How much longer could we have afforded to keep sanctions in place?
Truthfully, I think we could (if we had to) stay there at strength for quite a while. the real answer of course depends on the level you assume has to stay there. Only a very small force would be necessary to deter Iran from attacking.
Lok, I know you are a socialist and all, so you are inclined to think of communism as simply another choice among many. Like what color shirt are we going to wear. But it is undeniable that many people are much better off with the communists gone from eastern europe. Put your collective thinking cap back on and try to see a larger picture.
And looking at my post, I realize I left out too much context. I meant the US and the world were worse off because of the invasion and Iraq was better off.
What did sanctions on Iraq cost America? Compared with what the war and occupation have cost us so far?
I’m a democratic, non-Marxist socialist. I hate Communists the way Baptists hate Catholics. For most of Eastern Europe, the fall of Communism was, in my view, an unmixed blessing. Yugoslavia was a special case for reasons very similar to those that make Iraq a special case.
The discussion has become bogged in a false dichotomy.
The future was not:
Invade
or
Status Quo
Indeed the Status Quo was no possibility once weapon inspections began. Instead the more likely options aside from invasion were:
The discovery of the true unlawful weapons status of Iraq
the peaceable retirement of Saddam Hussein in several years accompanied by a graduated change to democracy under UN auspices. Remember this option was put forward by Iraqi diplomats a
In either case, considering the OP, the answer is apparent.
Again, you are talking about now -vs- down the road. Certainly right NOW women’s rights have been curtailed. However, there is nothing to say that if Iraq stablizes that it needs stay that way…in fact, I’d be surprised if it does IF Iraq stablizes. You are again making an assumption here and projecting today into the future…we just don’t know how things will fall out.
Not at all. All that has to happen is for Iraq to be stable, prosperous, and for the every day Iraqi not to have to worry about having to wind up in a mass grave somewhere at the whim of Saddam…or be raped by one of his sons or henchmen. However, again, its an assumption on your part that women WON’T have the same or better rights in a future stable/peaceful Iraq (always assuming there IS such an animal).
But you are the one who asked an open ended question RT. I was answering that. As for the medium time frame, say within the next 20 years, I’ll still stick to my prediction…I think there WILL be a stable/peaceful Iraq within that timeframe, and that those future Iraqi’s will be better off for this invasion than they would have been under Saddam & son’s and their successors.
Well, Lebanon isn’t exactly a good parallel. For one thing, they don’t have a vital natural resource in Lebanon…certainly not to the degree that Iraq does. Secondly afaik no major power has gone all out to try and stablize the situation there by sending in troops and pouring in money. That cuts two ways, sure…but I think it will make a difference IF America can grit its teeth and find some fortitude to stick it out in the mess WE made.
Sorry, I can’t do it…I WAS serious. I think that the majority of the LEADERSHIP ARE foriegn fighters…including AQ operatives. AQ isn’t the ONLY terrorist/paramilitary group in the ME, so if you read what I said it was " AQ and other terrorist organizations". I also think that there is a very large percentage of foriegn fighters operating in Iraq…if not the majority, then a very large minority. If you have facts to the contrary then by all means lets see them…otherwise your guess is as good as mine.
Of course, it could work the other way too. Say the insurgents continue to kill Iraqi policemen, civilians, muslims from other countries, hostages, etc. And say that eventually people in Iraq and, who knows, in other parts of The World™ get pissed off at this and decide to get some back. Then you’d have some number of pissed off Iraqi’s…but pissed off at the insurgents, especially the FORIEGN insurgents, that are a plague on Iraq. It could swing either way. They may not love us RT, but then they may not love them either.
You don’t think that the current insurgency is GETTING help? Where do you suppose they are getting the weapons and money from to continue to fight? You think the population as a whole is rising up and helping them? No, if they want to sustain a fight for years and years (a la Vietnam, Afghanistan), then they will need massive outside assistance…and they won’t be getting it. WIthout that, they will eventually become spoilers at worst…not a major threat. I think you are underestimating whats required to have a sustained insurrection…and overestimating that general nature of this fight by projecting it on the population at large. I’ve seen no indication that this thing is that wide spread…my impression is that the majority of Iraqis are sitting on the fence waiting to see what happens next.
Ok, but over the next 20 years, what would sanctions have cost vs the invasion?
Right. So simply expand the thinking to include more people and the numbers work out. No? If you want the communists back un Yugoslavia, you have to have them back elsewhere.
Does anyone really think Sadaam would not have handed power over to his sons? Really?
