sigh. once again, let me point out the situation we destroyed in Iraq. It was mostly peaceful. Religious fanaticism was brutally supressed, there was no Shaia law. Girls and women went to school, did not wear the burqa, were not beaten, raped or beheaded for going out in public. The water flowed, as did the oil, the gas, the electricity and the sewers. People congregated in cafes without fear of being blown up or shot. The universities were among the best in the Middle East, the museum one of the finest in the world. Unemployment was low and the death rate comparable to first world nations. I did not like Hussein, who we supported and armed, but he was not at all the worst despot in the world. My plan? Ignore him, keep our trillion dollars and 4,500 dead soldiers, 25,000 maimed soldiers, avoid the destruction of millions of lives and behave as the rule of law dictates. MIND OUR F**N business.
AustinRoth
· 5 months ago
So, if any given war or military action is unjust, of what difference is there between the first and the last soldier to die? I have never understood that analogy. It is just sophism.
GreenDreams
· 5 months ago
Incredible. "The right" is still defending what we did to Iraq, our economy and our military, finally admitting it was about the oil. Time to invade China? They just bought the Canadian oil company. How's that Iraqi oil working out? We didn't secure it for ourselves any more than we had under Hussein.
lurxst
· 5 months ago
Oh my god! What kind of a tool is still trying to defend the Iraq debacle?
4,231 dead and 30,984 injured soldiers (updating GD's figures) $ 800 Billion Dollars cost so far. $10 Billion utterly wasted and unaccounted for, anyone remember the pallets of hundred dollar bills. Millions of Iraqis dead, displaced, injured. Creation of global call-to-arms for jihadists, creating an Al-Qaeda training apparatus in a country where none existed before, essentially making more terrorists out of orphaned Iraqis. The perversion of our intelligence community and the resulting loss of faith in the U.S. for many people in the world. Removing the counter balance to Iranian influence in the region. The shame of being duped by the orchestrated lies, made up facts, twisted intelligence of a hawkish presidency that was intent on invading regardless of reason. Shifting of resources from Afghanistan, where some real progess against fundamentalists could have been made.
Should I go on?
jwest
· 5 months ago
Just because I rarely pass up an opportunity to learn how the liberal mind works I’ll ask this question, knowing full well that I’ll regret it later.
Michael, you state in your article that the Iraq war was “….massively wasteful and utterly unnecessary exercise spawned by hubris and near criminal ignorance.” From this, I assume you believed there was a better way to deal with Saddam Hussein.
Taking into account that Saddam was under the most onerous economic sanctions ever imposed, had no fly zones, murdered segments of his own population, invaded allies of the U.S. in the region and was financially supporting terrorist groups, what was your solution to the ongoing problem?
Saddam had already bribed UN, French, British and German officials to get around the sanctions. He was routinely violating UN declarations. The U.S. congress, along with President Clinton, passed legislation calling for regime change in Iraq.
What was your plan?
Father_Time
· 5 months ago
Oh those four will certainly NOT be the last of American military to die in Iraq, I guarantee you.
There is no doubt, that if America had known in 2003 what it knows now, President Bush would not have been allowed to pursue his invasion.
D. E.Rodriguez
· 5 months ago
Someone asked for a plan.
There are--and have been--several other countries with abominably brutal dicators who have massacred, not thousands, but millions of their own citizens, who have violated every civilized and legal norm; who have attacked their neighbors; who have supported terrorists; who even now are perfecting real, workable, and deliverable nuclear weapons of mass destruction; who ignore every diplomatic and economic sanction; who routinely violate UN declarations, etc., etc.
Why havent' we invaded and occupied them yet?
AustinRoth
· 5 months ago
Dorian -
Have you given any money to charity? If so, why haven't you given it all to charity?
Have you helped someone in trouble? If so, why haven't you helped every single person in trouble?
Have you ever felt the need to stand up and defend somebody? If so, why haven't you stood up to defend every person in need of defending?
Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."
We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?.
It's a dramatic question, but misplaced. Whether or not one supported the invasion of Iraq (I didn't), we were left with the responsibility to leave it in operating order. We've done that. It's up to the Iraqis to determine if things continue to improve or descend into chaos.
In short, it is possible for us to pull something good out of a horrible decision. Generally speaking, I'm in favor of trying to salvage the best possible outcome in any situation. Sure, more Americans will die. American servicemembers still die in Germany, in Korea, and pretty much anywhere they are deployed - one day we lost three people over the side of my ship off the coast of North Carolina and their bodies, to my knowledge, were never recovered. Such things are regrettable, but they are part and parcel of the job. Military service is an honorable profession, in my opinion, and those who die in uniform, or are injured because they wear it, have never suffered in vain. I am proud of this new generation of veterans, and, like all veterans, I pray for a day when no more will have to suffer and die. Until then, I thank God, and their families, for those willing to do the job.
D. E.Rodriguez
· 5 months ago
"Have you given any money to charity? If so, why haven't you given it all to charity? Because I can't afford it, so I pick the most worthy charities
Have you helped someone in trouble? If so, why haven't you helped every single person in trouble?
Have you ever felt the need to stand up and defend somebody? If so, why haven't you stood up to defend every person in need of defending?"
More important, I think, are the answers to the following questions:
Could it perhaps be that, albeit Iraq was and is is a much lesser threat to the U .S. than, say, North Korea, China, Iran, etc., etc. it was and is militarily a much weaker target and much easier to defeat and did not have the ability to strike back at the U.S. or our allies?
Could it perhaps be that, albeit other countries have provided much more support to terrorist organizations--including WMD technology, etc.,that the consequences of attacking them would have been or would be much more serious than attacking Iraq?
Could it perhaps be, that other countries and regimes that have committed much greater atrocities, are or were not as strategically important as Iraq?
