dear friend, etc.) with whom you can share your fears and hopes.

Forgive me for not knowing as I've been a rare visitor here lately, but have you shared anything about your son with us? I'd like to know his first name and a little bit about what he's like, if you feel like telling us? (I understand, if not, of course.)

Very Best Wishes to you and your family,
Caroline

 

[HFWR]

One pov, from Best of Craigslist...

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/309485032.html

 

[perinova]

Heres the thing.

Who exactly would that benefit?

Nobody except the average josephine. On the other hand a lot of people are making some pretty good money in the oil biz these days. And a whole lot of people from this administration will be working for them in a couple of years, if they arent already.

Not that theres anything wrong with that.

In any case, in answer to cube rats original question (and how they heck can a young babe have a son old enough to be a soldier?)...

The primary concern is the proximity of radical nutjobs to the greater middle easts oil supply and Israel. Saddam was a fine buffer, disallowing radical religion and terrorists in general within his sphere of influence. Due to a number of issues, including his invasion of kuwait, and the politics thereafter...he wasnt really able to defend his own country.

In his absence, and without institution of a better buffer, its plausible that radical religious elements would seize much of the regions oil supply, lean on saudi arabia to fall in line, and start pushing the israeli's into the ocean. In that scenario, we end up going to war, its a much larger one, with possibility of nuclear exchange since the nutjobs dont have as much restraint as the soviets or chinese have. In fact, they'd like to die, en masse, and take us with them.

So the decision was made to insert US troops early, prop up iraq until such time as they can once again stand alone in a manner compatible with our meddling influence and hopefully avert a larger regional affair of likely greater consequences.

Unfortunately, the administration didnt want to tell the public "we're going in there to prop up our oil interests and political interests because we fracked around with saddam so long he cant hold up his own country anymore", so they made up a bunch of BS 9/11 stuff and WMD stuff, which let them get their foot in the door.

All that having been said, we walk away now and we've essentially accomplished nothing. In fact, we may easily accelerate the very process we wanted to avoid.

But theres no public sentiment to do otherwise.

I know this viewpoint is oft pooh-poohed. I suppose we'll know in time. Within 5 years either Iraq will work things out and resume their buffer role, the nutcases will take over but we'll successfully negotiate a reasonable peace, or we'll be engaged in world war III with tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties.

We'll see.

It's a very good post.

Yes Sadam Hussein was a convenient buffer in the old war by proxy which isn't possible today. Since he got weaker (by the western powers after his Koweit invasion) and Iran was getting stronger he needed to be taken out. Iran shiah world has always been what US was afraid of and it was time to do somehing about that part of the world; use the exceptional position of the US to increase influence in this part of the world (as the neocons like to say). So they went after the weakest link =Saddam to get there with in mind a progressive broadening of action.

Problem is the whole thing was miscalculated... They thought Irak would be an ally in the region not an imploded country with no govmt to speak of (except a puppet with no authority). How could they not know that Irak was a multi-ethnic group with a majority close to Iran?

Well maybe they knew and they calculated that they (Sunny+Shiah) soon would be busy destroying each other rather than us... If so they calculated properly. There would be no need to be there as an occupying force but they don't want Iran to meddle... My conclusion: That's why we are still there.

 

[Rustic23]

Why are we in Iraq….. because we invaded it! Now there are all the reasons stated why we did that, but, I think there is another. Remember 9/11, well afterwards I think the administration looked around and asked ‘What are our options?” I think they looked around and saw several countries supporting terrorism, Iran, Korea, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, to name a few. They saw in Iraq a power that every intelligent agency in the world believed to be a threat. What better way to send a message to other countries, than to ‘wup up on Iraq’. Congress agreed willingly and so the message was sent. It appears several countries got that message. Libya decided it was not in their best interest to continue seeking WMD’s, Pakistan decided helping the US was a better option that opposing the US.

So there you go. It is never said, and it may not even be true, but I think that is one of the reasons we went into Iraq. If it is, you can see why a premature pull out would be a desaster. All those countries that got the message would get another message. ‘America can not tolerate a long war’. Attack America, take the counter attack, fight a prolonged propaganda battle, and America will sue for peace.

 

[laurence]

"America can not tolerate a long war", fight a prolonged insurgency is small comfort to Saddam, since he's dead, and so are his sons. The leaders of other Middle East countries aren't going to care how soon invading U.S. forces leave if the result is the same, dead is dead!

I definitely sympathize with those who say this war was fought for the wrong reason, I mostly agree. But we KNOW there will be a bloodbath in Iraq if we leave. The question is either a) are we willing to accept that so we can get out? or b) is there a real difference from that scenario to what we have now (i.e. it's a bloodbath already)? The last numbers I saw was 100k dead and 2 million displaced. It's about on order of the crisis in the Sudan. So it may be true that there won't be a big change except for MSNBC posting positive stories and FOX news focusing on body counts...

