It Is Hard And Complex
The "real" issues at hand in the Iraq conundrum.
By haystack Posted in Anti-War crowd | Defeat | Iraq | Surrender | the long war | War — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
General Petraeus testified before the Senate yesterday. Ambassador Crocker testified as well. The major headlines seemed more interested in the Presidential nominees and how they, in turn, handled their couple of minutes before the cameras questioning these two men about the status of things in Iraq. Much excitement swirled among the major media outlets, opining about how "Commander in Chiefish" they might have performed. Little was offered on the "specifics" of the news that the General and Ambassador's testimony brought us about the single most divisive issue in modern American history...well, since Viet Nam at least.
I watched it all on CSPAN 2, but since I don't get CSPAN 3 I missed the Foreign Relations circus in the afternoon. I was lucky though because Obama's network - CNN - promised all afternoon they would interrupt ANYONE that might be discussing the day's news when Obama got HIS turn to demagogue. They did, he did, and I remain unimpressed.
This is about Iraq. It's about Afghanistan. It's about the Middle East. It's about terrorism and the long war. It's about Sunni and Shia and Wahabi. It's about Christians and Jews and Muslims. It's about oil. It's about our middle and long-term security interests. It's about our grandchildren and the grandchildren of Arabs and Persians and Israelis. It's about everyone else's grandchildren as well. It's about things that are hard and complicated. Increasingly, however, it's becoming MORE about making it go away by turning our backs on these issues hoping they'll get better on their own (some even believing they will ONLY get better by turning our backs on them); hard and complicated don't go very well in modern America anymore.
It should NOT be about who the next President is. Clearly, however, I am in the minority in this regard.
America still stands at the very same crossroad it has been made to suffer for a very tiresomely long time now: do we stay or do we go?
This is going to be a long one, so if you leave now, leave with something my good friend Jeff Emanuel said...WAY back in October of 2007:
While a long-term view of Iraq, and its future issues, must be considered (with far more care than the nation’s future was thought through at the time of the initial invasion), those tasked with making tactical, strategic, and policy-level decisions on Iraq must not lose sight of the now in favor of analyzing every possible future issue. The decision-making process must not fall victim to the paralysis that can be brought on by over-analysis of future possibilities, lest America’s current effort be inadvertently and fatally undermined.
It's stunning what you might learn should you JOIN the men and women doing the heavy lifting as opposed to jumping in for a quick photo-op and running home for another dull day on Capitol Hill.
More below the fold...
The news brought to us from Petraeus and Crocker held a recurring theme: Iraq is hard and it is complicated. It's better, but it could get worse again. Progress in areas of security and political reconciliation has been made; it's fragile and it is reversible, but as Crocker put it "almost everything about Iraq is difficult," but "hard does not mean hopeless, and the political and economic process of the past few months is significant." Petraeus stated that there is "no turning of a corner, no light at the end of the tunnel" adding that "the champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator."
This is important stuff, folks, and requires a little more thought than the 5 second sound bites we're getting from the POTUS wannabes more concerned with votes than with the correct way forward with America's future.
It is fair to say, in hindsight, Iraq should not have been entered into. I suggest as much, NOT because it was the right thing or the wrong thing strategically, but because we couldn't have known the extent to which it would be politicized and demagogued and used as a riot baton over the heads of the American people. It is also fair to say, given what we knew at the time - what we believed to be true about weapons of mass destruction, rape rooms, torture, the human indecency in nearly everything Saddam had done to his country and his people - made "liberating Iraq" seem the right thing to do.
So, too, is it fair to say that many things were handled poorly. State and Defense have bungled many things with long-lasting repercussions for the very people we want(ed) so badly to help. Reconstruction has been good in places and bad in others. Security has improved in places and stayed bad or worsened in others. Some Iraqis like us and some hate us. Neighbors from Syria to Iran to Lebanon...who knows-maybe even Palestine and Jordan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia for all any of us know...have gone to great lengths to fight for American failure in Iraq. Each, in turn, has very specific and unique reasons for wanting a bad outcome for the West in Iraq, and given we "invaded" an Arab neighbor, perhaps they are justified...HOWEVER much worse they might be making things for themselves in the years ahead.
