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?
I reiterate what has already been said above, it is way to early to tell. I believe it laid the foundation for what could be huge and mostly positive in the region - something the USA & the west has been trying to accomplish for many years. At this stage we can not even tell if the political changes to Iraq are lasting and positive and we certainly have no way of forecasting the rest of the region.
Time will tell.
Aug '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Given all the problems we had after we deposed Saddam, No . I do not think it was worth it.
Does anybody else think that the US is being played for fools, spilling our blood, spending our treasure, and suffering all the bad press for everybody else's security and benefit?
What are we, the world's pro-bono mercenary police force? If so, why? Is it Because nobody else feels like doing it? I tend to think the answer is 'yes'. We are being played for suckers. We take all the risk, they take all the reward. They don't step up because they don't have to.
Edited on March 25, 2011 at 1:35amI'm with the Founding Fathers on this one regarding foreign entanglements - Stay out of them.
Develop missile defense, strengthen our Navy, and let the nations who have been free-riding off of us since 1945 step up to the plate. No more American blood - especially for foreign cultures that we do not understand, do not share our values, and could not be any further from our shores.
The cold war is over. The Soviet Union is gone. Germany is reunited. Japan is an ally. It's time to come home.
May '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Ah, this question again!
My main concern with the Iraq War is as a matter of precedent. We clearly achieved some good, but we should not make a habit out of this kind of conflict, which has been expensive and, thus far, low on returns for us. We should pay off our massive debt before we start running off to spend huge sums of money (nonetheless lives) on things that have an arguable immediate concern. The world needs to start paying its own bills.
If in 5-10 years Iraq has become a democratic bedrock, a core, reliable political ally, and has replaced Saudi Arabia as our primary oil supplier in the region, I’d call it a success. I am, however, skeptical. I do not buy the democratic domino theory.
Perhaps the worst unintended consequence of the war was the loss of will domestically when the occupation became messy. This decline in resolve contributed to the election of Obama and helped legitimize his horrid foreign policy approach for many in the voting public. Moreover, if we remain stuck with Obamacare, I am not sure whether it will matter much to me whether Iraqis vote every few years.
Edited on March 25, 2011 at 2:00amJul '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Spanking Saddam was overdue. Establishing democracy was a reach that defied prevailing wisdom. The result from where I sit is unleashing populist, violent, intolerant Islam on Iraqi Christian and Kurdish minorities while we stand watch and do nothing. We have started a fall of dominoes that favor the establishment of Iranian-style faux democracies or outright Sharia states in all of these destabilized countries, and likely laid the foundation for a world war. History will judge.
Rob has often embraced the destabilization as an opportunity for long term political maturation of a region locked in little tyrannies. Working it all out, as it were. I find the relevant polling data discourages this viewpoint, at least in the short term. The prevailing Western notion that materialism will overcome Islamism in the West has served Europe very poorly, to the glee of many Imams, and does not appear to be working any better in the US with our Wahhabi-founded national network of mosques.
The lesson of Iraq, if we can grasp it, is that Islam is the enemy of free men everywhere and the friend of whatever tyrannies prove useful in opposing the great Satan, whom they have cleverly fooled, again.
Jun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
This is beyond pathetic for a supposedly "center-right" blog.
1) Our military should ONLY be used for American interests and only our security interests.
2) I think Desert Storm was justified to stabilize Saudi Arabia and kick Saddam out of Kuwait. The interest was the strategic commodity: oil.
3) Desert Storm ended in an armistice.
4) Then we had the lost years with Clinton where he should have ratcheted up the terms of the armistice every time Saddam did not comply with them. Remember Saddam lost that war. Instead, Clinton backed away and let him fire at our legitimate monitoring of the no-fly zones. It would have been easy for Clinton to capitalize on the great work done by Bush 41 and Dick Cheney and Gen. Schwarzkopf. Clinton also has the lion's share of the blame for 9/11. He was the "weak horse."
5) I hoped that Bush 43 would be responsible in his handling of Iraq. I understand he and Rumsfeld were considering removing Saddam before 9/11.
6) 9/11 and then Afghanistan.
7) Finally, the time was (over) ripe for removing Saddam.
