But the US, along with the UK, Russia, France, Germany, et. al. could’ve cooperatively used the leverage of troops massed at the border to effect changes within Iraq. This could’ve been done even without direct coordination beyond US/UK, IMO, as long as the UN and the skeptical members of the Security Council weren’t deliberately marginalized.
[aside] bordelond, I don’t want to argue the “diplomacy” point fervently here, for fear of disrupting a rather interesting thread into a pro-anti discussion (Sam specifically wanted to avoid that), so I’ll concede that having coalition troops in country quite clearly put the Republican Guard in an untenable bargaining position they otherwise wouldn’t have been in.
[/aside]
Seems a bit early to revisit this, IMO. It’s a virtual certainty we won’t have accurate numbers for quite sometime.
And just as an FYI, one should really point out that American casualties now stand at least at 600 (some 100+ dead and 500 wounded).
The “Liberator” part is questionable too. Certainly there were a few scenes of celebration, and certainly there are those Iraqis who have some love for America, but some events of the past week have been less than positive…
mrblue92 makes a good point, which I should have mentioned earlier.
I said ‘casualties’ in my estimate post, when I should have said ‘deaths’. I also was thinking almost entirely of death from Iraqi action, and not including accidents in the combat zone. I did include friendly fire in my estimate.
However -
I can’t see how this would work. I doubt that Russia, France, and Germany would have taken a different stance as regards Iraq when US/UK troops were at the border than they did during discussions in the UNSC. It sounded to me like they didn’t want to use the threat of imminent invasion to enforce the cease-fire and 1441 at all.
I thought they wanted to continue the inspections for several more months. If the inspectors found WMD, they could then say “There - problem solved”. If not, they could then say “See - problem solved”. Either way, they could then end the inspections and the sanctions, and then (from their point of view) welcome Iraq back to the community of nations or (from Saddam’s) let Iraq get back to the business of trying to acquire and develop WMD and rebuild his military.
Unless there was some way that Bush could have persuaded them to join his coalition, which I would like to hear about.
If this will turn this thread into pro- vs. anti-war bickering, please disregard.
France proposed a resolution giving an explicit deadline for military action. Seems to me as if they were willing to use that threat of action, and were reluctant to put the threat into action while it was still useful as a threat.
Um… considered their compromise proposal, or any of the compromises proposed by other UNSC members? UNSCR 1441 set the stage for this kind of cooperation; it wouldn’t have required Byzantine diplomatic brilliance.
I am glad to admit that my estimates of casualties, on both sides, were way too high. However, as I made clear, I expected Saddam to utilize his stockpile of WoMD, both on US forces, as well as on his own people. Thankfully, I was wrong.
Wonder where I got the idea that Saddam might be more dangerous?
I, too, would like to join the Cindy Crawford mailing list. Huh? Oh, wrong thread.
I, too, would like to thank Sam for his tally. Quite useful.
Overall, given that my estimates were all pretty low in terms of casualties and duration of serious combat, I’m glad that they appear to have been pretty accurate. Honestly, though, I’m not terribly surprised. What I’m really eager to see is how this turns out in the long run - that’s where the importance lies. The scenes of jubilation we’ve seen thus far give us reason to hope, and it reinforces my belief that if we can hurry our asses up, form and stablize the government, and get out of there, the good we’ve done will hold up. If we lollygag our way through this, though, it doesn’t matter how thrilled the Iraqis were at first, they’re going to grow to hate us. (Then again, isn’t that always the final step in any US-imposed government reformation? First liberation, then democracy, then prosperity, then they hate us. See also: Germany. See also: Japan.)
One final comment:
Consider that it’s entirely possible that Saddam, left unchecked, was just as dangerous as was put forth by the administration. The claim was never that Saddam could kick our ass is a ground war, but that he could use WMDs against us. And it’s still entirely plausible that Saddam may have intended to gas us when we came in, but our pre-war preparations and negotiations resulted in the defection of everyone in position to launch these weapons. Just something to keep in mind.
Jeff
I missed this thread (‘Middle East’ evokes Israel/Palestine to me, not Iraq) but I predicted a two-week war here, with the need to leave behind a substantial occupation force. I was in the general ballpark with respect to the war’s duration, and right on target with the need to leave behind a serious occupation force.
Still under 500 today, and I was speaking of the war proper, not the total number of deaths during the entire duration of occupation.