We can all agree that Iraq has torn not only the Middle East into little pieces, but it has torn America into little pieces as well. That is surely not what the planners intended-reasonable men and women (re-emphasizing "reasonable") can agree to that. But the reality remains: we are in Iraq and there is much to be done. What remains to be decided is who, exactly, is going to see to it that these things are accomplished?
POTUS hopeful Barack Obama suggests we initiate:
a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.
and called "for more pressure on the Iraqi government to embrace political reconciliation and a regional "diplomatic surge that includes Iran." Adding that "[w]e should be talking to them as well."
Obama's ideas with respect to Iran sound nice on paper, but ignoring Iran's stated intentions with Israel, their presumed "hostile" intentions with nuclear weapons, and their willingness to apply pressure where they know it hurts us most, any negotiations with Iran can be considered suspect on their face and the results of such negotiations can not be believed beyond arm's length. A lengthy history exists regarding Iran's refusal to comply with the International community...hedging their bets on America's defeat in Iraq only further supports them lying to our faces for their presumed longer-term gains. But, in his youthful statesmanship and ideas on matters of Foreign Affairs (read naivete), Obama continues:
"I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that" said Obama, adding that a plan for US troop withdrawals was needed to force Iraqi factions to work together.
"I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."
Negotiating with a known state sponsor of terrorism - a trainer and supplier and financier of militias and terrorists - by offering them a time-certain for American presence to be removed from the Iraq theater doesn't appear to be the best first bargaining chip for squelching Iran's apparent desire to "run the show" in the region and fill the vacuum we would leave behind after what Obama promises would NOT be a precipitous withdrawal. I'm not certain Mr. Obama sees the long-term implications of handing the region over to Iran...in time for them to nuke Israel or anyone else they think stands in their way of re-establishing the Caliphate before we or any of our allies can actually do anything about it.
POTUS wannabe Hillary Clinton, with disdain in her heart has a slightly different approach with the same end-game in mind. While she, too, suggests leaving Iraq is the best way to FORCE Iraqis to finish the hard work left to be done, she needs to associate everything with a "failed administration" as the driving force to justify the strategy:
For the past five years, we have continually heard from the administration that things are getting better, that we are about to turn the corner. Each time, Iraqi leaders fail to deliver," she said, saying it was time to start an "orderly" US withdrawal from Iraq.
She was also quoted (again) with this recurring campaign message:
"It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again at such tremendous cost. The administration and its supporters often talk about the cost of leaving Iraq, yet ignore the greater cost of continuing the same failed policy."
Failed policy, or Obama's "massive strategic blunder" rhetoric resonates with pols and pundits, but they aren't specific alternative strategies for Iraqis to attach themselves to as they hope to live to see the next day or week...or grandchild.
Obama gets the win for being motivated by positive factors. His heart's in the right place. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand is driven by wanting to be President herself because she's so MAD at the one we have in office just now. While Clinton goes down swinging with "it's all Bush's fault-let's punish him by wiping clean the past 5 years of history with a black mark on his (President Bush's) back," there's no there there in what she thinks makes the most sense for the future of Iraq.
Neither of them have this right in my opinion, but they have votes to worry about. Sadly, this is no way for a true "Statesman" to behave.
Like Obama's "Hope and Change" theme, Hillary's "Solutions" initiatives fall short on all accounts for providing us with the answer to the fundamental question; what do we do NOW?
As gideon1789 tries to highlight (in paraphrasing a summation of the anti-war position), leaving a place before the work is finished believing it will accelerate progress toward completion just falls short of logical thought:
"Far from hurting Iraq, a retreat would do the most to help Iraq. The Iraqis are free riding on American forces. They won't provide for their own security until we leave. We have to leave to force them to stand up for themselves."
...[I]t was the new strategy and the "surge" which created the security that allowed Iraqis to start standing up for themselves. They forged new alliances to resist the extremists. They enlisted by the tens of thousands in the Iraqi Army. They even began solving large political problems (de-Baathification, budget, municipal elections, etc.).
But we are still early in that process. It has only been about 15 months since we began implementing the new strategy, and only about 10 months since we fully implemented it. It takes a lot more time to form a capable new army, to work through all the big political issues, to lay the groundwork for a free market economy.
