I would’ve been very relieved if our initial strikes had killed Saddam and his sons, shortly followed by the surrender of the entire Iraqi army. I don’t believe we should be fighting this war, but since we’re fighting it, I’d like to see it as short and casualty-free as possible.
Anyone else find it slightly odd that they (allegedly) managed to injure Saddam?
I don’t know how much of it was innaccurate or propaganda, but surely Saddam would spend each night miles below the earth, in a nuclear safe bunker? (Not literally miles but you get what I mean).
I found it amazing that they would manage to harm him so quickly, if indeed they did.
Glad to oblige: you’re wrong about that. 
I hope that, for both political and humanitarian reasons, Hussein’s WMDs are limited to stashes of unusable WMDs left over from Iraq’s war with Iran. If he has usable WMDs, there’s a good chance that he’ll use them in Baghdad, which will be a nightmare: that’s the humanitarian reason for my hope.
The political reason for my hope is because, whether or not Hussein has such weapons, I believe Bush has engaged in a deceptive, immoral, project that resulted in this war. If Hussein does have usable WMDs, Bush will certainly use this fact to retroactively justify his actions. While this justification will not be valid, I’m afraid it will convince many people, obscuring the danger of his policy and lending it unwarranted support.
I apologize if I was unclear when I said I hoped the US finds no evidence fo WMDs: I meant that I hoped there was no evidence to find.
(Although other people have raised the issue of the US faking such evidence, I’m a little skeptical that they’d do so: given the hostile scrutiny that European powers would subject such evidence to, there’d be a good chance of the US getting caught in such a move)
Daniel
Accurate though it is, you’ve left off the last part of this scenario, the part that worries a lot of the posters in this thread: “Bush Administration concludes that knocking off unfriendly or ‘undesirable’ governments is a piece of cake, and starts looking around for the next crisis they can manufacture to justify sending in the troops.”
Even if you think we were right to go after this particular government, will you feel the same way about the next, or the one after that?
If it were possible for there to be another possibility, that this war would never have started, I would prefer that. However, that option is no longer available.
I cannot support “our” soldiers. I have no soldiers. I see no reason to approve or justify the actions of those who set or follow out the policy of the political region I happen to live in. Actions are correct, or they are not correct; lives are lives, regardless of their nationality or political affiliation.
What I hope makes no difference to the truth. Still, I hope, and I will hope for whatever the least evil would be. It seems to me that the least evil would result from the cessation of the presumptive war doctrine, and the most likely path to this outcome is for the invasion of Iraq to go poorly. Therefore I hope the invasion will go poorly. That’s all there is to it.
I think I have to wish that there are some significant losses, so that it is impossible for those supporting this war to minimize the enormity of this action. I am embarrassed of my country. We are acting either as bullies, or vigilantes. And I fear if this action is TOO successful, or TOO easy, it will set a precedent for repetition elsewhere.
I did not see the need to act against Iraq at this time. So it does not strike me as inconceivable that the folk who supported this action would seize upon a rapid, bloodless victory as justification for replication elsewhere.
Also, at least part of the ever-varying reasons for invading now was the imminent threat Saddam posed. If he does NOT use WMD against an invading army, it will make it even more unbelievable that he was ever a threat to us minding our business at home. So, if our troops do not face some WMD, it will make our actions seem even more unjustified than I currently consider them.
Unfortunately, the costs will be borne by servicemen and their families. But in my calculation, military casualties are preferable to civilian ones. And the potential of death or injury in combat is at least a possibility one should consider when enlisting. The responsibility for military casualties should be borne by those who authorize their use - especially in non-defensive situations.
And no part of my motivation is a desire to say, “I told you so.” Instead, I desire that more people will realize the limits and costs of American action, thereby reducing the likelihood of recurrence.
I guess I feel that I cannot in good conscience wish death on anyone.
This is all wishful thinking, of course, so it’s ultimately meaningless. But if we’re wishing, we may as well wish for alternate outcomes, such as:
-Postwar research turns up no evidence of usable WMDs in Iraq.
-Blair suffers a vote of no-confidence, leading to his replacement.
-Spain and other countries abandon the US.
-The US, standing alone in the world, suddenly finds it very difficult to get anything accomplished on an international level.
-The Democratic candidate who wins the election in 2004 gets to enter the White House.
-They reverse the preemptive strike policy of the US and develop a foreign policy based on building positive ties to other countries.
That’s my hoped-for sequence of events. Naturally, I’d love for Bush to be impeached ASAP, but that ain’t gonna happen unless new evidence turns up (ideally such evidence would implicate Cheney, too – hey, I can dream, right?)
But as I’m not on the front line, it would be odious for me to hope for people’s deaths.
Daniel
I too am embarassed…but because of people like you.
Yeah, I guess that would be preferable. But I fear the 1st premise will fail. He’s gotten aid c/o WMD from all kinds of folk over the years. And I can imagine them being an element of his military. They clearly have defensive value, as evidenced by our not invading NK. And I don’t favor a policy of the US invading everyone who has WMD.
I think it would be best if the US were brought down a step, such that they realized it was preferable to work within the international community, instead of going it (nearly) alone.
I want to know exactly what you mean by significant loss. Are you saying that you wish for the deaths or injuries of U.S. soldiers?
Isn’t that like wishing for someone to experience the death of a friend so they can learn to value relationships and life? Don’t you think there could be a better way of learning this lesson? Death is so final. I do not get this way of thinking. It seems mean -spirited and heartless. I suppose you could justify your wishing this by saying that the U.S. needs to be taken down a notch or two. The U.S. is a super-power and will remain a super-power. If we have heavy losses in this war, we will pursue the development of better strategies, better equipment, and better training. Imho, wishing for death and injury of soldiers is just as twisted as hoping that someone who was undeserving of a promotion but got it anyway, would be fired and brought to financial ruin. The hoping has absolutely no influence on reality. It only lets people know that your thinking is vindictive and generally twisted.
Remember that these heavy losses you wish for are fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters to somebody. If you think U.S. foreign policy is so off track and immoral, why not stop wishing something would happen and get more active in the political process?
Dinsdale, I wonder if you really understand what you’re saying. Let me ask you this: you’ve got a wife, right? Two daughters? I imagine you’ve got a best friend, too, right?
So being gentle, I’ll ask you to choose only one of them. Which of them would you be willing to see die if it would teach the US a lesson about working in the world community? Can you say it? Can you say, “I’d be willing to let (one of their names here) die, if it would teach the US a lesson”?
Because I can’t. And since I can’t, I also can’t say which of other people’s spouses, children, best friends I’m willing to see die in order to teach our government a lesson.
I think it’s easy sometimes to forget what we’re talking about here, for folks on both sides of the issue. It is not, after all, our own loved ones who live in Baghdad (for the most part).
Daniel
There should be more rejoicing by the liberated.
Get Rummy onto it, there’s a good chap.
I, too, a torn, for these reasons.
The trouble is, should the war go easily (and, to be honest, it looks like it’s going far harder than I had hoped), that we will find ourselves having to support anti-war positions from a crowing Right.
We will then have to reiterate that there were many reasons for opposing this war, even if it went well. And we will have to be very careful that the victory does not mean that the US Administration gets the idea into their heads that unilaterally attacking anyone they feel might be a threat is a good idea. That kind of strategy has the potential to go very badly on the people of the US, and I happen to think that most of them are an allright bunch of crazy kids. I wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to them.
However, over all of these concerns, I want the fighting to stop. I want the people to stop dying. I want, more than anything, for the whole damn mess to be over, for the Iraqi people to be free, and for the soldiers to stop shooting at each other.
I entertain no real expectations that this will happen soon, unfortunately, but I can always hope. I would rather hope for a quick victory now and the possibility that we can change people’s minds about future wars, than a long, drawn out draw or defeat now, with the possibility that we still won’t change people’s minds.
Since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan I have felt that there might, from a certain point of view, be some value in suffering substantial casualties in part of the war against terrorism.
It seems to me that no one in the world questions that the United States is willing to kill in order to further our national interests/values/defend ourselves. However, it also seems to me that there is some doubt as to whether or not we are willing to die in for the same reasons. I think that this perception is understandable although I do not necessarily agree with it. There are any number of instances where the US was willing to expend firepower and money but not blood (Beirut, Somalia), preferring disengagement to losing our brave young men and women. I could argue that this perception of soft Americans has been around for a long time, with both post-Midway/post Guadalcanal Japanese WWII strategy and North Vietnamese strategy relying on attrition, even at bad exchange rates, to knock the US out of the conflict. So maybe showing we are in the struggle come what may will dissuade others from taking us on. Give credibility to Kennedy’s “pay any price” speech, if you will.
The flip side is I don’t want any of our servicepeople to die. I do not know that I could face the math, of having people die, even if it could alter potential enemies perceptions.
And suffering significant casualties (a term which i am incompetent to define) could have the opposite effect, showing the US as being vulnerable rather than the unstoppable collossus. (I would prefer that only we and our friends be aware of our vulnerabilities and failings)
It is pretty much insane to hope the war goes badly just so the Bush/ the US can be taken down a peg.
It also shows the typical disconnect from reality that left wing liberals seem to have (right-wing conservatives also have a warped reality, but its different). You can’t wish that we loose or win at a high cost while not wishing or at least acknowleging the death and dustruction and economic hardship that must necessarily follow such a defeat or hollow victory.
History loves a winner.
Also, its only been a week.
Well said, MMI. it seems to me that a whole lot of folk are willing to tolerate a bunch of killing for this “cause”, but not much in the way of dying.
No, I don’t want my wife or kids to die. But they are not in the armed forces. If a person chooses that route of employment, they accept some inherent risks. One of which is that a trigger happy commander in chief may send them to die in some desert halfway around the world, over a cause they don’t fully understand or agree with.
To some extent, military personnel are expendable assets. They have always run the risk of becoming cannon fodder at the hands of incompetent or ill-advised leaders. That is not to say that individual soldiers are not brave, honorable, etc. But if a nation is going to pursue a non-Swiss agenda, they have to aknowledge that at least SOME loss of military life is expected/acceptable.
While their lives ought not be discarded lightly, such sacrifice is one cost of protecting our country’s widely defined “interests.” Each individual soldier and sailor would be safe if the US had not chosen to invade Iraq.
I deplore this current action, and wish it is not repeated in the future. Sorry if this sounds impersonal. But IMO war isn’t exactly a kind and fuzzy activity.
Dinsdale, when I asked about your family members and best friends, I wasn’t comparing them to American troops: I was comparing them to Iraqi civilians. I’m under the impression that the longer this war lasts, the more Iraqi civilians will die. And while I don’t want anyone to die, I especially don’t want people who didn’t choose to be in the fight to die.
Daniel
To the administration’s credit, I think their chosen strategy may result in far fewer Iraqi civilian deaths but more US military deaths, than if it were preceded by a massive aerial bombardment.
On the other hand, this is precisely the behavior which would be expected: since our success depends largely on the idea that we’re “liberating” the Iraqi people, we have to do as little damage to the country itself as we can.
Some weeks ago some dopers got really angry with me when I argued that it would be best for ** the world ** if this isn’t a very succesfull war for the american forces. I said that the only way to defeat the pre emptive doctrine would be with the dead american soldiers.
It was pretty strong thing to say specially when I call myself a pacifist. It’s hard for me to argue the point but history has shown that america public opinion really don’t give a damm about the mistakes american administrations do worldwide. In a way you live in a bubble, you only start to pay atention when it is you soldiers the one that die. Tragic but true.
It’s easy to argue about precission bombing or shock and awe campaign when you are not the one that is providing the dead.