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:
Aug '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Nickolas
Precisely. I think you have hit upon the root cause of the entire fiasco, that being that the '91 war was not brought to a decisive and definitive end. It was turned over to the diplomats. And corruption had a field day.
If the US is to intervene it should be done in a manner that ensures we never have to return to finish the job. Ever. There never should have been a second Iraq war, no-fly zones, massacres of marsh arabs and kurds, or Oil for food programs in the first place.
All that is Bush 41's legacy. He and Powell saw the 'Highway of Death' photos, got frightened of the potential bad PR, went soft, and prematurely halted the offensive before Saddam's evil Republican Guard was destroyed.
Jun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Nickolas: Once Bush 41 made the agreement he did to get the coalition together he simply had to stop at Iraq's border. This is what men of integrity do. They honor their solemnly made commitments.
You are right about the anti-Saddam forces not getting sufficient support from Bush 41. It's sad. It was a mistake.
Aug '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Larry Koler: Nickolas: Once Bush 41 made the agreement he did to get the coalition together he simply had to stop at Iraq's border. This is what men of integrity do. They honor their solemnly made commitments.
You are right about the anti-Saddam forces not getting sufficient support from Bush 41. It's sad. It was a mistake. · Mar 25 at 7:03am
If I remember correctly,; Bush 41 quite actively incited the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and when they did, sat back and watched them get massacred.
It was a disgrace.
Edited on March 25, 2011 at 3:20pmDec '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
We did not have to invade all of Iraq or go to Baghdad -- BTW, we did invade southern Iraq.
Bush 41 did not have to unilaterally stop the ground war after 100 hours. The Republican Guard was on the verge of destruction. They were almost entirely encircled and could have been wiped out in only another 24-48 hours. Most ground commanders were stunned when ordered to stop right when they were on the verge of accomplishing one of the stated primary objectives of the war. The primary purpose of Schwarzkopf's entire "Left Hook" encirclement was the destruction of the Republican Guard.
That was a huge strategic mistake.
Another problem was General Fred Franks, commander of the VII Corps. He dragged his feet and behaved as if he was facing the entire Soviet army instead of a second or third rate force. Schwarzkopf might have relieved him of his command if he could have.
Edited on March 25, 2011 at 3:31pmDec '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
nordman:
All that is Bush 41's legacy. He and Powell saw the 'Highway of Death' photos, got frightened of the potential bad PR, went soft, and prematurely halted the offensive before Saddam's evil Republican Guard was destroyed.
Right. It wasn't a decision most of their subordinates agreed with.
The two primary objectives of the war were 1) liberate Kuwait and 2) destroy the Republican Guard, the base of Saddam's power. The consensus was that if the Republican Guard was destroyed Saddam would most likely fall.
In the end George HW Bush finally did go wobbly, lost his nerve and resolve, and did not accomplish both of those two goals.
Oct '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
the iraq war was done in the US self interest, not because it wanted to establish democracy in the mideast. i would not have supported the war if without the WMD justification, but it wasnt that hard to convince me saddam had those weapons when CNN and the Clinton admin throughout the 90s told us that Saddam had those and was playing cat and mouse games with the inspectors.
is the iraq war worth it? ask me again 50 years from now.
Oct '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
First off, while I believe that the Iraqis have suffered greatly, they were already suffering under a Baathist regime that had slaughtered literally millions of them.
I think many of the arguments being made over whether he had WMD in 2003 are specious. The question is not whether he had them, but whether he was going to get them. By Early 2001, the post-Desert Storm push to isolate Iraq was over and many of the the countries who wanted them in place wanted them lifted. If Bush hadn't acted, eventually they would have been.
In 2011, we wouldn't be worrying about when Iran was going to develop nuclear weapons. We would be worrying about a nuclear-armed Iraq and all their ties to various terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. Or perhaps we wouldn't even be worrying - because with 8 more years, they would have had plenty of time to act.
Feb '11
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth
.....
But I still think we should have deposed Saddam, installed a military regime and invaded Iran. · Mar 24 at 7:39pm
Kenneth, the actions you propose would have immense consequences for real people, and it's far from certain that this strategy would be more effective or less costly. Depose Saddam? Certainly attainable for our military and intelligence; a net positive for humanity depending on the level of chaos that ensues and what kind of order emerges. Install a military regime? Possible. But that could have been just as costly and ineffective for us. And hasn't that approach broken bad enough times for us yet? Wasn't Saddam himself a product of that kind of strategy? Let's also not forget that supporting an oppressive and inhumane regime (and the odds are long that a military regime wouldn't be oppressive and inhumane) is increasingly not a price American citizens of various political stripes are willing to pay in order to see our interests advanced. So now we've arrived at the decision faced by President Bush: do nothing and see our interests eroded, or find some way to advance our interests without treating people like pawns.
Dec '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Casey Taylor
They're not, though. We see Iranians in western and parts of southern Afghanistan, but that's about it....Pakistanis were a dime a dozen even in the 80's, and foreigners stick out like a sore thumb.