He's got it right, in reminding us that this takes time. Removing the primary security force from a theater of operations where security is still tenuous at best will KILL innocent civilians, and will kill Military and support personnel as well. Displacing our forces with Iraqi forces IS the plan, and HAS worked with some modicum of success in certain areas. But not in ALL areas.
Political progress is as much reliant on security as it is on those doing the politicking. Vilifying Maliki is easy business, but critique from a governing body EQUALLY incapable of making the "tough choices" or giving in to the "necessary compromises" is disingenuous, and laughable on its face. This Congress enjoys its approval rating for a very good reason, and holding Iraq (a couple years old) to a higher standard than it sets for itself (a couple hundred years old) is beyond the pale.
The way forward in Iraq (over the long-term) does include our significantly reduced armed presence. The conditions, however, for those reductions must be conditions-based, not time-based as the two Democrat contenders would have us believe.
The suggested "Diplomatic surge" is very wise (catchy too, if you're running for President on zero experience), but doesn't include the right players. As with the DPRK, a combination of sanctions and isolation and a multi-lateral team of countries-all of Iraq AND Iran's neighbors- needs to be brought to bear on Iran and her fellow "opportunists." Negotiating from a vantage point of being apologetic for doing what you believe to be the "right thing" is no way to assert your strength of position to "strongly encourage" bad guys to become good guys.
Along the way, Iraq will still need sustained security and she still needs her own people to continue the painfully slow task of assuming first contact responsibility. Until the Government and their security forces CAN do this, we're going to have to continue to do it for them. No one else CAN, and no one else will. However much we would like our men and women home, Iraq is not ready for them to leave. Where our political heroes here at home can help the most is where they refuse to help at all; agreeing amongst themselves to demand victory, insisting on success, providing the physical and financial resources necessary, and mustering the necessary political will to pressure the countries surrounding Iraq to get on board with helping her to succeed.
These, sadly, are the very things Congress continues to refuse to do. It's too hard, and it's too complicated you see. Instead, they remain focused on insisting we remove Iraq from the US Government teat..because there are a great many Americans (read potential voters) that they want to put ON that teat in the name of accruing power for its own sake. That is no way to run a country, and it is certainly no way to fight a war.
In the end, Jeff is still right 6 months hence:
The decision-making process must not fall victim to the paralysis that can be brought on by over-analysis of future possibilities, lest America’s current effort be inadvertently and fatally undermined.
It has fallen victim to paralysis and this continues to fatally undermine Iraq and everyone's efforts there.
It Is Hard And Complex 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
JMc as I was yesterday?...I found his act a joke (and I like him).
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
That's one thing that anyone who's been there has said: Iraq is a complex place with untold challenges. It's a good reminder to our politicians who are more inclined to 10-second sound bites.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
I did watch on CSPAN3 and I am totally impressed with Petraeus and Crocker. I was also struck by the tone, although not surprised, of some of the senators in their questions - or should I say rants. I think they should have been encouraged by the progress and falling all over themselves to ask "OK, now that we see progress, what can we do to keep this moving forward to stabalize Iraq and get the heck out of there - asap?" But noooo, for the most part it was grandstanding and ranting about the past. And for those of you that missed it, my favorite part was when Sen. Evan Bayh was trying to get Petraeus to say that, given the facts, a "reasonable man" could come to a different conclusion (withdrawal instead of victory). Petreaus would not take the bait, and said only that one could "argue" different points. And just to remind everyone why we are there, Petraeus mentioned he was fighting for our "right to argue". I am sure the Bayh questioning is on Youtube.
and was also struck by how pathetically smug Bayh was and how cool and composed Petraeus was.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
on Bayh's face until I realized he was trying to get Petreaus to say that an immediate withdrawal would a "reasonable" conculsion. That would make quite the campaign speech blip. Cool and composed - that's exactly what Petraeus was. I would have had to smack a few of them.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Though everyone is entitled to "hindsight" his own alternative history, I am more stubborn than most in my continued support of the decision to take out Saddam. And that means I understand and accept, for purposes of argument, the "light footprint" policy decision and its strategic consequences.