 

[clifp]

Why are we in Iraq….. because we invaded it! Now there are all the reasons stated why we did that, but, I think there is another. Remember 9/11, well afterwards I think the administration looked around and asked ‘What are our options?” I think they looked around and saw several countries supporting terrorism, Iran, Korea, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, to name a few. They saw in Iraq a power that every intelligent agency in the world believed to be a threat. What better way to send a message to other countries, than to ‘wup up on Iraq’. Congress agreed willingly and so the message was sent. It appears several countries got that message. Libya decided it was not in their best interest to continue seeking WMD’s, Pakistan decided helping the US was a better option that opposing the US.

So there you go. It is never said, and it may not even be true, but I think that is one of the reasons we went into Iraq. If it is, you can see why a premature pull out would be a desaster. All those countries that got the message would get another message. ‘America can not tolerate a long war’. Attack America, take the counter attack, fight a prolonged propaganda battle, and America will sue for peace.

I think there is a large element of truth to this, although war in Afghanistan made the point to Pakistan pretty clearly. It seems to me that after Afghanistan, when we looked at the future source of 9/11-like threat which include all the countries listed, you quickly come to the conclusion that AOS (all options stink) applies to all of the trouble spots. We can't invade North Korea because they may have nukes and Seoul would devestated by North Korea artillery. Iran is to big, we have no logistical bases close by, it isn't hated by enough people, and it would piss off Russia etc. Iraq was a country we had been engaged in a low-level war since April of 1991 (when Iraq started shooting at planes patrolling the no fly zone) we had good knowledge of their defenses and capabilities, and Saddam and sons were truely evil. Now going to war in Iraq stunk but it stunk less than the options of doing nothing or going after other bad guys/threats.

I thought Tony Blair said it best in his speech to Congress.

Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder, and we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad.

This isn't fantasy, it is 21st-century reality, and it confronts us now.

Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.

But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.

 

[JPatrick]

So it would appear that most would agree that Sadamm needed his butt kicked, but that this strategy was not what was needed. Many more ways to send that message without doing what we did.
Unless you are running for office or a born whiner I think we can agree that we can't turn back the clock and start over. Therefore, all the retoric on that subject is best left for the history books.
I also think we can agree the consequences of an abrupt pullout would not make pleasant reading.
Probably most believe we can't win this conflict in the streets so long as the enemy has an unlimited source of believers who will blow themselves up because some cleric mumbled some crap which made it right.
So shouldn't we be getting a little creative to end this thing? I don't know what it will take--a new flush toilet in every shack? HBO for everyone? OK. I jest, but not by much. Lets dance with the devil Iran --who cares--Get them to allow some democracy stability in Iraq. Then we will go home with the promise that if Iran/Syria screws with Iraq we will take their military out.. That my friends would be about 8 hours work in the case of Iran and a working lunch in the case of Syria. Seriously. The administration seems to making some moves in the direction of diplomacy. My fear is that it is all eye wash and that they still believe in plan A.

 

[JPatrick]

My son is somewhere in this f___ed up mess. I rarely pay attention to the news stories about Iraq because I can't dwell on the dangers my child is around on a daily basis. I would literally be a basket case if I watched CNN, or other news outlets.

CubeRat_____Many of the units in Iraq have created e-newsletters that go a very long way towards telling it like it is. They make much better reading than the accounts brought to us by our media. You might want to see if your sons unit has such a letter. Some of them are quite sophisticated as you might imagine given the times we live in.

 

[brewer12345]

I think there is a large element of truth to this, although war in Afghanistan made the point to Pakistan pretty clearly. It seems to me that after Afghanistan, when we looked at the future source of 9/11-like threat which include all the countries listed, you quickly come to the conclusion that AOS (all options stink) applies to all of the trouble spots. We can't invade North Korea because they may have nukes and Seoul would devestated by North Korea artillery. Iran is to big, we have no logistical bases close by, it isn't hated by enough people, and it would piss off Russia etc. Iraq was a country we had been engaged in a low-level war since April of 1991 (when Iraq started shooting at planes patrolling the no fly zone) we had good knowledge of their defenses and capabilities, and Saddam and sons were truely evil. Now going to war in Iraq stunk but it stunk less than the options of doing nothing or going after other bad guys/threats.

So basically you are saying that the Merkin gummint decided that something had to be cut off, and they were not about to chop of either of their own testicles so instead they whacked off their left foot? Yeah, makes lots of sense.

 

[clifp]

So basically you are saying that the Merkin gummint decided that something had to be cut off, and they were not about to chop of either of their own testicles so instead they whacked off their left foot? Yeah, makes lots of sense.

No I (and Blair far more eloquently) am saying that rather than the risk the infection spreading to the rest of the hand and the arm and losing the entire arm, we decided that amputating the tip of pinkie finger that had been infected for 12 years was best treatment. Now you can argue that we could have continue regular antibotic treatments (sanctions and bombing). But after learning that last time we let an illness (aka Afghanistan) go untreated it resulted in a very serious illness (9/11), amputation wasn't a bad option. Continuing to the do same actions with Saddam and sons and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. (Not to menition immoral with respect to the Iraqi people) Obviously there were some bad complications after the initial surgery, and thats how we got in the current mess.

Straining the analogy even more, using surgery to remove the prostate cancers of Iran and North Korea is probably not the best approach. Although ignoring them and the even bigger threat of radical Islamic jihadist is maybe even more stupid.