Iraq: Losing the short term, winning the long term, and disaster

Great Debates
1

I was going to start this with “Resolved:” but I still think that sounds presumptuous and prissy.

America is losing the short term war. I don’t mean the recent “victory” at Fallujah. I mean the followup to the invasion - the reconstruction. So many times we’ve heard the war hawks saying, “Oh, but invaded and rebuilt Germany and Japan, and they’re doing perfectly well” - well, that’s well and good, but it doesn’t apply to Iraq. Germany and Japan each had mountains of money poured into them, and somewhat subdued and cooperative populations. Iraq is an entirely different beast. Not only are we failing to pour in the money (the pre-war claim that the oil revenue would make it pay for itself now sounds ridiculous), our entire “rebuilding” effort has amounted to a heap of elephant dung. The rebels/terrorists/insurgents/whatevers are successfully disrupting efforts at rebuilding the infrastructure. Employment is still a mess, since the promised big FDR-style rebuilding jobs aren’t happening. We’re flying in contractors to rebuild oil facilities and water purification plants, but it isn’t enough. Most of Iraq is ashambles, Baghdad is a ruin. We can’t gain any ground on the rebels; they leave one area and pop up in another. Every time we push harder, we cause more damage and dig ourselves a deeper grave.

America is winning the long term war. With Bush in the White House for another four years, we will probably retain a strong troop presence. Iraq, while being ashambles, will be largely under US control, “sovereign government” or not.

In the ultra-long term, we face only disaster. Every step in progress we make, we sow dissent. In the future, this is going to come back to hurt us. A lot. The next Iraqi generation will likely be very anti-American. We aren’t putting out enough effort to work alongside them, instead of over them.

(see the thread I am starting next: “Democracy in Iraq”)

2

You must always remember. You can’t have a successful insurgency without the support of the people.

That’s why the German insurgents at the end of WW2 failed. They did not have the support of the people.

The only thing we can do is cut and run and let the Iraqi’s themselves sort it out.

3

I wanted to take this rare chance to say…I agree with you. :slight_smile: The whole “Resolved:…” thing DOES sound presumptuous and prissy.

Ah well, it couldn’t last. I disagree here. I actually think we are winning the short term war but potentially losing the longer term one. Its a wash right now though so I conceed it could go either way, but I think that every month that goes by strengthens the provisional Iraqi government (and more importantly allows us to train up the Iraqi military and for said military to become more seasoned).

Why? Or more importantly, how do you know this? What I’m driving at here is, the two examples you gave…Germany and Japan. It took literally YEARS of reconstruction before they had viable and stable governments that were also out from under the US’s thumb. How long have we been in Iraq again? Its simply too early to tell IMO if this ‘doesn’t apply to Iraq’ or does.

Well, leaving aside the pre-war claims ( :rolleyes: ), I’d say I also have to disagree with you that the ““rebuilding” effort has amounted to a heap of elephant dung.”. I think its been a definitely mixed bag with some good and some bad…not the total disaster you seem to be painting.

Again, IMO this is a mixed bag. The insurgents etc have been PARTIALLY successful, no doubt. But at what cost to themselves as far as long term sustainablility goes? In addition, they have the very real prospect of running up against propaganda problems of their own if they continue attacks against soft targets or against Iraqi infrastructure. Its one thing when they wack American troops (or other coalition troops…hell, or Iraqi troops for that matter). Its quite another when they kill civilians in car bombings, kill brothers, fathers and sons who join the police or other government organizations…let alone when folks over there start realizing that when the insurgents blow up infrastructure it directly hurts the PEOPLE of Iraq. Maybe it won’t be a factor over there…but then again, maybe it will be.

I’ll slip back the other way now. I think its unsure if the US is winning the long term war in Iraq. I think the chances are certainly improved by the US staying in Iraq, but I’m unsure if BUSH being in the WH is a plus. I think the situation is still too up in the air, and that sufficient time hasn’t elapsed to make a real judgement on either the long or short term direction the war is currently taking.

Doubtful. In the ULTRA-long term, as you put it, this will mostly be moot (I’m assuming you mean something like 50+ years as ultra-long term). How the next generation of Iraqi’s will feel about the US will depend on the outcome of all this. I can see an Iraq thats close to the US…or diametrically opposed. It depends on whether we cut and run, on how well we do if we stay…and on perception in the end. Perception of the Iraqi’s that things are better/worse in their nation in the next 5 years. Time will tell.

-XT