If we attempt to imagine, five years on, the consequences of leaving Saddam in power and either focusing on Afghanistan or adding some other peripheral area to engage AQ and its proxies, my crystal ball does not look rosey. It is a given that Saddam would have bribed his way out from under the economic sanctions, followed shortly by the military sanctions. The resultant "victory" over the West would have established Saddam as at least the equal in influence of Iran in the ME. While they are natural adversaries, their greater enmity against us would likely have enticed them to cooperate in giving us a sound thrashing in Afghanistan. Now, I realize we are the good guys and the good guys always win, (or at least write the history books) but do you honestly think we could be more successful (without a common border) than the USSR was in Afghanistan? And us against a unified Muslem region, supported, doubtless covertly, by Russia and China?
So, five years later, having backed away from Saddam and been kicked out of Afghanistan, having lost any influence we had with Kuwait, the Saudis and the Paks, even if we picked off the terrorists in Somalia or Indonesia while AQ continued bombing everything from London to Bali, do you really think the GWOT would be perceived as more successful? (Incidently, if we got our butt well kicked in Afghanistan before November,'04, we would now be finishing the first term of President Kerry. How does that add to the parade of horribles?)
The Cold War was "hard and complex" too. Yet each Administration had an overall policy that it was willing to explain--what the goals were, what the doctrines were, what vital interests America was willing to back up with force vs. where we were willing to negotiate:
The Eisenhower Administration had "Massive Retaliation."
The JFK Administration switched to "Flexible Response."
Nixon tried to institute "detente" with the USSR and especially with Red China.
Carter tried to emphasize human rights behind the Iron Curtain, but announced the "Carter Doctrine" to defend the Strait of Hormuz with military force.
Reagan said of the Soviets, "We win; they lose."
I don't see any comparable clarity coming out of the Bush Administration anymore. I see ad hoc decisions, blunders, and no overall vision whatsoever. Unlike every Cold War President from Truman up through Reagan, Bush can't even say who the enemy is--and who the enemy isn't.
The neo-conservatives of the Project for a New American Century, many of whom ended up going to work for Bush or advising Bush, did have a theory--that the heart of terrorism is state sponsorship from regimes like Saddam's. They belittled the significance of non-state actors like al-Qaeda. They belittled the significance of the ideological assault from Saudi Arabia. They even belittled the threat from Iran. They focused on Saddam as the root of all evil.
Well, now Saddam is gone, and yet Islamic terrorism is alive and well. Confounding their theories and predictions, al-Qaeda has outlasted Saddam and Arafat. Now that the Bushies' pet theory has been discredited, the Bushies have had nothing more to offer except fear of the agony of defeat in Iraq.
And so America continues to drift. And it will stay that way until we get a new President--ANY other President--who at least starts the debate about what America's role in the world should be from now on.
I don't see any of the candidates, including McCain, having the kind of broad strategic vision we used to get from a JFK or a Nixon or a Reagan. But at least they can take a fresh look at the problem and move us away from our single-minded obsession with Iraq.
Because I know this: The threat to America from Islamic terrorism will NOT be defeated by what happens in Iraq, no matter what Bush may claim.
Well, notice anything about your Cold War cliff notes lecture?
You missed out on the original cold Warrior, harry Truman. because it was Truman, a fine though somewhat dramatically flawed President, who set us on our Cold War course. His successors tweaked and refined and reaxted to events.
Truman like Bush, was decisive and courageous when it counted, that is, in the early days when the correct policy vis a vis the USSR was by no means clear (as you seem to think). I have read some decision memos which offer about about 20 possible reactions to USSR aggression after WWII, ranging from total passivity to pre-emptive nuclear strikes. The policies adopted -- the truman Doctrine, marshall Plan, NATO, containment, nuclear arms race -- were not, as you seem to think, sprung automatically from our leadership. They were the product of struggle, compromise, statesmanship, etc.
By the way, Truman had the advantage of a bipartisan approach to foreign policy. Just as Republicans did not take advantage of everry setback in WWII -- and there were plenty of them -- to demand that we surrender because it was costing money, so Truman had the advantage in the early Cold War of Republican support for his policies. Perhaps the name of Sen Arthur Vandenberg might ring a bell(he was the un-Biden).
