US convoys also often travel at high speed to avoid being easy targets for ambushes and this has caused many accidents which also creates resentment. The New York Times had an article about dutch soldiers stationed in Samawa who found this very frustrating. US convoys would drive through the town at high speed and in case it was an ambush refused to either stop or slow down even after causing fatal accidents and crushing pedestrians. The effect this had on the local’s attitudes towards the americans can be imagined.
Ah, yes; of course it must be Vietnam. Perfectly fine to ignore any historical differences in making that analogy.
I’m sorry, I was under the impression that you
and were seriously asking a question, rather than merely being rhetorical.
I daresay that for every negative-looking story you can produce, I can produce counters that make things look good. A tit-for-tat which proves nothing, really … other than the fact that there is not a singular narrative coming out of there, but a whole complex slew of them, and that it would be quite foolish to claim that one has absolute foresight to know how it will all end based on second-hand reporting.
Well, you suggested the US Independence, US Civil and Korean war as possible analogies - I’m suggesting Vietnam might be rather closer. The point is that wars of intervention can prevent death and bloodshed (I suggest Kosovo as an example), but can also be utterly disasterous mistakes (which most reasonable observers would consider Vietnam as): all I seek here for Iraq is some criterion by which war-supporters or critics would say “My position was mistaken”. Mine would be a dramatic decrease in the death rate compared to Saddam’s Iraq. I would suggest Sunni/Shia/Kurd civil war in Iraq would be the point at which war supporters must admit that Iraq was as big a mistake as Vietnam. Does that sound a reasonable proposition?
I have not read the whole post yet, so if I repeat, sorry, but my comment is simple…
even if we try to pull out now, we leave a region that we have created complete instability in. I do not understand all the implications of this, but my Govt310 teacher seemed to explain it out that it is possible that (to make things simple) we are stuck there (ie. we made a mess, and now we must clean it up)
What could this all mean? Even if it is time to pull out, I feel that we should do so with extreme caution. I want our troops home as much as anyone (I have several good friends who are overseas) but I don’t want them coming home to create a larger international incident.
Only in the limited sense of “wars often look bad before they turn out well” (and the converse is, of course equally true).
Absolutely, with one caveat.
I’m not sure that, if we were looking back from 2105, we might not conclude that a civil war resulting in two or three distinct was the best for the Iraqis in the long run; Iraq is, in many senses, an artificial state created by western fiat rather than natural evolution, and breaking it up might be the best thing for it. Of course, the war would still remain a failure from a US policy POV, since that was something we aimed to avoid.
The question about what to in 2005 can’t be put off until 2035.
Perhaps, but then you will have to disagree with people who say, basically, “who gives a damn how many Iraqis die?” As in:
Which is why I started the comparison with Viet Nam and Pol Pot. Because I think the kind of ‘cut and run’ strategy would be comparable to the killing fields of Cambodia after the US left.
Whether or not it is practical, never mind moral, to disregard the deaths of millions of people in the Indo-Chinese region is one thing. To disregard the risk of a comparable Holocaust in the powder keg of the Middle East is, in my opinion, another.
Why we should get involved in the Balkans, or Rwanda, or why we should care if Israel were to wipe out all the Palestinians, but shrug our shoulders and look the other way in Iran or Iraq or North Korea, is another question.
Regards,
Shodan
As I do.
The Balkans and Rwanda being time-sensistive, humanitarian crises: genocide happening right now.
I might well count myself luck that I don’t live in Iran or Saddam’s Iraq, but if I did, hearing suggestions that a US invasion might make things better would chill me to the very bone. Why such a regime change was necessary right then in 2002 was never, and has still never been, explained. (Heck, on a bad day more people die in Rio than Iraq, and especially Saddam’s Iraq in 2001.)
Saddam’s Iraq was oppresive and tyrannical but stable like, say, Burma. I don’t know how much blood must be shed before we can say “Now it’s better than Saddam’s Iraq”, but that distant summit is currently obscured by the depth of the hole we are now digging. I honestly do not know whether US troops are doing more harm than good right now: perhaps light blue helmets paid for by the US might be a way forward.
(As I do disagree with people who say that, I mean. And I don’t know any who do conform to such an apparent strawman position).
There is another problem burgeoning: whenever a country is occupied by another, a culture of occupation develops. Ask any 'Nam vet about Saigon in that regard. The vigorous entreprenuerial spirit finds fertile soil for growth, and you begin to have a class of persons whose interests are best served by a permanent occupation. Not “Quislings”, but Chalabites.
