Do You Support The War In Iraq?

[BobLibDem]

@ZomZom

I supported and continue to support the ouster of Saddam. We had twelve years of no-fly zone enforcement, our planes getting shot at regularly, and UN resolutions threatening severe consequences for failure to comply with the inspection regime. Saddam didn’t comply, and the severe consequence was his hanging.

In those 12 years, how many planes were shot down? How does that number compare to the human toll brought by Bush’s folly? It took a lot of pressure, but Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors to some degree. Given the chance to complete the job, they would have shown the rationale for invasion to be bogus.

The only rational excuses that I can see for anyone continuing to support this war are humanitarian concern for what happens to the Iraq that is left behind and/or concern about al-Qaeda gaining strength in Iraq. If you originally supported it because you thought Saddam had massive amounts of deadly weapons, you’ve been proven wrong. If you supported it because you wanted revenge for 9/11, this has been debunked by everybody and even Bush admits it. If you originally supported it because of concern for Iraqi life under Saddam, that is understandable but it’s now clear that life is very much worse without Saddam than with him.

We just don’t know what would happen if we withdrew suddenly. It could be a bloodbath of epic proportions. It could be that one group of thugs kills off the other thugs. But it isn’t at all clear that continuing the course is ever going to improve the situation. So in my opinion, the logical course is to withdraw with the option to re-enter if the situation warrants it.

[ZomZom]

To be honest, I have an abundance of cognitive dissonance on our future course in Iraq. Three options seem rational:

1. Get out, stay out, reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Stop our military from being a de-facto subsidy for cheap oil. Let the market determine the true cost of extracting energy from such a volatile spot of real estate. Hope that Islamic radicalism cools off.

2. Confront Iran, hunker down for the inevitable long-term battle with radical Islam. Hope for resolve to bring about a quicker conclusion than indecision.

3. Continue the wait-and-see. The Iraqis are not war-weary like the postwar populations of Germany and Japan. Despite cries to the contrary, our bombing campaign was limited and spared civilian casualties on the scale seen in previous wars. Perhaps, in time, the insurgents will grow weary. As a bonus, maybe by this time the Iranian people will replace their government with something less hostile to Israel and the west.

[Sunrazor]

@ivylass

For what it’s worth, yes, I do. I believe it was necessary. I’m tired of the screeching and the attention span of the American people, accustomed to instant gratification, who can’t figure out why we’re not out of there yet. We’re not fighting a traditional enemy, but it’s worth it in the long term. And I’m disgusted with those of you who think the soldiers who died died in vain.

On the off chance that the 'lass will be back, if only to lurk, I have to say this: It was not the American people who had a short attention span. We knew we were in for a long haul in Afghanistan, and I’m willing to bet that an overwhelming number of people (including Dopers) who oppose the war in Iraq actually supported our action in Afghanistan. We knew it was going to be a hard slog not just to root out the Taliban, but to make Afghanistan untenable for al Qaida over the long haul. We knew it would take months or even years to find and kill Osama bin Laden. But we were up for it. It was our scatter-brained president who lost interested and went off and started a new war where we couldn’t possibly win. I would have thought it impossible for the Iraqi people to be worse off than they were under Saddam, but they actually are. And so are we.