When Truman left office, having taken the nation to a war in Korea, he had an approval rating around 20% and indeed did not run in 1952 though he perhaps could have. What is his standing now with historians?
We are now at the equivalent period to the end of the Truman Administration. By no means was it clear that he had pursued the correct policies; he had failed to convey, in a coherent way, the necessity for the policies he had put in place -- again like Bush, Truman was a notoriously blunt and plain-spoken politician, not comfortable with theories. It was left to his successors to build on the foundation he had laid, to develop doctrines and theories to carry out his vision.
I think the Truman analogy that places Bush in historical context, at the beginning of a long struggle, as Truman was re the cold war is an apt one. Many of us were conflicted at the beginning of the Iraq war. The dems, with the help of their "anti-war" cohorts, want to pander to the knee-jerk reaction against war of shallow minded, "buy the world a coke" liberals and apolitical types, in order to take power and suck from the government trough like Murtha and his ilk. The rest of us were conflicted because the right course was not clear then, or now, but muddled and full of pitfalls, as it was at the beginning of the cold war.
Yes, it was clear that we were entering a long war with "terror" (with Islam - if you are willing to face the hard reality), but how best to achieve victory, or at least "peaceful coexistence" with jihadists was open to question. My problem with the Bush strategy in Iraq was that the Wilsonian "save the world for democracy" impulse, in the middle east, though noble, appeared to me to be tantabount to trying to dig a hole in quicksand.
At the time, I thought Bush should have said outright that we are at war with Islam because the "terrorists" were driven by Islamic impulses. That did not mean that we were at war with every single Moslem any more than we were at war with every single German in WWII. We declared war on Germany because the NAZIs were running the show and violently attempting to take over the world. We are at war with Islam because Islamic extremists are hijacking political power in the middle east and are trying to fulfill the Jihadist agenda of making us all Moslems or killing us.
Right after 9-11, I thought Bush should declare war on jihadist Islam, root AQ out of Afghanistan and make a list of targets - like Bagdad, Tehran, the Kabah, etc., and announced to the world that each attack on the US after 9-11 would be immediately followed with the vaporization of each target in order on the list. That would give the Islamic world an insentive to disuade the jihadists to cool their jets. Maybe that was an overboard reaction to the horror of 9-11, or maybe the right call - once again, hard to say.
Along with whatever strategy was taken, we should have began a major effort to build nuke power plants and drill for oil along our coasts and in Alaska, and shift our and hopefully Japan's and Europe's energy suppliers to as much domestic and ally based sources as possible, and stop helping to fund our middle east oil selling enemies. Then, in the long run, let the Indians and Chinese use up the remaining oil in the middle east, leaving the middle east to economically as well as philosophically sink back into the middle ages they seem to love so much.
when discussing the Cold War, is with President Carter.
As Septembergurl points out above, you fail to mention Truman, who although reviled by his contemporaries, has come to be recognized by historians as a man of principle, who took a stand against the advancement of an evil ideology -- Communism.
He led us into an open-ended "police action," it never DID become a declared "war," (horror of horrors) under the auspices of the United Nations. That conflict, although major fighting lasted only a few years, dragged on for decades, with the only thing separating the South Koreans from total destruction being the US troops stationed at the DMZ. Although the area no longer flares into armed battles, and although the Republic of Korea now has a standing army of its own, it is STILL the presence of American troops that protect the peace.
Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Ford all stood ready to face down Communism -- call their policies whatever you like, but they were willing to commit American troops to prevent the spread of that evil ideology.
Then along came President Carter. HIS vision of America was of a weak nation already past its prime, that must make allowances for, accommodations for other, more vibrant ideologies.
If Nixon gave us Detente, Carter gave us Capitulation. He stood ready to hand the keys of the city to the Soviet Union, unable to muster a spine with which to stand up to them. He undermined the Shah in Iran, opting instead to do business, he thought, with a Theocrat called the Ayatollah.
He allowed a handful of barbarians with AK-47s to take control of our Embassy in Tehran, and hold them with impunity for 444 days.
His answer to the energy crisis was to tell the American people that they would just have to learn to do with less, and to put on a sweater to stay warm.