What makes it worse is such as these are invariably seen as “friendlies”. Their opinions are sought and given credence (and, of course, contracts…) If an entirely new and elected governance should arise, the first question they should ask will be: WTF! happened to all the money. It may well be that it is necessary to postpone democracy in order to foster it. These things take time. Mustn’t rush it.
I am very uncomfortable with the gravity of risks involved, innocent lives by the thousands upon thousands. And if I could see any real basis for even the most guarded optimism, I would remain, as I was, in the “we broke it, we gotta fix it” camp. But we have opened our jugular for Count Iraqula, and he’s bleeding us white. (hmmmmm, make that “dry”…) And I fear that we rely too readily on the advice of the above named “friendlies”.
The natives of the Country Formerly Known as Iraq will have to resolve their differences. Convince me that we can do that for them, at gunpoint, and I might be otherwise resolved. Absent that: out now!
No. Not at all.
If my choices are and Iraq that:
A. Is ruled by Saddam, an insane man who hates America and clearly wants to harm us. Has WMD’s and has used them in the past against it’s own people, and clearly would against the US if it had the chance. Has attempted to assasinate a former US president. Has an effective military and secret police that are organized and ruthless. Has aggressive intentions to the US and the region, and is attacking our aircraft over his country. Has repeatedly ignored UN demands. Has staved, gassed, tortured and killed it’s own citizens.
or
B. Is in civil war with fighting among the various factions. Has no more military to speak of. Has no more Saddam. Has no more ability to create WMD’s. Has no more ability to do much of anything.
I choose B every time. Of course, I would prefer C:
C. Has a democratically elected, stable government. Is an ally of the US and a beacon of hope for the entire middle east.
But, if my only options are A and B, I’ll take B. No question about it.
*Yes, it turns out that Saddam may have not had WMD’s at the time of the invasion. However, everyone thought he did, and it’s better to err on the side of caution with such things.
With 140,000 American soldiers in between them. Good choice
I reject this argument as a justification for anything. It is better to err on the side of truth and our national self interest. Bush’s War does neither.
Emphasis added with :eek:
Your claim that the quote says that I don’t give a damn how many Iraqis die is contradicted by the quote itself. What it clearly says is that I don’t give a damn whether or not the Iraqis are free to do as they please in their own country.
Are they now free in that sense?
And as to caring about Iraqi deaths, I don’t see too many people wailing about those currently happening, or a running tally kept on them. Not even too many crocodile tears over them are shed in this country. Furthermore, it doesn’t look like our continued presence is going to decrease those deaths, and could very well escalate them.
My position was and is that I questions whether the outcome, even in 30 years, will be as happy as war supporters would have us believe. And I certainly doubt the claim that the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation has increased our national security.
And based on the news it doesn’t look like it’s going to.
And I am tired of the complaints that the media doesn’t report the good news. That’s just the nature of news. Nobody reports that there weren’t any house fires, or auto accidents on a daily basis. At most there will be a notice that this is the second week in Podunk without and auto accident. Live with it.
Would you then have supported an invasion when Saddam was gassing Kurds? Or that we simply waited until the Serbs wiped out everyone they didn’t like, and then say, “Well, that’s over and we didn’t have to intervene. So no harm done, and too bad about the civilians.”
Regards,
Shodan
Barring a few traces on twenty-year-old shells, you are seriously out of the loop here. If Saddam didn’t have WMD’s (and Hans Blix was in the process of finding that out when the US called “No, he’s too dangerous now!”), the invasion of Iraq was not justified. I don’t know whether you got around to reading the full and rigorous report on WMD’s and the threat from Iraq as categorically set forth by Duelfer, but Iraq had no ability to create WMD’s whatsoever.
Under sanctions, Iraq was no threat to anyone. Under sanctions, Saddam did not kill 1,700 American soldiers. In the decade since Gulf War I, he even presided over a death rate of his own people which was dwarfed by the post-invasion death rate.
Your justifications are, in short, not.
Why, yes, actually.
Like I said, I believe the Kosovo 1999 action ultimately saved lives. I don’t know how one could say that about Iraq 2002.
I agree that reporting the absence of catastrophe is non-news. It’s also true that in the news biz bad news is “good” news.
It is newsworthy, though when an Iraqi community, with the help of US soldiers, turned on the switch to a newly installed power plant. Wouldn’t it be uplifting, or at least counterbalancing, not to mention more fair and accurate, to also show those soldiers helping to board up blown out windows after a brutal attack?
We take the nobility, generosity and commitment of our best and brightest as a given, it isn’t news. I would simply prefer that they be permitted to express that nobility, generosity and commitment at thier local PTA.