8) WMDs alone were enough but we didn't need them.
Jun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Come on Kenneth, are you trying to tell us you knew Saddam was trying to put one over on Iran. That was a shock to everybody when he confessed to that.
You should get a job with the CIA, they would never make anymore mistakes with you on board
Jul '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
David Obst
Come on Kenneth, are you trying to tell us you knew Saddam was trying to put one over on Iran. That was a shock to everybody when he confessed to that.
You should get a job with the CIA, they would never make anymore mistakes with you on board · Mar 24 at 6:08pm
Absolutely. There was no way he had the capacity to develop a substantial WMD stockpile after Desert Storm without the West knowing. But with his army and air force battered in that war, he was vulnerable to his true enemy, Iran. So he had to, at the very least, keep Iran uncertain.
In order to do that, he kept the U.N. arms inspectors running around like squirrels. The last thing he wanted was for them to determine he had no WMD's.
Edited on March 25, 2011 at 2:15amJun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth
David Obst
Come on Kenneth, are you trying to tell us you knew Saddam was trying to put one over on Iran. That was a shock to everybody when he confessed to that.
You should get a job with the CIA, they would never make anymore mistakes with you on board · Mar 24 at 6:08pm
Absolutely. There was no way he had the capacity to develop a substantial WMD stockpile after Desert Storm without the West knowing. But with his army and air force battered in that war, he was vulnerable to his true enemy, Iran. So he had to, at the very least, keep Iran uncertain.
Wow, I consider myself fairly well in formed and watch a lot of the news channels and talk shows and I never heard anybody say they knew what Sad was up to.
Your good man you're really good.
Jun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
I've gone back and forth on this question since we invaded. I've spent too many years of my life in Iraq, come close to losing my life, and I've lost so many of my friends and brothers there.
But.
I don't doubt for a minute that it was worth the cost.
I know that disappoints my libertarian brethren, but I stand by it. I've never been a proponent of interventionism, but the abject hopelessness and misery we've alleviated, seen with my own eyes over a period of years, is somewhat of a mitigating factor where Iraq is concerned. There are no more rape rooms, no more murder-by-the-numbers state terror campaigns, no more crushing despotism in Iraq. We drew almost the entire current generation of terrorists, hardened in Chechnya, the P.A. and Lebanon, North Africa and Iran, into the fight and killed them. Hundreds of thousands of battle-tested Islamists, intent on stamping the jackboot of their faith into humanity's face forever, threw themselves onto our spears and died. That's a hard truth, but it is the truth. And it's why I think the war was worth it.
Jun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
WMD's were important, but not my main reason for supporting the Iraq war at the time. Ending the mass mudering Saddam and Sons regime was my deal. Also I believed that helping the Iraqi's create a democratic and secular nation in the middle east would be a blessing to the USA and the world. I no longer believe the Arabs even want this. After all we have given for the Iraqi's, they are not our friends or allies. The Kurds, maybe, but not the Sunnis or the Shiites. I have become more cynical and discerning. If I had a do-over, I would have handled Saddam like, in a previous post, I suggested we handle Quaddafi. Eliminate with a drone and be done. Let the chips fall.
But the past is past and looking back is only relevant if we can learn lessons. I grieve for our countrymen and their families who have proudly and bravely represented our country and served our Presidents and us. To see this mistake made again, and so soon thereafter, is demoralizing.
Oct '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth
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? · Mar 24 at 4:25pm
It seems her point is valid whether she's talking about the cost to the US or the cost to the Iraqi people, or "cost" by any other substantive measure. Cost in American blood. American treasure. American influence. American prestige. American society. Iraqi blood. Iraq's future. Iraqi society. I think we could identify any metric, and her argument stands - it's unknowable.
Dec '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Some have theorized that one of the unstated objectives in Iraq was to create an irresistible bug zapper for all of the jihadists in the region. While I'm skeptical that was a deliberate plan it worked out that way to some extent.
However, I think the remnants of the last generation of jihadists and all of the new ones now head to Afghanistan/Pakistan, just as they did in the 1980s. I suspect it was not a coincidence that Afghanistan started to heat up again as the the Anbar Awakening and the Iraq surge began.
Oct '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
From the perspective of 2011, NO. But I am waiting to see the view from 2036. It may age well. It may not.
Nov '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
The justification for the current incursion into Libya is Qaddafi's butchery of his own citizens.
I love the opportunity to use moral equivalence on the other side.
The exact same reason could have (and should have) been used for Iraq.
Would the left now please shut up about Iraq.
Edited on March 25, 2011 at 3:03amJan '11
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth
Absolutely. There was no way he had the capacity to develop a substantial WMD stockpile after Desert Storm without the West knowing. But with his army and air force battered in that war, he was vulnerable to his true enemy, Iran. So he had to, at the very least, keep Iran uncertain.
In order to do that, he kept the U.N. arms inspectors running around like squirrels. The last thing he wanted was for them to determine he had no WMD's. · Mar 24 at 6:13pm
Edited on Mar 24 at 06:15 pm
I'm sorry but that statement is simply not true. Iraq had the precursors, the knowledge, and the physical capability to produce a significant amount of both chemical and biological weapons without leaving many, if any indicators for our intelligence agencies to pick up. Not to mention the stocks that the weapons inspectors believed Iraq possessed when they left the country in 98,
It is important to remember that we were not concerned that Iraq had a sufficient biological or chemical capability to be effectively used against a prepared military force but merely sufficient to pass along to a terrorist force.
May '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Yes. I never believed that WMD or establishing a democracy in Iraq were legitimate reasons for deposing Saddam. What we needed is the strategic geographic asset that is Iraq in which to establish a permanent presence to suppress the threats from Islamic terrorists in the region. In doing so we are better able to protect our interests, assist our allies, improve our national security and confront our enemies. Saddam's downfall was inevitable, and removing him and installing a non-Islamist gov't deprived Iran and other countries in the region the opportunity to put in an Islamist one. A great deal of intelligence has been gathered as a result of our military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Having that intel may have prevented several other 9/11-type events. We can secure our borders, but it's better to fight Islamic terrorists in their region, than on our soil.
Oct '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
I am certain that the opinions on Iraq will cleave along the same lines as Libya. The neocons are into nation building and keeping the nationalistic drums a beating; the libertarians will not want to use the coercive power of government to interfere with the right to national self-determination; fiscal conservatives will say we can't afford it; constitutionalsts will say that there is no express power for international peacekeeping in the constitution,; and classical liberals will see that limited government has once again been given lip service to intenationalism.
Sep '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth
The cost to whom? · Mar 24 at 3:54pm
To Americans. And Iraqis. And any other group who got involved. I'm just thinking that, had Iraq imploded into civil war apart from our invasion, due to the socially debilitating consequences of the sanctions and the failed oil for food program, and given that we and Great Britain were handling the no-fly zone mandates of the UN-sponsored cease fire (and getting shot at pretty often), I cannot help but think we might have ended up there in any event and in a much worse situation at the outset. But then maybe not.
Jul '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
David Obst
Kenneth
Absolutely. There was no way he had the capacity to develop a substantial WMD stockpile after Desert Storm without the West knowing. But with his army and air force battered in that war, he was vulnerable to his true enemy, Iran. So he had to, at the very least, keep Iran uncertain.
Wow, I consider myself fairly well in formed and watch a lot of the news channels and talk shows and I never heard anybody say they knew what Sad was up to.
Your good man you're really good. · Mar 24 at 6:30pm
Well, it was simple logic: there could only be two reasons why he didn't want anyone to know whether or not he had WMD's.
Reason number one, which most people bought into, was that he did have WMD's and didn't want us to disarm him.
Reason number two was that he didn't have WMD's but wanted Iran to think he did.
Now, remember, Saddam feared Iran more than he feared the USA. He could always negotiate with us. So his chosen course was to keep his secret as long as he could.
Jul '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Klaatu
Kenneth
Absolutely. There was no way he had the capacity to develop a substantial WMD stockpile after Desert Storm without the West knowing.
Edited on Mar 24 at 06:15 pm
I'm sorry but that statement is simply not true. Iraq had the precursors, the knowledge, and the physical capability to produce a significant amount of both chemical and biological weapons without leaving many, if any indicators for our intelligence agencies to pick up.
Then why didn't he?