His total inability to see American greatness; his inability to inspire greatness; his inability to lead; cost this nation much more than just the interest rates we suffer today; he gave us the threat to the world of Radical Islamic Jihad.
Because it was an American president who created THAT threat, through weakness, lack of vision and the inability to lead.
Now, in this coming election, we face two Democrat Carters v a Republican Nixon. The question we all have to ask is; are we willing to set ourselves on another 30 year slide, like what President Carter gave us, or do we select a president who sees the world for what it is; and recognizes an evil ideology for what IT is.
We survived President Carter, and we could survive a President Obama. But why would we want to put our country through another 30 years of hell? With President Carter, Iran brought us the exportation of terrorism. Under President Obama, we can expect Iran to get nuclear weapons and begin to export them.
And, as to the matter of state sponsorship of terrorism v terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda or other nebulous terror organizations cannot simply manufacture money out of thin air, or establish bases in which to train, without states who support them. Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iraq under Saddam Hussein were two such states. No longer! Iran is still such a state. However, Iran is now surrounded on all sides by coalition forces and the US 6th Fleet. Food for thought.
===
When small men cast long shadows, it is a sign that the sun is setting on the Democrat Party
war with a stateless group. Soviet actions could be countermeasured by equal and opposite reaction. Sure, the Soviets used proxy methods against us but couldn't go too far. al Qaida has the luxury to fight when and where it wants without the burden of clear infrastructure. We could have bombed Red Square if worse came to worse. We have to play wack a mole with the demons of islamoterrorism and play guess which cave. It's a much harder task to accomplish, and if you can't see that you are as dense as you sound. Oh, and one more thing, what do you mean when you say neo-conservative? Which group are you referring to?
Tim Schieferecke
Was intended to contrast "bomb Red Square" with "vaporize the Kabah." Otherwise it makes little sense.
Recommended.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
It is fair to say, in hindsight, Iraq should not have been entered into.
It is not fair to say that (IMO).
Sure, there are lots of people who say that.
But there are lots of people who are wrong about lots of things. This is one of them.
(And the "division" that this war has engendered in this country is something else I don't consider to be a "bad" thing. I'd rather know who I am dealing with around me than assume every thing is champaign and caviar...)
I agree with most everything else here, though.
which says:
I suggest as much, NOT because it was the right thing or the wrong thing strategically, but because we couldn't have known the extent to which it would be politicized and demagogued and used as a riot baton over the heads of the American people.
I spent 3 cups of coffee wrangling over how to qualify the part you disagree with...but I accept your reaction all the same. It was a hard one for me to write, trying to be fair and balanced and all...
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
For certain when the decision was made. The extent to which our NATO allies were in bed with Saddam. The refusal of Turkey to act in its own best interest. The success of Saddam in disbursing, destroying, bluffing, whatever, his WMD's. The fragility and animosities in the Iraqi social structure. The decision of AQ to focus on Iraq (an indication of their perception of our vulnerability.) The degree to which Democrat resentment over the 2000 election would poison even their response to an existential threat to the country. Many others.
I think that's what they mean when they talk of "The fog of war."
It is fair to say "Don't be afraid of the most obvious lessons. Learn from them."
I read an interesting report on the cost of Iraq on Marketplace.org. In the view of every economist to be found, entering Iraq was a mistake. Even the Herculean task of "containing Saddam" for another 20 years would have been a bargain by comparison.
However, should the decision just be about economic costs? NO, IMHO but economic realities, and just what we can afford, seem to win out in the end.
And we could have sold oil and scrap to the Japanese and subs to the Germans and avoided WW II, too!
It's not always "the economy, stupid!"
for something else entirely.
I don't think that by "containment", the proponents meant selling Saddam the materials for WMD.
Other alternatives to invasion could have including developing a covert manner of toppling Saddam. But ofcourse you may find that morally offensive?
The hard and complex fact is that we are there and as Haystack suggests, we've got to fix the mess. But as we are there for the long haul, we can't say "at all costs". We've got to find a cost effective way to achieve our plan.
but one thing that came very clearly to mind is how much politicians disgust me right now.
I hate to think where this all could be should they have worked together to make Iraq a success.
I'm going to have to read this post again Haystack...
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised