So You Think the War in Iraq was a Mistake

vanity | February 4, 2007 | Myself

[A_perfect_lady]

I have just finished reading a Ben Stein column about the recent SOTU adress. It started out very well, but then took what seemed to me an odd turn: Stein, along with several other conservative pundits, has come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq was just a big, huge mistake. I've been hearing this with increasing frequency, from people I did not expect to hear it from. Bill O'Reilly, Francis Fukuyama... even Charles Krauthammer sounds disenchanted.

Here is my question: When did everyone decide to agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake? I still don't think it was a mistake. Stein credits President Bush with the fact that we have not experienced a follow-up terrorist attack since 9/11. Why does he suppose we have not had another major attack here in the States? Because we took the war to them, just exactly as President Bush said we were going to do. We'll fight them on the streets of Baghdad so that we aren't fighting them HERE. Militants from Syria and Iran are streaming into Iraq and that's a pity, but it's especially a pity for them as they would much rather stream into the United States.

Is it a "mistake" because four years after the fall of the Ba'ath regime, we don't have a peaceful Iraq? Did anyone expect the Islamic world to sit idly by while we create something utterly foreign to their experience in the very heart of their world? It's ironic that I should quote Noam Chomsky in a time and place like this, but stopped clocks being right twice a day as they are, he once said something useful: Oppressors cannot bear the threat of a good example. Neither theocracies, monarchies, or pan-Arab socialists want to see a functioning democratic state in the muslim world. It's like teaching slaves to read: you'll never keep them subservient to Allah, the King, or the Dictator after they've seen the alternative. Did anyone anywhere think we were going to do that in four years? Did anyone think that the various powers that be (or would be) in the Middle East would take it lying down?

I still remember President Bush's address before going into Afghanistan: it will not be easy and it will not be quick. He meant it then and he means it now. We are not in Iraq to avenge ourselves for September 11th, or to find Osama bin Laden, or to save the world from WMD, and we never were. We are there to begin the changing of the Middle East. We are addressing the root causes of extremism, parochialism, fanaticism, state-sponsored hatred, and ignorance. It's a huge task. You might feel it was the wrong approach and we should have either wiped out half the muslim world in one fell swoop (an understandable reaction) or just hunkered down, surrounded ourselves with walls, wished Israel good luck, and watched from a safe distance as Islam spreads slowly but surely into Europe and Africa. I suppose we could have done that with the Communists, too, in the 20th century, and just hoped that we could hold out on our huge island when, at last, they came for us.

If this is your view then yes, invading Iraq was a big mistake. But please consider: we are dealing with a force very much like Communism, one that is intent upon spreading and has a great deal of momentum. We can crush the enemy, run from the enemy, or try to change the enemy. President Bush is trying to change the enemy. It's as valid an approach as the other two alternatives. I urge my fellow Americans not to give up on this approach after such a very short time, because if you think this undertaking is expensive in terms of national treasure and human lives, remember all the times countries have used the other two approaches. Remember the retreat from Cambodia and the killing fields that resulted. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am not pointing to them as examples of American mistakes but as examples of the results of retreat or full-scale destruction, both valid but expensive ways of exiting or ending a war. Do we want to do either of those things again, just to claim peace in our time? All I am saying, is give war a chance.

[ExGeeEye]

That makes a great deal of sense. Observable facts, however, currently support the "childish logic." This calls for presentation of an alternative theory that explains observable facts, not just dismissal of the "childish logic."

[Polybius]

When did everyone decide to agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake?........Why does he suppose we have not had another major attack here in the States? Because we took the war to them, just exactly as President Bush said we were going to do. We'll fight them on the streets of Baghdad so that we aren't fighting them HERE.

The problem is that we are not fighting them.

After first kicking some serious butt, we have spent the next four years worrying about if American soldiers put 20 bullet holes in a mosque during a firefight or if dropping a JDAM on Muqtada al-Sadr's head might cost Prime Minister al-Maliki some radical Shiite votes.

If you are going to fight a war, you need to fight a war and stop playing foolish games with American lives.

Bush has failed by trying to please everybody, by not articulating the strategic imperatives of securing the Persian Gulf's stability and, most importantly, by fighting a war with Politically Correct rules of engagement.

