Did we win the war in Iraq?

[barts]

Just wondering. As things seem to be winding down, with some hints that troops will be--well, maybe--coming home, I'm left wondering if the United States' Coalition of the (few) Willing won the Iraq war?

Over at Fabius Maximus, the blogger is asking If we won in Iraq, what did we win? Was it worth the cost? Good question.

My answer is that nothing was won, and the cost of winning nothing is measured in hundreds of thousands dead, many more horrifically wounded, millions of refugees, and billions perhaps trillions of dollars wasted.

Is the world a safer place with Saddam gone? No!

Given what you know now about the war in Iraq, if you could, would you spare the lives lost, avoid the wounds, and take your money back? I would.

Perhaps some will differ with my view.

[Nono]

The US brought nothing but horror, tears and large-scale terrorism to Iraq, while giving Islamofascists worldwide a huge boost.

Not to mention doing the Iranian mullahs a gigantic favour.

Yes, Saddam was after WMDs (just as I'm after that winning lottery ticket), but there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Americans just wanted to have a war and get some brown-skinned ragheads killed is all.

[Charlatan]

The world won nothing, but, now that the war is over, and you cannot change it in any way, it was a success. Think of all the oil to be made available now, basically. Those soldiers lost cause grief, and the money spent is lost, but, with the influx of money coming into the market, with the ending of the war, it is a bright future indeed. If there is loss, it is gone, as losses incurred are gone. People need to let go of their loved ones and think of them as at peace now. On the other hand think of all the downscaling of taxation on oil? That means more for the west, add to that the investment oppurtunities - money to be made - and the flexing of muscles by the west against a dictator, and then you might understand that nobody will mess with the country in a manner that would cause war. Maybe the despots will become more attuned to the west and listen more?

[dan4reason]

Whether we won or not depends on what happens when we leave. If Iraq maintains an organized democracy, and is an ally of the US, then we have won. If Iraq falls into anarchy, falls into despotism, falls to the taliban, then we have lost.

[Alpha_und_Omega]

if we went to Iraq for WMD's, we didn't find any---failed
if we went to Iraq to defeat the "terrorist"--we lost that with the creation of Homeland securtiy and going to Iraq in the first place

if we went to Iraq for no reason just to spend money and to take out saddam (and let Iran fill the power vaccum)---we are winning

[barnhardt2010]

We removed Saddam, a free and Democratic Iraq in his place, an Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors and an ally in our war against terrorism. Just as we had intended all along.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 We removed Saddam, a free and Democratic Iraq in his place, an Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors and an ally in our war against terrorism. Just as we had intended all along.

We must not ignore the other consequences of the Iraq war. Increased instability in Iraq. Once we leave, all we worked for may just fall apart.

[barts]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 We removed Saddam, a free and Democratic Iraq in his place, an Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors and an ally in our war against terrorism. Just as we had intended all along.

What did Iraq have to do with terrorism?

[barts]

Quote by: dan4reason We must not ignore the other consequences of the Iraq war. Increased instability in Iraq. Once we leave, all we worked for may just fall apart.

Iraq was stable and militarily contained before the war.

[barts]

Quote by: dan4reason Whether we won or not depends on what happens when we leave. If Iraq maintains an organized democracy, and is an ally of the US, then we have won. If Iraq falls into anarchy, falls into despotism, falls to the taliban, then we have lost.

Taliban in Iraq?

It's not unlikely that Iraq and Iran will be closer allies than the US and Iraq.

Indeed to the question who won the Iraq war some would answer Iran.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: barts Just wondering. As things seem to be winding down, with some hints that troops will be--well, maybe--coming home, I'm left wondering if the United States' Coalition of the (few) Willing won the Iraq war? Over at Fabius Maximus, the blogger is asking If we won in Iraq, what did we win? Was it worth the cost? Good question. Perhaps some will differ with my view.

My answer is that nothing was won, and the cost of winning nothing is measured in hundreds of thousands dead, many more horrifically wounded, millions of refugees, and billions perhaps trillions of dollars wasted.

Of course lives lost are unfortunate...but sometimes it is unavoidable.

-

Is the world a safer place with Saddam gone? No!

Sure it is.

-The world's worst dictator behind Kim Jong Il was taken from power. He was a known arms seller/buyer and his police controlled most of the country, making his people very poor.
-He also managed to allow many terrorist organizations to work de-facto-sub-governments in many rural towns and such, basically allowing them to operate so long as they worked in his interests (against Israel, Iran, the US, and the West). Many of these operations secetly went on in Iraq, a harbor for terrorists, even if the government didnt support them outright.
-A democratic process with free elections and more personal freedoms was set up. An autocratic state that crushed and killed dissedents in dark allies is gone. Iraq is helping to spread a democratic and anti-authoritarian culture to other nearby countries.
-The general population of Iraq, and many nations in the middle east have turned against Al-Queda and affiliated groups. They are willing to label them as terrorists and will continue to fight extremism much more forcefully so that these terrorists do not have safe havens in their countries, because they have seen the destruction caused by those terrorists to their nation.
-Most importantly, the Sunnis and Shiites, which nearly fell into civil war, have been able to work together peacefully and normalize their lives. Where under Saddam, their hatred was held back by fear of Saddam, after he was gone--they fought and realized the error of their ways and are now working together and losing that hatred. This is a cheif western value--where people that are different can live together peacefully.

Given what you know now about the war in Iraq, if you could, would you spare the lives lost, avoid the wounds, and take your money back? I would.

You see, the question is not "would you go back and change A or B to produce outcome C" ---that is impossible. It is easy, in hindsight, to go back and wish things were done different. Certainly Bush's Administration didnt expect to run into so many difficulties and didnt expect the loss of life that occurred, but you cant stop halfway through and run home. That makes those losses worth nothing.

The facts were these: 75% or more of congress and most people back at home supported the invasion of Iraq, Saddam was one of the worst dictators on Earth, Saddam had constantly harassed the US and its neighbors, caused one war, and nearly provoked another back in the 90s. After 9/11, Saddam began to boast the creation of WMDS (biological/chemical weapons, and possibly nuclear weapons). All intelligence supported this, enough that the president, CIA director, cabinet, and congress were sold. (you can even go on the CIA website and look up the specifics--it is very convincing--however, Saddam made it seem this way just to make him seem more powerful than he was).

After Saddam was toppled, the citizens of Iraq praised us. It really seemed like "Mission Accomplished". Had it all ended there, many who are now against the war would not be...its all numbers to some. But the real fight was to cause an impact--make a major change right in the heart of the backwards middle-east to save lives in the future, and make it better for the people that live there.

[barts]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Of course lives lost are unfortunate...but sometimes it is unavoidable. - Sure it is.

So, Black Ghost, you're saying that the world --and Americans in particular--are safer today because the United States invaded Iraq. And, you're saying that the lives lost, people maimed, and people displaced--on all sides of the conflict--and the expenditures were worth the outcome? You're saying the US and its allies won the war even though there was no merit in the original rationale for going to war. Is that an accurate representation of your position?

[Nono]

Quote by: dan Whether we won or not depends on what happens when we leave.

No, what you've already done is hugely criminal. Already. Right this minute.

If Iraq falls ... to the taliban, then we have lost.

Back to the drawing board, dan ol' son.

[Charlatan]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Of course lives lost are unfortunate...but sometimes it is unavoidable. - Sure it is. -The world's worst dictator behind Kim Jong Il was taken from power. He was a known arms seller/buyer and his police controlled most of the country, making his people very poor. -He also managed to allow many terrorist organizations to work de-facto-sub-governments in many rural towns and such, basically allowing them to operate so long as they worked in his interests (against Israel, Iran, the US, and the West). Many of these operations secetly went on in Iraq, a harbor for terrorists, even if the government didnt support them outright. -A democratic process with free elections and more personal freedoms was set up. An autocratic state that crushed and killed dissedents in dark allies is gone. Iraq is helping to spread a democratic and anti-authoritarian culture to other nearby countries. -The general population of Iraq, and many nations in the middle east have turned against Al-Queda and affiliated groups. They are willing to label them as terrorists and will continue to fight extremism much more forcefully so that these terrorists do not have safe havens in their countries, because they have seen the destruction caused by those terrorists to their nation. -Most importantly, the Sunnis and Shiites, which nearly fell into civil war, have been able to work together peacefully and normalize their lives. Where under Saddam, their hatred was held back by fear of Saddam, after he was gone--they fought and realized the error of their ways and are now working together and losing that hatred. This is a cheif western value--where people that are different can live together peacefully. You see, the question is not "would you go back and change A or B to produce outcome C" ---that is impossible. It is easy, in hindsight, to go back and wish things were done different. Certainly Bush's Administration didnt expect to run into so many difficulties and didnt expect the loss of life that occurred, but you cant stop halfway through and run home. That makes those losses worth nothing. The facts were these: 75% or more of congress and most people back at home supported the invasion of Iraq, Saddam was one of the worst dictators on Earth, Saddam had constantly harassed the US and its neighbors, caused one war, and nearly provoked another back in the 90s. After 9/11, Saddam began to boast the creation of WMDS (biological/chemical weapons, and possibly nuclear weapons). All intelligence supported this, enough that the president, CIA director, cabinet, and congress were sold. (you can even go on the CIA website and look up the specifics--it is very convincing--however, Saddam made it seem this way just to make him seem more powerful than he was). After Saddam was toppled, the citizens of Iraq praised us. It really seemed like "Mission Accomplished". Had it all ended there, many who are now against the war would not be...its all numbers to some. But the real fight was to cause an impact--make a major change right in the heart of the backwards middle-east to save lives in the future, and make it better for the people that live there.

I must agree with you, very good points.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: barts Taliban in Iraq? It's not unlikely that Iraq and Iran will be closer allies than the US and Iraq. Indeed to the question who won the Iraq war some would answer Iran.

Time has still to tell if Iraq will stick with America. The taliban in Iraq is a possibility.

[RVonse]

Quote by: barts Just wondering. As things seem to be winding down, with some hints that troops will be--well, maybe--coming home, I'm left wondering if the United States' Coalition of the (few) Willing won the Iraq war? Over at Fabius Maximus, the blogger is asking If we won in Iraq, what did we win? Was it worth the cost? Good question. My answer is that nothing was won, and the cost of winning nothing is measured in hundreds of thousands dead, many more horrifically wounded, millions of refugees, and billions perhaps trillions of dollars wasted. Is the world a safer place with Saddam gone? No! Given what you know now about the war in Iraq, if you could, would you spare the lives lost, avoid the wounds, and take your money back? I would. Perhaps some will differ with my view.

We have a huge military base located right in the middle of the worlds richest oil deposits. So that means we won.

As far as global domination is concerned, neo-cons feel this shakedown well worth the price.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: barts So, Black Ghost, you're saying that the world --and Americans in particular--are safer today because the United States invaded Iraq. And, you're saying that the lives lost, people maimed, and people displaced--on all sides of the conflict--and the expenditures were worth the outcome? You're saying the US and its allies won the war even though there was no merit in the original rationale for going to war. Is that an accurate representation of your position?

Yes.

While it is unfortunate that so many died and many unexpected conflicts arose from it, that does not outweigh the outcome, which is what will really be remembered in the future. In an ideal war, no one dies. That is what we expect--100% success. This never happens, but this is what we must hope for. We do everything in our power to minimize deaths on either side and acheive the objectives of the war.

We went into the war for many reasons, the most publicized of which is the WMD threat--and might I add--this was a VERY REAL potential threat. It was not made up. The cause to war existed, and I quote, to defeat

"a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".

And also

"to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."[COLOR=#0000ff][[/COLOR]

Quote by: RVonse We have a huge military base located right in the middle of the worlds richest oil deposits. So that means we won. As far as global domination is concerned, neo-cons feel this shakedown well worth the price.

It would perhaps surprise you to learn that many of Iraq's oilfeilds are not being taken over by Western Corporations, and Iraq is largely keeping the oil to themselves for their own privatization.

Oil is a weapon of war these days...and it is no secret that the West relies upon oil reserves from nations that have governments that are majorly anti-Western. Saddam used this weapon effectively, along with the other OPEC members in the past. It is not entirely terrible to think that securing the oil was a part of the war, because it was...that is no doubt...but we knew that from the beginning. We werent securing it for ourselves, but for the world economy. This is not the cause of the war, but it was nevertheless a neccessary objective, considering Saddam burned up so many oilfeilds on the way out of Kuwait.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost While it is unfortunate that so many died and many unexpected conflicts arose from it, that does not outweigh the outcome, which is what will really be remembered in the future.

That doesn't "outweigh the outcome" because it was the outcome. Even if somehow "History will smile on us," it doesn't mean a thing to those frowned upon by the direct circumstances of existing policy.

Grandpa h.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa That doesn't "outweigh the outcome" because it was the outcome. Even if somehow "History will smile on us," it doesn't mean a thing to those frowned upon by the direct circumstances of existing policy. Grandpa h.

Well, sometimes you have to look bad in the short bad to do better things in the long run. Sometimes doing otherwise makes you look bad in the long run, where in the short run it worked out quite nicely (nuclear bombing of Japan).

Either way, there was legitimate cause for a war in Iraq. Shrouded my disinformation on the part of Saddam and others in his government, our intelligence seemed firm--he built his own case against himself over the years.

The majority of the stategic goals in Iraq were met, albeit after much longer than anticipated. However, that is all part of chance, and culture.

[thebuescherman]

Overall it was probably not a success. There have been some benefits, but the cost was high. It may take several years before we know the answer. However, it is undeniable that our prolonged presence in Iraq was beneficial. If we left like oh-so-many wanted when the shit hit the fan, we'd be looking at a far worse part of the world right now. I don't think anyone can debate that. As it stands, the surge was a success. I would argue that Bush's initiation of the War was a very bad choice, but his even harder decision to stay when things weren't looking up was excellent. Let's be honest, however unpopular this next statement may be, not many people would have stayed the course. Things still went downhill, but it sure as hell flattened out a lot.