SM: I'd just like to say thanks for the posts. It's nice to get reasoned responses (for once) regarding this situation from the "supporter" side. I disagree fundamentally with your view. I'd like to ask "why?" As in, why should we spend all this money, effort, and lives for this goal? What's the benefit? Does it outweigh our crumbling infrastructure, our education system's decay, or our massive debt? Does it make up for our soaring health costs, or our general lack of health coverage for our own citizenry? Is it preferable to stabilize Iraq instead of stabilizing our economy, or perhaps investing in alternative energies? Why should we be investing three trillion in Iraq? What's goal is so important that it would merit this insane price, and the enormous benefits it could be providing?
I agree with this post including commending SM's honest attempt to say what is our goal is there. It is incredible to think of what we could have done to make the USA a better place with 3 trillion.
Because none of the other stuff has happened yet. There is still a lack of security (though not near as bad as it was a couple years ago). There are still problems with the infrastructure. Some groups do not have an adequate stake in the government. There are still a good number of foreign agents provocateur. Joe Biden said it. Various pundits have said it. There would be democracy in the new countries that were formed from Iraq, so no, it doesn't really defeat the purpose. It's because there are always going to be some crazies. The number of terrorists in al Qaeda is nothing compared to the number of insurgents in Iraq. If there were only as many fighters in Iraq and there are Saudis in al Queda, we could probably end the war right now. Neighboring countries are more homogeneous. Outside of the Kurds who have been emboldened by the success of the Iraqi Kurds, there is an acceptable level of sectarian violence outside of Iraq. If Iraq is built up such that individuals living there have a reasonable standard of living, violence on the levels we have seen in the past years should not be a problem. Splitting the country up would be a last resort alternative to a long and costly process of reconstruction. I never even said it was a desirable outcome, only a possible alternative to a winner take all civil war. I wouldn't say America is a non-viable nation. There are always going to be crazies everywhere. If Iraq was transformed into a copy of America before January, nutters and all, I guarantee Bush would win the Nobel Peace Prize. Without soldiers, the 40 and 50 year olds can make as many decisions for war as they want. If the levels of violence in Iraq become comparable to the levels of violence between Republicans and Democrats, again I would say it is Nobel Peace Prize time. "Mission accomplished" means nothing to me. I don't consider photo ops a good reason to make decisions on how to prosecute a war. There is no point in mentioning it. The future of a stable/democratic America depended in no small part on France. The future of a stable/democratic Israel depended on foreign aid. It is not easy to build a country up from nothing, but it can be done. Leaving them to their own devices and crossing our fingers is not a plan, it is surrender to genocide. The destruction of the infrastructure was one of the many problems with the IMPLEMENTATION of the war, not with the decision to go to war at all. A better job could have and should have been done in maintaining order along the way. God I hope not. The "Vietnam Syndrome" was bad enough. We should take each situation as we find it and evaluate it on its own merits, not get gunshy because the prosecution of the war was screwed up, in many ways based on an attempt to get by on the cheap. And yet I never get a mention in the best poster, sum up a poster, etc. threads. Because once we have started something we have an obligation to see it through. Because I trust the military with my tax dollars a lot more than congress. Because I do not agree that America has a terrible health care system and do not support universal health care. Because war or no war there is never going to be a president committed to paying off the debt. Because, with the possible exception of health care there is never going to be a president that spends the money on those problems instead of throwing good money after bad at welfare (corporate and private), social security (legalized pyramid scheme), "education", etc. Instead of cutting the war in Iraq, let's get rid of farm subsidies and other corporate welfare. That money can be spent on alternative energy and rebuilding American infrastructure.
This answer is terrible. What did we start then? And what for? What is this "something" that we started and why in the hell should we continue to blow money on it if we cannot even define it outside of the ubiquitous "something"? You've basically answered "I don't know." I don't know either, and that leads me to feel this is a giant waste. The rest of your post represents a myriad of issues that are better left to other threads. I find your pessimism is admirable , although merely another painfully bad reason to blow three trillion on a bunch of non-citizen ingrates. Frankly, I find it depressing that you'd argue this money (and lives) is better spent in Iraq for "something" as opposed to tangible programs here at home. Merely stating that these programs or ideas would never happen is nothing more than a red herring. At a minimum, we could just not waste the money and our reputation and remain stagnant in the areas I mentioned. This would appease you, I think, except that we would not be accomplishing "something".
has anyone defined "victory" yet. establishing democracy: never going to happen over there. as long as we're occupying we create hatred, and as long as there is a hatred they will not accept our system of government. its a catch 22
I thought the something was obvious and therefor did not feel a need to define it. Since you insist, the something is nation building in Iraq. Some steps have already been taken - remove Saddam, establish a constitution, basic voting procedures, etc. Some stumbling blocks have already been tripped over - total destruction of any sort of law enforcement that existed prior to the invasion, massive damage to the infrastructure, etc. I think that, because we have undertaken this task, we have a duty to complete it, and that failure in this would leave many Iraqis worse off than they were under Saddam.
Not to beat a dead horse, but why? Why on earth would you say that this is worth 4000 american lives and three trillion dollars? Seriously. I am not trying to be a dick, but I don't see a reason. I am purposely ignoring the very obvious false pretenses that got us into this mess - lets focus on the now. We started nation building (I could argue this, but lets move on) and so now we should finish it. Why? What's it worth to us? I am a tad curious too, why you ignored my other commentary...
It is called taking responsibility, a foreign concept to many Democrats, but important to some of the rest of us. I didn't see anything that required a response. I don't think money spent in Iraq would be better spent on some universal health care system, and in fact believe that any money not spent on what I feel is a worthy cause over there would instead be wasted on the same old crap programs over here. You disagree. What else is there to say on the subject?
Last time I checked, neither of these people are running the war How do you know this? Beside conjecture, how can you be sooo certain? Ha!! so taking resposibility is a trait only conservatives/republicans seem to understand. Ha!! How about the "rest of us" you talk about go to Iraq and take resposnibility. It's funny but you or this administration never talk about what completing the job entails. I guess that means making Iraq stable? And then after the whole region? And you are willing to take as long as possible? Until it's done, correct? So what are the results that would satisfy you that we have done our job and can leave Iraq to it's own future? And please, be specific.
You said nobody wants it, not nobody running the war wants it. Is there any reason to suspect that there would not be? It was partially tongue in cheek, but yes, many traditionally Democrat policies are deeply rooted in people not being personally responsible. I thought I laid it out fairly clearly above. It would entail forming a stable democracy based on the rule of law, one that has reasonable internal security and dos not provide a haven for terrorism. Basically just the proper implementation of the Iraqi constitution. Even then I wouldn't say that we would be leaving Iraq to its own future. I would expect a permanent presence along the lines that we see in South Korea.
I said nobody and included the administration, who by the way are running the war. Show me where the administration says "split up Iraq". And yet we have a Republican administration willing to hold the hand of the Iraqi people, throwing billions and billions of dollars into another country, for as long as it takes until they become a stable country and then even after that possibly not leave, due to the fact that they might not be able to be as responsible as we want them to be. Welfare in U.S. = Bad Welfare in Iraq = Good Ok, I got it now
Including the administration does not exclude everyone else. I never said that the administration supported breaking up Iraq. I said the statement that no one suggested breaking up Iraq was incorrect. I am not suggesting welfare in Iraq. I don't know that anyone is.
And yet we have a Republican administration willing to hold the hand of the Iraqi people, throwing billions and billions of dollars into another country, for as long as it takes until they become a stable country and then even after that possibly not leave, due to the fact that they might not be able to be as responsible as we want them to be. You don't see this as a form of welfare?
No. If you consider that welfare, then any government spending would have to be determined welfare. When I think of welfare, I think of money (generally, could also be some services) that is given to specific individuals or businesses. When people complain about a welfare state, they are not complaining about highway spending.
I wish the official goal was as clear as you say. Bush said it was something similar, but Petreaus the other day claimed specifically that it was not those things. So I think it's pretty confusing.
Let's 'Surge' Some More Michael Yon is the best war reporter in Iraq, period. His website has some amazing dispatches from the front. Here are a couple of my favorites.
If you can't see the benefits of a peaceful, stable democracy in the middle east, considering how much of the world's violence and problems stem from that region, I don't know what to tell you. During the Cold War we delt with it by propping up dictators for stability reasons so the Soviets wouldn't take them over, but that let to lots of unforeseen (or maybe foreseen) consequences. The stability we thought we were achieving was only skin deep. This is pretty much the essence of the Bush Doctrine fwiw.
An insult! Well - not really, since I am not a democrat. But you have left this again unexplained. WHAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY, AND WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT? Please justify 4000 lives and three trillion dollars in your response. Simply saying "we need to finish what we started" and "we have responsibility" is not an answer, just a cliche.
