# Are Iraqi coalition dissenters shirking their responsibilities **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 16, 2005, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781 "2005-03-16T07:02:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/41 "2005-03-17T14:08:40Z")
**marky33:** \* isn’t there any sense at all within the countries that are withdrawing that they are letting the side down - they are not fulfilling their promises of help?\* But what exactly are the **conditions** of “their promises of help”? It seems pretty clear that prior to the invasion, the US Administration was [lowballing](http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm) estimates of the required cost, duration, and troop strength for the war and rebuilding in Iraq: > [@](#): > > [February 2003] Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general’s suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort. […] > > In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. […] > > Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Even after the end of the war, official [estimates](http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/135222.asp) of the time and resources required for rebuilding were fairly optimistic: > [@](#): > > [April 2003] But the far larger task of ensuring that Iraq emerges as a representative democracy friendly to U.S. interests and operating with a free-market economy would be left to an interim Iraqi authority, which could control key aspects of governance within months. > > “I don’t think it has to be expensive, and I don’t think it has to be lengthy,” a senior administration official said of the postwar plan. “Americans do everything fairly quickly.” […] > > Bush’s budget director, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., has maintained that Iraq “will not require sustained aid.” […] > > State Department blueprints sent to Congress before the war laid out a vision for Iraq’s reconstruction that would move the country aggressively toward “self-managed economic prosperity, with a market-based economy and privately owned enterprises that operate in an environment governed by the rule of law.” > > The electricity system would be rebuilt nearly to pre-1991 levels, before the long decline from the Persian Gulf War, sanctions, neglect and government corruption. Within 180 days, clean drinking water would be available to 90% of the population, and trash collection would be available to 60%. Within 360 days, basic health care would be available to every Iraqi, and 6,000 schools would be rehabilitated and furnished with a new curriculum. To what extent did the commitment of coalition nations depend on official US estimates of a relatively quick and cheap operation in Iraq? To what extent was the US “spinning” these numbers to reduce opposition to the invasion? If coalition countries were persuaded into the war effort partly by unrealistic reassurances on the part of the war’s chief architects, is it their duty to eat the extra costs and sacrifices? I agree that it’s not nice to “let the side down” by refusing to do your bit as part of a team. However, that cuts both ways: if the captain wants you to work for the team, he has to be honest with you about what the team is up against. No fair painting rosy pictures of an easy two-hour match when he knows that it’s really much more likely to turn out a multi-day challenge competition. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/42 "2005-03-17T14:17:14Z")
> [@Estilicon](#): > > Add me to the cite request. They weren’t millions and besides the romans at least had something of legitimacy to attack gaul, do you remember the capitol’s goose incident? If people don’t know Roman history, and anyone who doesn’t know the scale of JC’s Gallic wars by definition does not, then they should not be even commenting, let alone asking for cites on the basis of ‘that don’t feel right’. What next? Cites for water being wet? Just to pluck the first google cite. [THE GALLIC WARS, 58-50 BC](http://heraklia.fws1.com/battles/The%20Gallic%20Wars/Index.html) > [@](#): > > What Caesar did for Gaul was to kill, by Plutarch’s estimate, over one million of its perhaps twelve million inhabitants and enslave a million more. Caesar claimed 3-5 million dead or enslaved in his Commentaries. 1 million of each is the lower end of the scale. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/43 "2005-03-17T14:19:22Z")
Would you all feel better about referring to the _Pax Sovietica_ in eastern Europe than to _Pax Romana_? ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/44 "2005-03-17T15:39:07Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > If people don’t know Roman history, and anyone who doesn’t know the scale of JC’s Gallic wars by definition does not, then they should not be even commenting, let alone asking for cites on the basis of ‘that don’t feel right’. What next? Cites for water being wet? > > Just to pluck the first google cite. > [THE GALLIC WARS, 58-50 BC](http://heraklia.fws1.com/battles/The%20Gallic%20Wars/Index.html) > > Caesar claimed 3-5 million dead or enslaved in his Commentaries. 1 million of each is the lower end of the scale. Herodotus said Xerxes Persian army was a million man strong, where 100,000 – 150,000, is more realistic. Ancient historians are notorious for wildly exaggerating the numbers. If you want to make a case for millions killed, you’ll have to come up with a cite from a more recent historian. Anyway it really doesn’t behove one to belittle the historical knowledge of others when oneself gets wrong such a central concept as the Pax Romana. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/45 "2005-03-17T16:06:07Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > The accepted minimum figure (Rubicon and Oxford Companion) for just JC’s jaunt into Gaul is over 1 million dead and further million plus enslaved. JC himself claimed 3-5 million dead or enslaved in his Commentaries. That ignores deaths from the rest of the expansion into western Europe. Oh please. If the Gauls had put 3 million men in the field they would have swamped Caesar. Use your head man…do you even know how many troops Ceasar commanded in the field in Gaul? Its pretty widely acknowledged that Caesar inflated his figures wildly…which was a common practice in those times. A good rule of thumb is to subtract from such totals by an order of magnitude…and then work down from there. I’m not saying that Caesar was gentle with the Gauls, but had he killed 3 million or even 1 million SOLDIERS (which was his claim btw…he had higher figures for civilians) he would have completely and utterly depopulated the entire region. I doubt there were 1 million persons in ROME at for ogs sake…how many people do you figure lived in Gaul at this time? > [@tagos](#): > > If you want to define Pax Romana as how peaceful everything was once the Romans had slaughtered everybody, please feel free. I don’t see how that helps make the case for a US Pax. Its pretty obvious by this statement that you don’t have a clue what Pax Romana was if you think this is MY definition of it. Its also pretty obvious that you don’t really have a good grasp of Roman history if you think they ‘slaughtered everybody’, so its kind of pointless to go on with this hijack. Suffice it to say that the Pax Americana and the Pax Romana are two completely different beasts (as defined by historians), so you really can’t compare them. They derive from completely different sources of ‘power’, were acheived in different ways, and ‘maintained’ in different ways. The only superficial similarity, which you have appearently latched onto is that they both have ‘Pax’ in their name and both describe a period of quasi-peace…one internal (Pax Romana), one external (Pax Americana). -XT ---
**Author:** ![Optihut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/edb3f5/32.png) [@Optihut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Optihut)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/46 "2005-03-17T17:07:01Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > If people don’t know Roman history, and anyone who doesn’t know the scale of JC’s Gallic wars by definition does not, then they should not be even commenting, One million people would be 166 legions, if you’re going with the initial size of 6000 men. That number seems outrageously high, so I’d consider the question for a cite to be justified. On roman legions: [http://legvi.tripod.com/id25.html](http://legvi.tripod.com/id25.html) [http://www.unrv.com/military/legion.php](http://www.unrv.com/military/legion.php) > [@tagos](#): > > let alone asking for cites on the basis of ‘that don’t feel right’. What next? Cites for water being wet? Well, this isn’t a question about water being wet, this is rather a question about how much iron spinach contains. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781/47 "2005-03-17T19:39:36Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > How can these countries - and I’m talking about the populations who are putting pressure on their leaders to back away - support a withdrawal with any kind of pride when they know the job has not been done and others will have to do that job for them? I think that you are making an incorrect assumption about what some people think constitutes national pride. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-coalition-dissenters-shirking-their-responsibilities/294781.md?page=2)