Maybe its only in small numbers, but I occasionally see reports like this.
ISAF identifies more 'foreign fighters camps' in Afghanistan
Last night, ISAF noted that the Taliban was training "foreign fighters" at camps in the Sayyad Valley district in the northern province of Sar-i-Pul... ISAF also noted that special operations forces targeted a Taliban commander in Zabul who is linked to "insurgent foreign fighter training camps."
Jun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
nordman: Bush 41 didn't "sit back" but he did watch them get massacred. It was disgraceful. He is a decent man -- I am sure he has a hard time living with that. We ask a lot of these men who are president.
Nickolas: I just don't think we can imagine how difficult it was for Bush 41 to see all those dead Iraqis on the highway. I remember seeing wrenching footage of some Iraqi soldiers pleading for their lives. Many of these people were truly cannon fodder.
You're right about going into Iraq but if Bush was going to honor his word he had to pull the plug sometime. I don't know enough to gainsay him on this decision. It really comes down to trust in our leaders. Those that are trustworthy deserve considerable leeway -- and then we must live with their mistakes just as they must.
If Bush 41 had been reelected, so much would have been different, though.
Jun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Exactly so. I saw a bumper sticker back then: "Ignorance is Blix".
Mar '11
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm64E5R12s8&feature=related
Yeah, it was worth it. It's a crime that such a man be in any position of authority. Every American Hero that has died in the attempt to re-build Iraq did so having accomplished one of the noblest aims since WWII.
Edited on March 26, 2011 at 1:12amDec '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Larry Koler:
Nickolas: I just don't think we can imagine how difficult it was for Bush 41 to see all those dead Iraqis on the highway. I remember seeing wrenching footage of some Iraqi soldiers pleading for their lives.
He made the decision in haste and it was in part a political decision. Later investigation revealed a different story about the "Highway of Death" than the photos implied. Most of the vehicles were cars and trucks stolen from Kuwaiti citizens. They were plunder driven by Iraqi thieves. Our military did not find nearly as many bodies on the "Highway of Death" as some expected. Apparently the thieves abandoned their plunder and ran into the desert when US aircraft started bombing and strafing.
GHWB is a very good man, but he made stupendously bad decision that history will remember.
Colin Powell is also culpable. IMO he later realized this and it is why he supported GWB the second time around.
No doubt. I think he would have run out of patience with Saddam's shenanigans and he would no longer be concerned about how his actions might affect reelection.
Edited on March 26, 2011 at 12:50amJun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Nickolas
Casey Taylor
They're not, though. We see Iranians in western and parts of southern Afghanistan, but that's about it....Pakistanis were a dime a dozen even in the 80's, and foreigners stick out like a sore thumb.
Maybe its only in small numbers, but I occasionally see reports like this.
ISAF identifies more 'foreign fighters camps' in Afghanistan
Mar 25 at 12:25pm
I was just about to say that, due to the tribalist nature of the country, Pashtuns in particular refer to anyone outside of their territory as 'foreign fighters'. Then I saw that I'd already been beaten to it:
"Posted by GLH at March 19, 2011 12:58 PM ET:
Pashtuns refer to any fighters not from their area as 'foreign fighters'. So an insurgent from Dand fighting in Zhari is a foreign fighter. That is their mentality and it can be skillfully used against them"
Dec '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Casey Taylor
Nickolas
Maybe its only in small numbers, but I occasionally see reports like this.
ISAF identifies more 'foreign fighters camps' in Afghanistan
I was just about to say that, due to the tribalist nature of the country, Pashtuns in particular refer to anyone outside of their territory as 'foreign fighters'. Then I saw that I'd already been beaten to it:
"Posted by GLH at March 19, 2011 12:58 PM ET:
Pashtuns refer to any fighters not from their area as 'foreign fighters'. So an insurgent from Dand fighting in Zhari is a foreign fighter. That is their mentality and it can be skillfully used against them"
I saw that comment. But in the report it stated..
"ISAF uses the term "foreign fighters" to describe members of al Qaeda and allied terror groups operating in Afghanistan".
My impression was that the ISAF was calling them foreign fighters.
At any rate, if the influx of foreign fighters into Afghanistan/Pakistan is from little to none because of what happened in Iraq, that is a very a good thing. That means we are winning.
Jun '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
Nickolas
I saw that comment. But in the report it stated..
"ISAF uses the term "foreign fighters" to describe members of al Qaeda and allied terror groups operating in Afghanistan".
My impression was that the ISAF was calling them foreign fighters.
At any rate, if the influx of foreign fighters into Afghanistan/Pakistan is from little to none because of what happened in Iraq, that is a very a good thing. That means we are winning. · Mar 25 at 7:26pm
I'm always leery of anything coming from them. If ISAF is saying it, it's because local nationals who work in the chow hall or in the laundry facilities are saying it.
Oct '10
Re: Iraq: Was it Worth It?
"The war in Iraq cost what it cost.
Was it worth it?"
Yes.