Did we win the war in Iraq?

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Perhaps youve been brainwashed in the opposite manner. And to repeat a point you should have heard me say many times by now, I do not support every single action taken by every person or leader in the United States. Generally, I do, but I also have to take into account the other side.

I'm not brainwashed so much as I'm a realist. Our wars have been much more expensive than they have been beneficial, at least to most of us ordinary, working-class folks. Expensive in terms of lives and economically. Everyone from a true-blue pacifist to a nationalist Republican could see that. They do, after all, speak for themselves and often allow for that much. As Bush said, "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

Quote by: The Black Ghost Supporting dictators to promote certain governments was a terrible mistake in almost every situation, in retrospect. However, in the context of the times, things were very different..... Admittedly, a poor strategy, as it hurt our credibility, which in the end was more valuable than actually stopping communism. At the time though, that seemed like the greatest threat. It was the common fear, and there was some reason to fear it--so many people made many bad decisions in power to stop communists--because of paranoia more than anything. The Russians did the same to us.

It wasn't a mistake as much as it was deliberate policy, with known risks. But, like I said earlier, a purpose of government force is to either destroy certain risks, spin them to a certain advantage, or both. Things haven't changed much since the time of Genghis Khan, let alone since the 1980s. I think the views are very much the same, and we are supposed to not in agreement whenever a politician says, "This will be necessary at this time." The greatest threat to tyranny is a simple and general disagreement with those in power. If everyone were to agree that these people -- and everyone else -- should not have such authority, it poses obvious problems for aspiring tyrants. Their most common fear is of being colluded against by the general public. That's why it's important for them to propagandize at home, and in many other places.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Can we drop the constant meaningless rhetoric? I keep expecting to hear you mention the New World Order and the Illumnati conspiracy. If you think that the US is such a terrible evil "Big Brother" then you are horribly deluded... we may not be perfect, but we're among the best and most free nations. As I said, if you want, start a revolution, see if you can find a good alternative to our government.

What you call "meaningless rhetoric" is an accurate description of the world we live in. George W. Bush himself said that "Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." But what have we been doing? And thank you for your challenge, but the onus is not solely on me.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Britain had plenty of justifications for their projects in India, too. However, putting your "reality" (your kind of thinking, or not thinking) aside, this has been a counter-productive and undemocratic war, even with the Iraqi elections. Democracy is not something you can impose by a foreign occupation (1). Let's go back again to when Saddam was in power, when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds and is receiving direct help from U.S. foreign policy. Where was the "democracy" then? It was a mirage, pretty much like it is now. And it was just a small part of what made us one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. That perception alone tests your theory in a rather significant way, I would think. After all, the Bush administration had been very straightforward about wishing to hijack the US government and military for their rather fascist goals, and Obama is apparently not entirely different. Somalia may be the next target, but simply because they have oil. (2)

1. Well, would you rather we put a dictator in power?
I mean, what the hell else is there to do?
Tell me.
Why shouldnt we help them establish a better government--obviously
they want a representative government.
2. Regardless, is securing peace not better than the alternative?
[/QUOTE]

In politics, there is rarely just "the alternative," and it's always a little more complicated than pushing the play button. I think it comes down to challenging the established order. As Margaret Mead noted: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world,
indeed it's the only thing that ever has." War does not really change things, aside from that fact that it kills and destroys. If our wish is primarily to avoid death and destruction, war is illegitimate as a leading option. The evidence for this is clear. War had led to the reality of Iraq under Saddam, and it has led to deeath and destruction after his reign. This lesson is not just for Iraqis, but for those who occupied their country and are even now threatening their sovereignty. I doubt this is for research and educational purposes for the poor benighted Iraqis, who the US government would just as soon feed to the maggots. Fascinatingly enough, our policy can no longer be blamed solely on the interests of scared whites who didn't know any better. The US has put aside most of its purely racist, Wilsonian ideals in explaining the need to influence places like Iraq. But citizens still make assumptions are never far from the zeal of racism. We could never be ignorant. Iraqis are. We could never be like pirates, that would be the Somalis. We have hearts of pure gold. This thinking masquerades as wisdom, but you'd get more wisdom from gossip at the local beauty salon.