This was also pretty accurate. We don’t know the exact number of casualties, but it’s certainly within this range.
Also pretty close, but a little low. I’ve seen estimates as high as 9,000 and as low as 3,000. It’s hard to say. But since Saddam was killing over 30,000 people a year, the answer is in the ballpark.
I think this is dead on. The coalition WAS seen as a liberating force, and they are still very popular in most areas. There is a lot of anger at how things are going now, and of course a lot of people who had lucrative jobs in the old government are pissed. That’s to be expected. But it seems clear to me that the people of Iraq feel like they’ve been liberated, and not occupied by an oppressor. That doesn’t mean they want the U.S. to stay forever, of course.
Also pretty close. Free and relatively peaceful, with (currently) more than ‘occasional’ acts of violence and terror. And we’re only halfway through the first year. Let’s revisit this in six months and see how much closer it is - but so far, I’m thinking this is pretty accurate. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting this much organized resistance - I thought the terror would come from foreign terrorists, because I didn’t anticipate the instant and rather complete withdrawal into the population of the Fedayeen and other military forces. I thought there would be more of a formal surrender and coalition control of the military weaponry. I think the coalition really screwed up here - especially leaving the ammo dumps unprotected after the war.
Looks to be about right. I was perhaps a little optimistic. The current timetable for turning control over to the Iraqis is about a year and a half from now, but I could see it being more like three years. That would be the end of the ‘Japanese style occupation’. After that, I expect significant forces in Iraq for at least another 10 years. On the order of 50,000 troops, or about 1/3 of what’s there now. Just like Korea and Europe, as I said.
Yep.
Libya has since renounced terrorism. The dissident movement is still gaining strength in Iran. The screws are being put on Syria, and there is indeed more pressure on Saudi Arabia. But this could still go any direction. It’s still very early in the game.
Are you completely daft? Some of your self-laudatory declarations are so far removed from the facts on the ground as to be laughable. To wit:
Liberators - the Iraqi Governing Council itself, which is composed of U.S.-appointed stooges, has repeatedly referred to the presence of American troops as “occupation”, as recently and high-profile as their official speech several weeks ago at the United Nations. Oh, or are you talking about the parents who refuse to let their children go to school because of the lack of security - surely they are the ones with whom the “liberators” are “popular”. Perhaps you have Iraq opinion polls that are more accurate than Mr. Zogby’s that you wish to share with us?
“Relatively peaceful”? By whose standards - residents of Tel Aviv? Only one (officially reported) bombing per day. If Toronto were that “relatively peaceful”, even the Canadians would revolt. As for stability and prosperity, 75% unemployment and the recent assasination of a government official (deputy mayor of Baghdad) would seem to belie your conclusion.
Libya has renounced terrorism? I must have missed that press release. Last I checked they were making financial settlements with victims of Libyan terrorism in exchange for favorable trade policy changes with the EU (a.k.a. “bribery”). Iranian dissidents? What Iranian dissidents? Do you mean the student revolt that was suppressed by vigilantes, with the tacit approval of the Committee on Vice and Morals? Yup, there’s no stoppin’ those kids now. Hizbollah? HOORAY - You’re RIGHT! Israel has unilaterally (or is it pre-emptively?) violated the sovereignty of Lebanon to attack Hizbollah!
Very sorry - I would do well to give credit where credit is due: You seem to have predicted with some degree of accuracy the fact that the U.S. will commit lives and resources to this endeavour for years to come.
Oh, and you’re also very good at counting dead people.
It IS an occupation. The U.S. is an occupying force. That does not negate the fact that the people saw the war as a war of Liberation. Do you think the average Iraqi would like Saddam back?
Strawman. A person can feel glad to be liberated by Saddam, while still being worried about security or even furious at the poor security planning. No one is claiming that Iraq is Montana. It’s a tough place right now. But it’s getting better, and Iraqis overwhelmingly feel the invasion was a good thing.
You mean the same Zogby poll that showed 2/3 of the people of Baghdad wanted the U.S. to stay for a year or longer? The same one that showed that 75% of the people want Saddam’s regime members punished for crimes against humanity? The same one that showed that 70% of Iraqis felt they would be bettter off in 5 years?
And let me point out that the Zogby poll, and the Gallup poll that preceded it, were both only carried out in Baghdad, which probably has the lowest support for the invasion in Iraq. What do you think the support levels are in Mosul, or Kirkuk? Baghdad was the prime recipient of Saddam’s government - most of the jobs went there, food and electricity were diverted there, and the bulk of government spending went there.
How about we poll the Marsh Arabs, who’s marshes are now being refilled? Or the Kurds? How high do you think support for the invasion is there?
Oh, how about the standards of a country in which 30,000 people were murdered by the regime annually? A country which had its leader use chemical warfare against his own people? A country that had been through two wars in the previous 15 years, losing hundreds of thousands of people?
How about in the eyes of the people who walked around after their liberation forlornly looking down wells where their loved ones were thrown? How about the ones who finally got to dig up the mass graves and re-bury their wives, husbands, and children according to Muslim custom?
Security is bad in Baghdad, but improving. Other parts of the country are very peaceful. The northern and southern parts of Iraq are doing fine.
I’m not saying things are great. I’m saying that even with the lack of security now, fewer people will be killed this year than would have been killed by Saddam, by several orders of magnitude.
You can’t judge Iraq by the standards of Toronto. Although I hope that someday soon you can.
Along with renouncing terrorism.
I didn’t say they had won. I said that there was a dissident movement.
You mean the soveregnity of Lebanon, which had its sovereignity violated by Syria?
You know, I wasn’t looking for some back patting here, and would never have posted my other message if someone else hadn’t first selectively quoted from it in order to ‘discredit’ my predictions. So I decided to re-post it myself with my own comments. I was wrong about some things, and right about some things. So were lots of other people. Par for the course.
Well, here we are at the 1 year mark. Two questions in the thread asked for one-year predictions. They were, “what will Iraq look like”, and "What will the Middle East look like? I’ve compiled the responses from all the people who took part.
I’ll organize them by ‘for’ and against’, so people don’t have to go back and dig through the whole thread.
May I ask the point of revival of this thread, Sam? (Unless you are composing the post right now…) Except to notice that some of the posters were quite prescient and others were predictably dead wrong.
The most accurate were the ones whose predictions fell somewhere in the middle, apparently. There are certainly bright spots in Iraq, but there are also really bad spots that don’t seem to have gotten much better over the last six months. I am very pleased that the war was short and that casualties were relatively small.
A year ago, I was sitting at a hostel in Phuket, in the middle of one of the best vacations of my life, watching BBC World Service, and telling my wife “I can’t believe we are going to war over chemical weapons.” It was even worse than I had imagined. Saddam was a truly bad guy and I am glad that he is gone and that the Iraqi people can move on. I am glad that a democracy seems to be coming together over there and I hope that our (and the Iraqi) investment in Iraq will reap tangible benefits soon.
But in many respects this war IMHO has let us turn our back on terror, with only lip service given to addressing the niduses of the fanaticism that we know can hurt us. We have squandered so much life, money, and goodwill on what now seems like extracurricular activities in Iraq. If the terror situation has improved over the past year, it is only despite of Iraq. Iran has gotten worse. There has been a lot of talk but little movement on Saudi Arabia. Israel/Palestine is as bad as ever. We have given Pakistan close non-NATO ally status even though they recently sold nuclear technology to our worst enemies. Worse than this, our administration still seems fixated on the states, not the supranational organizations. Despite what they should have learned in Iraq – there were very few or no governmental ties to al Qaeda and our intelligence that said that they were a threat was dead wrong – most of the approach to terror focuses on rebuilding Iraq and Aghanistan.
My wife is due today. I wonder what national tragedies my first child will deal with over the next five years, and I have horrible suspicions that they are being planned and carried out right now, when our national attention is diverted to the mess of our own choosing which is Iraq.
Actually, I did it because I said I would. I did the same thing after the war ended. It was kind of the whole point to this thread when I started it. I purposely did not comment on any of predictions. I just wanted to tabulate them in case people wanted to discuss this.
I actually didn’t want to do it, and procrastinated for a couple of days. It took quite some time to go through the thread and cut and paste and mark all that up.
I also don’t think there is much to conclude from it. I see both sides have some people who made very good predictions, and a few who really blew it. I myself predicted that Libya would roll over within the year, but then on the other hand I also predicted that the U.S. would be pressuring Hamas, which was way off the mark.
I just thought it would be an interesting experiment to capture a lot of people’s thinking before the war, and compare what they thought would happen with reality some time thereafter. I thought there might be some insight into the motivations that lead to war that would be useful to examine later.