In the end, that has given the Democrats and the liberal news media four years of time to marinate the U.S. electorate in their defeatist propaganda and it has allowed the Democrats to gain the power of the control of Congress. The Democrats will now use that power to force a bug out, to hand Iraq over to the radical factions, to leave the Persian Gulf is a very dangerous strategic situation and to reinforce Osama bin Laden's boast that America can't tolerate casualties thereby encouraging future terrorist activity.

America, as George C. Scott said in "Patton", loves a winner and America just LOOOOVES to see America kicking ass during "Shock and Awe" wars. Most of America loves that better than the Super Bowl.

America, however, quickly loses patience in figthing wars where the focus shifts from winning decisively to trying not to lose, trying to respect the mosques that Islamist fanatics don't respect themselves and trying to count how many radical Shiite votes a cowardly Iraqi Prime Minister will lose if the U.S. terminates people like Muqtada al-Sadr with extreme prejudice.

Cindy Sheehan's brave son died fighting al Sadr's thugs.

Years later, his mother has undermined the war effort and Muqtada al-Sadr is still alive.

You can't expect America to tolerate such a situation indefinitely.

[Dr. Frank fan]

What is the objective basis for the claim that Iraq has a democratic government

That the government current seated took power according to elections elections that took place which were reasonably free and fair, under a constitution that had been fairly ratified by direct election, is a matter of historical record. If you dispute these things please advance your source(s), I'm all ears.

that we are safeguarding it,

I said that our direct purpose in being there is to safeguard the government. We may be doing a decent, or poor, job of safeguarding. Thus, I cannot establish that we "are safeguarding" it. The strongest claim I can make is that, thus far, Iraq's government has not fallen; ergo, thus far, we have successfully safeguarded it.

Are you actually disputing that?

and that attempting to safeguard it in the manner we are is in the best interest of the United States?

I have no "objective basis" for that, as that (right or wrong) is an opinion about what policy should be, not an assertion about what is. As an example of an assertion about what is, let me point to your claim in the earlier post that our being in Iraq "increases the threat" of terrorism against that - a factual claim for which I still await evidence or objective basis of some kind.

[where soldiers should be] I will. On our borders. At our airports, seaports, and critical infrastructure.

So, you want to withdraw our soldiers from Iraq and station them around the country at these various places.

I disagree and I don't think that's a good use of them. At least in Iraq they'll be killing some terrorists, instead of standing around (what would they actually do here besides that?). Also, your suggestion may even violate posse comitatus (depending on details). So, I don't believe your idea really constitutes a good "opportunity cost" argument. The notion that by having soldiers in Iraq we're wasting the opportunity to have them stationed near the Brooklyn Bridge, or wherever, and thus losing in the cost-benefit game, does not appear all that convincing. But you're welcome to try this argument out on people of course.

[TASMANIANRED]

Applause...Good job.

[melancholy]

I'm coming to believe that only a strongman can hold Iraq together,

That's what I told people during the Gulf War when I was in Europe! Few months ago, I said what you essentially said above. I suggested to get the worst bunch of Iraqi generals from our custody, give each $10 mil in a Swiss Bank account and tell them what you want.

Look the other way, declare Iraq an exclusion zone for the press and foreigners and let the new sheriffs deal with it. You may be quite surprised for the quick transformation to a Turkish type democracy, the only democracy in the Islamic world.

You can call me crazy if you wish, but this is almost the only way plus of course cutting the snake’s head, pulverizing Iran, that is.

[bilhosty]

cannot deny a thing you say. It is the truth.

[Convert]

Does anyone get the idea that some of our elected officials have used there positions to distract those who have tremendous responsibility with endless investigations and to conduct wittingly or unwittingly intelligence gathering for those we fight?

[Cogadh na Sith]

I will. On our borders. At our airports, seaports, and critical infrastructure.

So the best defense is NO Offense.

Where are we going to get all these soldiers from if we have them permanently in Kuwait and SA to enforce the no-fly-zones, sanctions and keep Saddam contained.