America plays a rigged game. We'll rig it as best we can against those opposed to our interests, hoping to eventually be able to say, "glad to see you finally agree with us!" But they will always have a dagger ready for when we turn our backs, just like we have for them. That's what being a superpower is all about. The best alternative is to get rid of all of these backstabbing leaders. Problems will still arise, but at least they would be ours. We would not be serving the ends of cynical rulers; those who would kick us into the gutter the minute we're no longer useful or worthy enough to lick their boots.

Grandpa h.

[challengeme101]

The benefits of the war in iraq was and is minimal for both the iraq and american people. Iraq one main benefit is now that they have a democratic government, but they arent safe from those who think like saddam hussein. Just because he is dead, doesnt mean his followers are. secondly the war in iraq destroyed the lives of the soliders and their families and cost america a great deal. But for the Bush family they had a great benefit. War now a days is very beneficial financially. Bush signed a contract with the companies which provide the military weapons and materials. the company gets rich and bush and his family get alot of that profit as well. The bush may seem dumb, but they knew for a fact that war is a great benefit. they used and killed their own soliders so they can get $$$$.

[Charlatan]

Challangeme101, the war in Iraq was linked to the war on terror, they needed to get a foot hold in the region besides Isreal. Then there is the war in Afghanistan. They needed to get rid of everyone who opposed peace with the west, and are still in the process of doing just that. On the plus side they would be building new relations for the future and business will boom for both nations. I have no doubt that Bush had pleasant intentions, he is not evil because nobody orders thousands of deaths for personal gain, because he is a god fearing man, and people don't think like that anymore, because they are charged with protecting their people, but, the generals need to agree with it too, otherwise there would be fallout in the war room, how does the others involved benefit from it? These men have been chared with looking after their soldiers, and were soldiers themselves, so there is a clear conscious here, so there is no real implication of guilt.

The problem now lies with winning the war. If they could make headway with finding the people that are making the bombs they might be able to plea bargain with them, and some will crack. In any case it will be more militants off the streets. If they were to use a radio reciever to intercept all communications over short band radio they could make some headway too, as they no doubt use that instead of cell phones or telephones. There is a method in place in the US that picks up on all key words like bomb and gun, so maybe that would be effective in this war?

The main problem lies in the tribal areas where the militants come from, as they take them out of a hard life into an 'easier' life, where they train and do fun things, with implications of 'divinity' in their minds.

To find more bombs and the materials for them, they should make it illegal for people to buy petrol without a drivers licence, as that means that the militants wil need one of those, which is scarce in the homelands, and that they would need to move in from the homelands into the cities and have a criminal records problem. Maybe nobody with a criminal record should be able to buy petrol without a drivers license. That will set them back for a while.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: challengeme101 The benefits of the war in iraq was and is minimal for both the iraq and american people. Iraq one main benefit is now that they have a democratic government, but they arent safe from those who think like saddam hussein. Just because he is dead, doesnt mean his followers are.

First of all, most of the militant Baath party is utterly defeated, and that happened years ago. Politically, the Baath party has even been allowed to rejoin the government (I need to check that, but Im pretty sure that is true). They weild some power, but they are not a force to be reckoned with, which is as it should be. They are under law now.

The people who you say we are not protecting against are extremists and terrorists mostly unrelated to Saddam and the Baath party. They are fighters led by politically-driven leaders like Al-Sadr and Al-Queda and only wish to sow terror. There is very little that can be done to counter their attacks, except to kill them before they can make attacks in counter-insurgency raids. Even so, we have been fairly successful in fighting them.

secondly the war in iraq destroyed the lives of the soliders and their families and cost america a great deal.

Indeed it did, as it did for all those that died in the war. It is a cost that wasnt forseen in the beginning, and a cost that wouldnt have occurred if foreign terrorist groups hadnt gotten involved. However, we are fighting a war on terror, so wherever they are drawn out and killed, is all the same. This is a struggle that must be fought to get rid of violent extremism in the world. Most people know this is true, but the constant attacks did what terrorism is meant to do--break the will of the people (not just the US, but the Iraqi people...who in turn turned against the US)...ever seen The Dark Knight? Same concept.

