Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Troy Senik's splendid post, "The Conservative Schism on Libya," has been on my mind ever since he put it up. One way of sizing up the schism on Libya, I suspect, would be to size up conservative opinion on Iraq. My thinking is tentative, but I'd like to try it out with my friends here at Ricochet.
Is Iraq better off without Saddam Hussein? Yes, of course--that's easy. Is it a good thing--indeed, a wonderful thing--that Iraq stands a chance of becoming the first functioning democracy in the history of the Arab world, demonstrating that democracy can indeed succeed in the Middle East? Again, yes--and again, that's easy. The real question is harder--a lot harder.
Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
The benefits, in brief: the elimination of a brutal dictator; a new government based, if, for now, loosely, on the consent of the governed; the establishment of a new currency and banking system; investments that will modernize oil production; and (although this is open to debate) an example that appears to have roused ordinary citizens throughout the Arab world, bringing down corrupt governments in Tunisia, Egypt, and, before this is over, other nations.
The costs, again in brief: More than 4,000 Americans killed and some 37,000 wounded; more than 100,000 Iraqis killed and hundreds of thousands wounded; the expenditure by American taxpayers of some $1 to $3 trillion; several years of the bitterest politics in the United States since the war in Vietnam; and, for now at least, an Iran that feels emboldened.
It's no good saying that we could have lowered the costs by instituting the surge earlier, by turning the nation over to Iraqis more quickly, or by monitoring corruption on the ground more closely. Maybe we could have. But we didn't.
The war in Iraq cost what it cost.
Was it worth it?
- Comment (77)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Peter Robinson: Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
The benefits, in brief: the elimination of a brutal dictator; a new government based, if, for now, loosely, on the consent of the governed; the establishment of a new currency and banking system; investments that will modernize oil production; and (although this is open to debate) an example that appears to have roused ordinary citizens throughout the Arab world, bringing down corrupt governments in Tunisia, Egypt, and, before this is over, other nations.
The costs, again in brief: More than 4,000 Americans killed and some 37,000 wounded; more than 100,000 Iraqis killed and hundreds of thousands wounded; the expenditure by American taxpayers of some $1 to $3 trillion; several years of the bitterest politics in the United States since the war in Vietnam; and, for now at least, an Iran that feels emboldened.
It's no good saying that we could have lowered the costs by instituting the surge earlier, by turning the nation over to Iraqis more quickly, or by monitoring corruption on the ground more closely. Maybe we could have. But we didn't.
The War in Iraq cost what it cost.
Was it worth it?·
No.
Jul '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Maybe.
Like George Bush, we'll have to wait and see. But I'd hate to see Iraq neck-and-neck with Iran right now over which would be the first to fashion some kind of rudimentary nuclear weapon. The sappy international coalition and boycott would have fallen to dust years ago.
Jul '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
No. And remember, Peter, we didn't go into Iraq to liberate its people and establish a shaky democracy. At the time, the American people would never have supported such goals. We went in based upon an erroneous assumption that Saddam Hussein represented an existential threat to our national security.
To say that sacrificing 4,000 American lives based upon a false premise has been worthwhile because the people of Iraq benefited is to rationalize a huge mistake.
Aug '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
I would add to the credit column stopping Saddam paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers- essentially waging war on a US ally.
Jul '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Peter, I initially supported the Iraq invasion for one reason, and it wasn't because I believed Saddam had WMD's. It was clear to me that was just his charade to intimidate Iran.
I supported the invasion because I imagined that it was a clever ploy by George Bush to depose Saddam and leave security to a chastened Iraqi army while we built up a military presence powerful enough to invade the real enemy - Iran.
Unfortunately, I misoverestimated George Bush.
Jul '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
That's hardly worth 4,000 American lives.
May '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Do the benefits of the Iraq War exceed the costs? Was the Iraq War preferable to the absence of the Iraq War?
Well, it seems to me that we ought to judge the wisdom of the Iraq campaign by determining whether it contributed to the self-defense of the U.S. from foreign aggression.
Was the Iraqi government a threat? Not particularly from what I know. Saddam did give 25k to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and he apparently provided Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi a sanctuary in Iraq. But so what? We could have used our scarce military resources towards ending the threats posed by the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia which are the largest sponsors of Islamic fascism on the planet, particularly that of Iran which continues to pursue nuclear armaments.
Sep '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Because it's impossible to know what the costs would have been had we not invaded Iraq, it's hard to determine if the effort was worth it in balance sheet terms. (Christopher Hitchens makes a great argument that had Iraq "naturally" imploded, as it was close to doing, the death and destruction would have been at least as bad but probably much much worse.) Although I completely respect the view of those, like Michael, who say it was not worth it, I believe that both now and over the long term the answer will be a somber but definite yes. I believe this because I'm from the Deep South. 150 years ago, most southerners, especially during Reconstruction, did not feel the war was worth it to keep the union together, much less to free a few million people. But they were wrong, and their determination to be wrong in the name of Jim Crow cost the South another century of human progress. But what would have happened to the South had the Civil War not been fought? I shudder to think. I hope that most Iraqis will one day feel similarly about the overthrow of Saddam.
Aug '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth
That's hardly worth 4,000 American lives. · Mar 24 at 3:09pm
I didn't say it was. I'm not American so it's not my place to say. I just suggested it be put in the credit column with the other benefits. And if Saddam had been funding terrorists in Britain, France or Ireland, would the US have stood by? (Now that I think about it, Gadaffi was a major donor of the IRA who did attack civilians in Britain).
Oct '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
I don't know that that's a fair question, "do the benefits outweigh the costs?"
I wonder if the better question is, "was it reasonable to believe at the time that the expected benefits would outweigh the expected costs?"
Hindsight is always 20/20, and such an examination doesn't really accomplish anything, does it? Isn't it just an academic exercise? Even if the answer is "no," so what? It won't guide the future, because presumably any contemplated military action in the future will weigh the expected benefits and costs before moving forward (present president excepted), without knowing how it will turn out and without knowing how not acting will turn out.
Seems to me Leslie Watkins nails it the very first sentence.
Dec '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
I agree with Leslie that it is far to early to make a determination of whether the benefits of Iraq were worth the cost. As I watch the Middle East over the past few months, I see at least a possibility of widespread progress - yes, progress - in the political situations of virtually all of the Muslim countries. So is this a vindication of the "Freedom Agenda" - that the people of the other countries see a democratic society and want one for themselves? I won't give that premise a 100% affirmative, but I will say that it undoubtedly has had an impact.
So what if ten years from now the countries of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Lebanon, and Yemen were all democracies? Even if they weren't particularly friendly to the US or Israel, would the costs of Iraq then be worth it?
If that were the case, I would have to say yes. But as my initial point states, it is far too early to make that determination.
Dec '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Generally speaking, one cannot do a legitimate cost-benefit analysis to determine if a war was "worth it". An objective quantitative analysis is essentially impossible. Also, for the most part nations do not usually do a cost-benefit analysis before getting involved in a war. It is not like a business enterprise.
There are many, many problems with trying to do such an analysis, including that it is impossible to know what would have happened if the war was not fought.
Since the full consequences of the Iraq war will probably not be known for several decades we cannot really say or know at this time if it was "worth it". And, of course, we do not know what would have happened if we had not removed Saddam.
Such an exercise becomes almost a parlor game.
Was the 1991 Gulf War worth it?
The Korean War?
The Spanish-American War?
Was the Civil War worth it? There are many who would say it was not.
Would attacking Nazi Germany in 1938 have been worth it? Pat Buchanan would probably say no.
I think almost everyone would say WW II was worth it. However, there are exceptions.
Edited on March 24, 2011 at 11:56pmJul '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
The cost to whom?