You never answered my question in my post above:

If you don't support the war, do you support enforcing the No-Fly-Zone, Inspections, sanctions and containment of Saddam for the natural lives of him and his two sons?

'Cuz that is the alternative to this war....

[melancholy]

Or that we are so insipidly stupid that we jail our soldiers for having a little fun with the enemy by putting panties on their heads.

Trust me, that doesn't go unnoticed! Sadly, I'm sure we're being laughed at quite a bit.

.

[Convert]

The soldiers who have come back from Iraq know the enemy and how he fights and they are here to protect us -
Why does no one notice this benefit
We have come to know the enemy - his history and his objectives
We have crippled him
And we pray for him

[Convert]

Snow/Bush Ohio/Florida 08 Why not?

[ForOurFuture]

If you don't support the war, do you support enforcing the No-Fly-Zone, Inspections, sanctions and containment of Saddam for the natural lives of him and his two sons?

Absolutely. These things, combined with occasional air strikes, were effective and could have been modulated and escalated so as to maintain their effectiveness towards the goal of preventing Iraq from becoming a threat.

You call what we're doing in Iraq "offense?" Our efforts in Iraq are not even beginning to diminish the threat of Islamic extremism. Neither will a democratic, stable Iraq, assuming that goal is reached.

[Convert]

the history channel traced Saddam's father back to Hitler
Was Hitler the way he was because of Germany?
That's a cop out

[ForOurFuture]

I have no "objective basis" for that, as that (right or wrong) is an opinion about what policy should be, not an assertion about what is. As an example of an assertion about what is, let me point to your claim in the earlier post that our being in Iraq "increases the threat" of terrorism against that - a factual claim for which I still await evidence or objective basis of some kind.

If our being in Iraq does not increase the threat of terrorism against us, than it must have either no effect or have the effect of decreasing that threat. Can you convince me that 22 year-old Muslism men in Somalia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Paris look at what the United States is doing in Iraq and become less likely to perceive the United States as a Christian, Western, Capitalist, and Imperial force that they should dedicate their lives to defeating?

[Cogadh na Sith]

Absolutely. These things, combined with occasional air strikes, were effective and could have been modulated and escalated so as to maintain their effectiveness towards the goal of preventing Iraq from becoming a threat.

So what would you do when France, Germany and Russia get the sanctions on Iraq lifted in the UN and he began to Re-arm?

It's something to keep an Aircraft Carrier Battlegroup in the Gulf in perpetuity to contain Hussein, but it would really be something if we lost a carrier to Iraqi missiles and ended up in a war anyhow, but not at a time of our choosing.

It's the perfect liberal solution: It coddles the dictator, starves the innocent citizens and leaves the problem untouched.

You're 'solution' is no solution at all and just kicks the problem down the road....

[Cogadh na Sith]

You call what we're doing in Iraq "offense?" Our efforts in Iraq are not even beginning to diminish the threat of Islamic extremism. Neither will a democratic, stable Iraq, assuming that goal is reached.

Neither would your half-wit plan of stationing troops at the border and at 'landmarks'.

That never works, because we have to be on guard forever, and all they have to do is be right once.

[MadIvan]

Getting rid of a dictator is generally a good idea. What went wrong was nothing to do with the military, it is all to do with how the media war was fought. This administration simply has not been aggressive enough in facing down its critics and winning the argument in the press. This has hobbled this administration, and now with a Democrat congress, it makes America look very divided rather than leading the charge.

Regards, Ivan

[Cogadh na Sith]

Can you convince me that 22 year-old Muslism men in Somalia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Paris look at what the United States is doing in Iraq and become less likely to perceive the United States as a Christian, Western, Capitalist, and Imperial force that they should dedicate their lives to defeating?

They already hate us and want to kill us. They have always hated us and wanted to kill us.

How can they hate us and want to kill us more?

Conversely, not attacking Iraq, not fighting the extremists and not defending ourselves would not cause them to like us and not want to kill us. It would make us look easier to kill....

[ForOurFuture]

That never works, because we have to be on guard forever, and all they have to do is be right once.

That's reality. That's the nature of terrorism. Get used to it.

[ForOurFuture]

How can they hate us and want to kill us more?

Send an army to occupy an Arab land and find out.

Oops.