I admit that an argument against the war has legs. I also admit that certain facts have to be accepted to see the legs on the arguments for the war. But the idea that Iraq would have simply slide into peaceful democracy just seems silly. I must be missing something.
Anyway, I no more want the Communists back in power in Yugoslavia than I want Hussein back in power in Iraq. What’s done is done. But this thread – given its title – is supposed to be an exercise in hindsight. In hindsight, I say the invasion was a mistake, for a lot of reasons, one of which is the ethnic-religious rivalries we’ve unleashed by knocking out the regime that kept them under control.
Less. A lot less. No cite of course – this is an exercise in pure speculation – but, really, how much money was it costing the U.S. each year just to make periodic flyovers, and not to trade with Iraq except through the oil-for-food program? Compared with the – what – $87 billion? – we’ve spent on the war and occupation so far?
I’ve no idea. Probably, somewhere. If “independant” means unimpeachable, no.
Yes; but inspections would never have happened, and could not have continued, without the imminent threat of decisive force. Even if we assume the inspectors would eventually have gotten complete access, and US troops could have remained there as a deterrent for the months it would take inspectors to do an exhaustive search (both very questionable), as soon as US forces did leave the region, the inspectors would be kicked out again. Then, come 2006, 2007, you’d be back to “we’re pretty sure he didn’t have anything the last time we looked back in 2003.”
Could some strongly worded negotiation backed by military threat have made it happen? Maybe, maybe not, but we’ll never know as the opportunity was never explored.
Way ahead of you here. You are oddly enough, assuming good faith on the part of Saddam Hussein. That is, he had no MDW because he dutifully decided to comply with the UN and wanted to maintain ambiguity to save face.
No, what the inspections would have discovered is that Iraq had no WMD because the sanctions were working. They were fully effective as a means of containing Saddam Hussein.
Accordingly, the continued presence of US troops is not needed. The situation is not as you posit: on-again/off-again depending of Saddam’s assessment of the will to enforce inspections.
Instead it is a continuing even hum - “the-sanctions-are-working-are-working…” That is what the inspections would determine. Or would have.
But how long were the sanctions sustainable? My impression was that there was a growing movement to discontinue the sanctions for humanitarian reasons. I don’t know how long the ‘no fly zones’ were going to be in effect either, for that matter. Once the sanctions were lifted (and the ‘no fly zones’ abandoned), with Saddam still in power and limited or no inspections (without the threat of force), Saddam would have been free to start up his programs again. And while I think Saddam et al wouldn’t have (probably) restarted his chem/bio operations, I am pretty convinced he would have tried to aquire a nuke or two.
Well, less, perhaps. Remember that not all of the 87 billion went to Iraq.
I found this. (PDF warning) Its old and I can’t vouch for it, but it may be a start. "The Congressional Budget Office assigns average personnel costs of about $250,000 per person-year to overseas peacekeeping operations, yielding $7.5 billion per year for troops. Accounting for operating costs and depreciation of ships and planes adds $5.4 billion, so the direct costs of containment are about $13 billion per year. If post-9/11 security concerns and redoubled efforts to enforce sanctions were to lead the U.S. to expend 50 percent more on containment, then costs rise to about $19 billion annually."
Perhaps we could agree that the sanctions regime cost several billion per year? so over 20 years we are talking about real money.
What we need to take into the equasion is that the sanctions would, probably, have been lifted, after the determination that Saddam was not in violation.
Thus Iraq would most certainly be better off.
Indeed !
That would be the end of the the last remaining excuse for the invasion the admin has left; that at least they rid the world of an eeevil tyrant.
One good thing…the junior officers of the US Army…the men who are seeing what is going on now, and who will be generals in 10-20 years, now know an important truth:
“DO NOT get involved in a civil war”! This was the lesson that Colin Powell learned in Vietnama, and should have been remembered from the debacle in Somalia.
And it goes further back, to Clausewitz. You do not send the army in unless you have a clear idea about what you want to do. So,in the case of Iraq, once Saddam was defeated, we should have:
(1) Turned over the Iraqi governemnet to a local authority, and LEFT, or
(2) Ruthlessly supressed the rebellion: in the case of fallujah, told the rebels: any attacks on the US Army, and we raze the city to the ground!
This is exactly what the good muslim leader of Syria did (the late Hafiez Assad) when he was faced witha rebellion in the Syrian city of Hamas. He had his army encircle the city, and machine gunned everybody who tried to escape (about 55,000 people were killed). No more rebellion after that…odd,I didn’t see much condemnation from the muslim world about the brutality of the late Assad.
How you figure that?