Feb '11
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
In scientific research there is no definitive measure of the worth of a particular researcher or institution. The number of cited papers and patents produced provide an estimate to the value of research. Yet, because so many of the brilliant scientific breakthroughs are serendipitous occasions, research cannot itself be considered as a science. You cannot plan invention and so often it is merely a suddenly conspicuous absence which necessitates and stimulates the creation of the figurative peg to fill that particular hole.
So it is by way of this side door that I suggest that American foreign policy cannot be reduced to a cost/benefit analysis. Morally, the strong have a duty to defend the weak and oppressed. But, like an investment in research, such actions do not necessarily result in easily measurable progress. Sometimes only a germ of hope is seeded.
As for me, I am impressed that for arguably the first time in our history, America decisively confronted an evil regime before its effects were too terrible to ignore. Churchill remarked that America always does the right thing after it exhausts all the other alternatives. In Iraq, Bush bucked this (cowardly?) tendency and I'm proud he did.
Edited on March 25, 2011 at 12:04amOct '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth
The cost to whom? · Mar 24 at 3:54pm
If that's not a rhetorical question, Kenneth, then shouldn't it first be asked of Peter's original post?
If it is a rhetorical question, then I'll bite: of whom do you speak?
Oct '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
The question of worth the cost and effort cannot be measured in the quarterly short term profit view used so often ... Did the actions forestall future attrocities by Saddam, seems clear on that point... Ask this..What would be happening today in Iraq if Saddam were still about ? Would the populace have taken up the mantle as in sister nations, if so...Then what..
Jul '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
dittoheadadt
Kenneth
The cost to whom? · Mar 24 at 3:54pm
If that's not a rhetorical question, Kenneth, then shouldn't it first be asked of Peter's original post?
If it is a rhetorical question, then I'll bite: of whom do you speak? · Mar 24 at 4:20pm
It's not a rhetorical question. Peter's post clearly asks if the war was worth it to the United States.
Leslie's comment is not so clear. Does she mean the cost to the U.S.? Or the cost to the Iraqi people?
Jun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
It's unknowable. The American military may've learned things in Iraq (by studying the culture and correcting mistaken strategies) that will save 40,000 American lives in the future. Only the future tells you what's good or bad.
There's an old Chinese story about a farmer whose horse runs away. Bad. But, it comes back with three wild horses. Good. But, his son tries to tame one of the wild horses and breaks his leg. Bad. But, then the army comes to conscript his son, and can't take him because of his broken leg. Good. And on and on.... At every step, his friends grieve for him, or cheer for him, but he says "let's wait and see if it's actually something good or something bad." The lesson is, it's always both.
May '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Peter Robinson:
Was it worth it?
Ab. So. Lutely.
As Bruce Thornton remarked in a March episode of Uncommon Knowledge, it doesn't matter there were no WMDs. Our multiple victories in Iraq demonstrated to the looming umma and it's terrorist enablers that the United States will stand and fight, toe-to-toe, and persevere in the cause of liberty. And not a general freedom for Iraqis, but a specific list of freedoms for Americans. Saddam presented a constant threat to not only our interests and allies abroad, but upon our shores.
When Iraq fell Qaddafi flipped and gave up this nuclear weapons program. Today, this very moment, the fight that is developing in Libya would be a very different one if that had not happened.
When we look back at the critics, it is Barak Obama who singularly should thank his lucky stars George W. Bush had testicular fortitude in 2003, a fundamental quality in leadership he himself does not possess.
Edited on March 25, 2011 at 12:35amMay '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
While I don't want to downplay any death or our costs, but the costs listed for Iraq above are not that high for a war.
What, exactly, is the difference between going into Iraq to stop a genocidal dictator and coming into WWI on the side of the UK? Korea? Vietnam?
The world is not a balance sheet. Personally, I think if America is unwilling to take this level of loss to change the game in a region, what will we do?
We took out a very bad man, and made that part of the world a better place. That is worth something. If you think that nation building is not something Americans support, then please explain rebuilding Japan. Has it been messy? Yes. Is it perfect? No. Republics like fast solutions. The Real world does not work that way.
Or rather, the fastest solution to middle eastern terror, this Republic will not contemplate.