Either way, the lives lost are a tradgedy, but in the military, and in the police, people die fighting crime...and we are fighting a global crime against humanity that has gone unchecked for too long. Not to mention Saddam's regime itself, which was horrible, and caused the death of countless thousands of his people because of his totalitarian will and not caring for them.

But for the Bush family they had a great benefit. War now a days is very beneficial financially. Bush signed a contract with the companies which provide the military weapons and materials. the company gets rich and bush and his family get alot of that profit as well. The bush may seem dumb, but they knew for a fact that war is a great benefit. they used and killed their own soliders so they can get $$$$.

I would like to see your proof and evidence of this, because many people provide this arguement, and fail to back it up with any substantial proof. "it was all for money". Back it up. And while you're at it, you may wish to learn the truth about the oil industry in Iraq as it is now, because its not in the hands of the US.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost First of all, most of the militant Baath party is utterly defeated, and that happened years ago. Politically, the Baath party has even been allowed to rejoin the government (I need to check that, but Im pretty sure that is true).

Like I've said elsewhere, the problem here is in cult-ish superstitions, both political and religious.

As Yoram Hazony suggested, if people stop believing in the idea of the state,
"it is only a matter of time before the entire construct proves as shallow as is the belief in it, crumbling into the dust of memory at the first unfavorable wind. As a
consequence, the state need not be defeated militarily to be defeated
utterly. The entire job may be done on the battleground of ideas."
The Jewish state: the struggle for ... - Google Books

Grandpa h.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Charlatan Challangeme101, the war in Iraq was linked to the war on terror, they needed to get a foot hold in the region besides Isreal.

For what purpose? What authority do we have to take military action against another nation? Who posed little to no threat to our nation?

Then there is the war in Afghanistan. They needed to get rid of everyone who opposed peace with the west, and are still in the process of doing just that.

I don't believe this was the stated purpose for invading Afghanistan which makes your premise incorrect.

On the plus side they would be building new relations for the future and business will boom for both nations.

Afghanistan is basically resourceless so what business could we boom will either country gain?

I have no doubt that Bush had pleasant intentions, he is not evil because nobody orders thousands of deaths for personal gain

Pleasant? What portion of killing people do you find pleasant?
So nobody orders the death of thousands of people for personal gain? Are you sure you want to stick with that? I'm giving you the opportunity to correct your mistake.

because he is a god fearing man, and people don't think like that anymore,

People don't think like what anymore?

because they are charged with protecting their people, but, the generals need to agree with it too, otherwise there would be fallout in the war room, how does the others involved benefit from it? These men have been chared with looking after their soldiers, and were soldiers themselves, so there is a clear conscious here, so there is no real implication of guilt.

As evidenced by your entire post here, people who believe something are easily lead astray as long as they are reminded that the end result will be what they believe. As an example, it's OK to torture people in order to save other peoples lives.

The problem now lies with winning the war. If they could make headway with finding the people that are making the bombs they might be able to plea bargain with them, and some will crack. In any case it will be more militants off the streets.

Is it possible that those militants are militant because invaders are walking around their streets with guns?

If they were to use a radio reciever to intercept all communications over short band radio they could make some headway too, as they no doubt use that instead of cell phones or telephones.

You think you're pretty smart, eh? Kind of egotistical of you to assume that someone in one of our many intel agencies hasn't already thought of that.

There is a method in place in the US that picks up on all key words like bomb and gun, so maybe that would be effective in this war?

There you go again, stealing all the good ideas from those ignorant SOBs who have years of higher education and training...

The main problem lies in the tribal areas where the militants come from, as they take them out of a hard life into an 'easier' life, where they train and do fun things, with implications of 'divinity' in their minds.

Are you talking about terrorist training camps? I think your childlike view is pretty comical. The Taliban spreads fear of invaders and religious war to coerce the simpletons (ignorant religious nuts are easily led into believing what you want them to) into taking up arms and in so doing they are promised eternal bliss.

To find more bombs and the materials for them, they should make it illegal for people to buy petrol without a drivers licence, as that means that the militants wil need one of those, which is scarce in the homelands, and that they would need to move in from the homelands into the cities and have a criminal records problem. Maybe nobody with a criminal record should be able to buy petrol without a drivers license. That will set them back for a while.

Wow...

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: The Black Ghost First of all, most of the militant Baath party is utterly defeated, and that happened years ago. Politically, the Baath party has even been allowed to rejoin the government (I need to check that, but Im pretty sure that is true). They weild some power, but they are not a force to be reckoned with, which is as it should be. They are under law now.

They were under law before, Saddam's law which held the country together and prevented sectarian violence. The Baath party was simply a political party that gained control of the government.

The people who you say we are not protecting against are extremists and terrorists mostly unrelated to Saddam and the Baath party. They are fighters led by politically-driven leaders like Al-Sadr and Al-Queda and only wish to sow terror. There is very little that can be done to counter their attacks, except to kill them before they can make attacks in counter-insurgency raids. Even so, we have been fairly successful in fighting them.

Where was all this terrorism before we invaded? Who was Al Sadr fighting? Why wasn't Al Qaeda a political force or any kind of force in Iraq before we invaded?

Indeed it did, as it did for all those that died in the war. It is a cost that wasnt forseen in the beginning, and a cost that wouldnt have occurred if foreign terrorist groups hadnt gotten involved.

Would you say that not foreseeing these things was a failing of our government?

However, we are fighting a war on terror, so wherever they are drawn out and killed, is all the same. This is a struggle that must be fought to get rid of violent extremism in the world.

Terrorism has increased since our "war on terror" began, how do you account for this and, how do we kill them all if our actions actually create more terrorists?

Most people know this is true, but the constant attacks did what terrorism is meant to do--break the will of the people (not just the US, but the Iraqi people...who in turn turned against the US)...ever seen The Dark Knight? Same concept.

Thank the USA for that.

Either way, the lives lost are a tradgedy, but in the military, and in the police, people die fighting crime...and we are fighting a global crime against humanity that has gone unchecked for too long.

Where do you get the notion that we are responsible to do this? Is it in or nation's charter or motto or something? Since when did we become the worlds police force? I thought the UN was supposed to handle that?

Not to mention Saddam's regime itself, which was horrible, and caused the death of countless thousands of his people because of his totalitarian will and not caring for them.

There are many and many worse so your justification is hollow.

I would like to see your proof and evidence of this, because many people provide this arguement, and fail to back it up with any substantial proof. "it was all for money". Back it up. And while you're at it, you may wish to learn the truth about the oil industry in Iraq as it is now, because its not in the hands of the US.

The fact that you are ignorant of the Bush family ties with oil, the Saudis, Cheney's relationship with no bid contracts... et al. shows your willingness to ignore the truth in favor of your desire. Or to be concise, you lack intellectual honesty on the matter.

[DJK]

If the war was against the government of Iraq controlled by Sadam then yes the war was won in 2 or 3 days...with almost no American causualties. If the calculation was that Sadam was a danger to American interests and lives then the use of military force was by that definition a great success.

However, If the war is defined as eliminating criminal elements in Iraq or the middle east and bringing absolute peace then it is no more successful then the war on crime in every major US city. If this is the goal then the US soldiers must remain as a police force untill all people in Iraq give up crime and illegal or immoral activities. Which is not likely to ever happen anywhere in the world. The question is simple...after we remove brutal governments are we obligated to rebuild and police them...and if so how much rebuilding? and how much policing? The military action is over the policing is forever...unless we think Iraq should or can police itself. We should also ask ourselves do we go in over and over to remove bad governments or do we tamper with local affairs and insert our own US friendly government and risk being labeled imperialists? DID WE WIN THE WAR IN IRAQ>>>>>>>>.....The answer depends on the question!

[DJK]

Interesting logic you use...

lets examine it! lets use the same logic but change the variables to see how it stands up.....

Consider the Mafia...

what your saying is that we shouldn't fight organized crime and put in jail the gambino family because the tattalia family could take control of the streets.

Thats like saying since some police officers and civilians were killed in the war agianst organized crime....that clearly we should not fight organized crime...its not worth the costs and/or criminal families will just fill the void and things could be worse then the crime wave under the gambino family.

You could say the same about going after murderers, rapests, pedophiles or other criminals....dont lock them up since crime will never end anyhow or the next serial killer could be even worse then the last....or heck catching bad guys could get us hurt????

[DJK]

Of course you could make an argument the Sadam although a criminal is not in our jurisdiction.....

this would be a more valid argument...
Or that we are not the worlds policemen...but sometimes criminals dont follow jurisdictional bondries...do we let criminals hit and run across the border or facilitate crime from the safe haven of international borders....

and once we catch, kill, or remove a international bad guy...do we still hang out and play police in the local area??? Do set up a sting and get the other criminals or do we go home and wait for the next bad guy to commit crimes we can no longer ignore????

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo They were under law before, Saddam's law which held the country together and prevented sectarian violence.

Wow! You must have some idealized vision of Iraq before the war. Just because the sectarian violence was sanctioned by the government makes it no less violent.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Terrorism has increased since our "war on terror" began, how do you account for this and, how do we kill them all if our actions actually create more terrorists?

Not a single attack on American soil since 9/11

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Wow! You must have some idealized vision of Iraq before the war. Just because the sectarian violence was sanctioned by the government makes it no less violent.

All governments sanction violence against their people. Here in the USA we call them COPS. The COPS enforce whatever laws the current government has seen fit to make. I know it's not a good analogy but then again, Saddam's violence wasn't against us so it's really not our business, it's the business of the Iraqi people.

Not a single attack on American soil since 9/11

The 2001 anthrax attacks in the united states, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on September 18, 2001

[NoJingoLingo]

DJK, too bad we don't know who you are talking to and what you are responding to. Try the quote system.

[Georgia]

It's been pounded on all fronts for the past 5 years that GWB has no exit strategy. It was one of the Democrat points in the election and I believe it to be a legitimate concern.

This month was the bloodiest in recent history in Afganistan, bombs are still blasting in Iraq and even spilling into Pakistan. Countless civilians are still killed.

Somehow the same concern isn't as pressing for the new administration as it were for the last.
If I could pose a question for the administration, it might be the lack of an exit strategy.

How will they end this? Do they even have any plan at all other than "Just keep fighting"?

More important is why aren't those questions asked anymore?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Georgia It's been pounded on all fronts for the past 5 years that GWB has no exit strategy. It was one of the Democrat points in the election and I believe it to be a legitimate concern.

Inevitably, though, that fact was spun around for Bush. Because things became so chaotic when they were predicted to be simple, it was decided that America had to stay there and under the same administration, supposedly in order to fix it. It's the ol' bait and switch writ large.

Grandpa h.

[Voluntary]

We won the war, its the reconstruction process that is a failure. It didn't cost much to oust Saddam, but it is costing a fortune to repair the vacuum that we created, repairing what we broke, and exporting our brand of democracy.

It's been pounded on all fronts for the past 5 years that GWB has no exit strategy. It was one of the Democrat points in the election and I believe it to be a legitimate concern.

What is the Democrat's exit strategy for Afghanistan? Heck, Obama even lied about his exit strategy for Iraq, by leaving 35,000-50,000 combat troops in Iraq after his 16 month deadline......that he has been preaching for over 16 months.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Forgive me starting over with my own thoughts, but here i go.

Winning a war does not necessarily mean that you actually gain anything, Did we win the campaign against Saddam's Ba'athist forces, obviously and in inevitable and spectacular fashion. Did we "win" the attempt to make Iraq a place where one could reasonably expect to go to the market without being vaporized, perhaps, certainly all indications make it appear like that has been achieved in the short term.

In the long run, however, i feel most can agree that the United States' adventure in Iraq was not a "victory". Certainly our armed forces showed an impressive capacity to win traditional campaigns professionally and quickly, perhaps an ability not matched by any other armed force in history. In this, however, they also demonstrated their shortcomings. Insurgency cannot be fought effectively by a foreign force in a truly hostile environment no matter what wonders of killing they possess. Only time and the people themselves can do that. In the end, thousands of young americans and many, many more Iraqis died in this learning experience. Add that to the fact that the attention given to Iraq was obviously sorely needed in the more justifiable arena of Afghanistan, and i now feel confident enough to say that the misadventure in Iraq will in the future be regarded as exactly that, if not the hyper-disaster that seemed imminent 2-3 years ago.

[DJK]

Quote by: Voluntary its the reconstruction process it is costing a fortune to repair the vacuum that we created, repairing what we broke, and exporting our brand of democracy. .

If the police thought that they should not remove organized crime families because to do so would create a vacuum or might get people killed while exporting our brand of justice...then where would we be now?

Sadam was just that an organized crime family...only in control of a whole country, seeking nuclear weapons while having a history of using nerve agents on his own people. This crime family was threatening US lives and inerests. So he was removed. The question of weither the US should fill the vacuum so that other crime families as in the Ayatola or Putin dont jump in and threaten future US lives and interests is one of strategic value. To police Iraq indefinately is a never ending misson as is policing any major city such as in Detriot. Policing of Iraq is not our responsibility it is the responsibility of the local government until that governmnt allows its criminals to threaten US interests and lives or does so it self. If the US is not willing to stand up to criminals domestically or foriegn bound that it is not doing its most important job...to protect its own. If it cant do that then it has no business doing anything else for its people! The govs job is not to police other countries of fix the mess after we remove its criminals anymore then police have to fix up a crack house after an arrest despite the fact that the place was destroyed during the raid.

The only reason to fix stuff and to police the place is strategy...to do so if it benefits the US more then it costs The US.
Cost benefit anylasis is the only real way to measure foriegn policy strategies and success...or as was asked.........If we won in Iraq!

[Voluntary]

Iraq was never a threat to American interests, except when they nationalized their oil and hiked prices according to OPEC. In fact, Saddam proved himself to be expedient in a few areas. That is why we funded him and helped him rise to power.

We were never over there to liberate people. In fact, our leaders have no problem holding hands with and bowing to one of the worst dictators, Abdullah, who also has chemical weapons and an atrocious record regarding human rights.

[DJK]

Quote by: Voluntary Iraq was never a threat to American interests, except when they nationalized their oil and hiked prices according to OPEC. In fact, Saddam proved himself to be expedient in a few areas. That is why we funded him and helped him rise to power. We were never over there to liberate people. In fact, our leaders have no problem holding hands with and bowing to one of the worst dictators, Abdullah, who also has chemical weapons and an atrocious record regarding human rights.

Oil is the lifes blood of th industrialized nations...like it or not. To disrupt a societies oil supplies is as you say all the threat that is needed to provoke war. This is no different that disrupting ones food supply or blood supply since both food and blood are transported using petrochemical energy so nationalizing or stealing the equipment and technology that was paid for with the industrialized nations capital is no trivial threat....further more price fixing is also a domestic crime against the people. Opec is a criminal cartel acting to destroy competition in the market at the expense of the people of the world who need energy to function in our modern world.

couple that with other criminal threats and corruption against his own people....which I agree is not enough in of itself to intervene unlike disrupting a nations energy supplies and you now have many logical reasons to make War with a criminal government.

As for working with and using the criminal.(sadam) ..I would suggest that this is also a common and wise strategy used by police depts of the world to catch bigger fish and has an over all greater effect on crime reduction.....

This is why we have informants and deep cover agents...the world is not a pretty place and bad guys dont follow all the rules...for a nation or a police dept to always deal honestly with criminals or to never work with them...well this would be a disaster and would result in crime over running the world. Those type of restrictions would be realistic despite the flowery talk and spin of politicians.