Could it be that going to war because hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children are murdered, plundered and their women raped---such as in Darfur---does not really threaten our national interests?
Could it be that some of these regimes that have been guilty of violations, atrocities, etc., etc., do not have ....oil, or other critical natural resources?
Just some questions...
AustinRoth
· 5 months ago
Dorian -
does not really threaten our national interests?
What in the world is a better reason? If it is not in our national interests, of course we should not go to war. That was MY point.
D. E.Rodriguez
· 5 months ago
"If it is not in our national interests, of course we should not go to war. That was MY point."
Exactly my point, too.
We should go to war only when there is an imminent threat to our national security. And don't use crap like "he" is a despicable dictator, a despot, tried to assassinate my dad, a mass murderer, we are going to install democracy, freedom, etc., etc.
The only reason we should go to war and risk the lives of thousands of our bravest is when our country is attacked or when a country or group poses an imminent threat to the United States of America.
Iraq DID NOT pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States of America.
Thanks for making my point
AustinRoth
· 5 months ago
There are national interests worth going to war for that do not fall under the umbrella description of "imminent threat to our national security." Sometimes the longer view is needed.
IMHO
D. E.Rodriguez
· 5 months ago
"There are national interests worth going to war for that do not fall under the umbrella description of "imminent threat to our national security"
Such as...?
AustinRoth
· 5 months ago
Dorian -
The securing of access to strategic assets necessary in the long run.
jwest
· 5 months ago
I must say that I’m disappointed in the lack of humanity displayed by our liberal friends.
Sometimes, you just have to do what is right even if it costs you in blood and money. Sometimes, you can’t just sit back and wait for a small threat to grow into a large threat. Sometimes, you need to think and act for the good of the world, not just yourself.
Going into Iraq was a courageous, noble decision. It was an attempt to change the direction of the Middle East while removing a sadistic dictator who had nuclear ambitions.
Every indication pointed to the ability of Iraq to reconstitute under a new leader quickly after Saddam was removed, but sadly that didn’t happen.
Part of our problem is the lack of a “tough love” stance on foreign policy. Don Rumsfield showed that the U.S. could demolish a million-man army equipped with the best available weapons in a matter of days. This type of success sends a message to other dictators.
What should have occurred was the removal of Saddam’s government, followed by his hanging, along with the execution of his top leadership. Then a quick withdrawal.
This should have been followed by another invasion of another dictator who has committed crimes against humanity. Simply go in, neutralize the military, execute the government leaders and leave – along with the promise to return if the next government acts the same way.
At some point, even the craziest of regimes will get the message and clean up their acts.
When the world has one superpower, this is what it should be used for.
D. E.Rodriguez
· 5 months ago
Sure, that's why we have invaded, occupied, and deposed the leaders of countries such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, perhaps even Russia and China....
All Comments
What kind of a tool is still trying to defend the Iraq debacle?
4,231 dead and 30,984 injured soldiers (updating GD's figures)
$ 800 Billion Dollars cost so far.
$10 Billion utterly wasted and unaccounted for, anyone remember the pallets of hundred dollar bills.
Millions of Iraqis dead, displaced, injured.
Creation of global call-to-arms for jihadists, creating an Al-Qaeda training apparatus in a country where none existed before, essentially making more terrorists out of orphaned Iraqis.
The perversion of our intelligence community and the resulting loss of faith in the U.S. for many people in the world.
Removing the counter balance to Iranian influence in the region.
The shame of being duped by the orchestrated lies, made up facts, twisted intelligence of a hawkish presidency that was intent on invading regardless of reason.
Shifting of resources from Afghanistan, where some real progess against fundamentalists could have been made.
Should I go on?
Michael, you state in your article that the Iraq war was “….massively wasteful and utterly unnecessary exercise spawned by hubris and near criminal ignorance.” From this, I assume you believed there was a better way to deal with Saddam Hussein.
Taking into account that Saddam was under the most onerous economic sanctions ever imposed, had no fly zones, murdered segments of his own population, invaded allies of the U.S. in the region and was financially supporting terrorist groups, what was your solution to the ongoing problem?
Saddam had already bribed UN, French, British and German officials to get around the sanctions. He was routinely violating UN declarations. The U.S. congress, along with President Clinton, passed legislation calling for regime change in Iraq.
What was your plan?
There is no doubt, that if America had known in 2003 what it knows now, President Bush would not have been allowed to pursue his invasion.
There are--and have been--several other countries with abominably brutal dicators who have massacred, not thousands, but millions of their own citizens, who have violated every civilized and legal norm; who have attacked their neighbors; who have supported terrorists; who even now are perfecting real, workable, and deliverable nuclear weapons of mass destruction; who ignore every diplomatic and economic sanction; who routinely violate UN declarations, etc., etc.
Why havent' we invaded and occupied them yet?
Have you given any money to charity? If so, why haven't you given it all to charity?
Have you helped someone in trouble? If so, why haven't you helped every single person in trouble?
Have you ever felt the need to stand up and defend somebody? If so, why haven't you stood up to defend every person in need of defending?
It's a dramatic question, but misplaced. Whether or not one supported the invasion of Iraq (I didn't), we were left with the responsibility to leave it in operating order. We've done that. It's up to the Iraqis to determine if things continue to improve or descend into chaos.
In short, it is possible for us to pull something good out of a horrible decision. Generally speaking, I'm in favor of trying to salvage the best possible outcome in any situation. Sure, more Americans will die. American servicemembers still die in Germany, in Korea, and pretty much anywhere they are deployed - one day we lost three people over the side of my ship off the coast of North Carolina and their bodies, to my knowledge, were never recovered. Such things are regrettable, but they are part and parcel of the job. Military service is an honorable profession, in my opinion, and those who die in uniform, or are injured because they wear it, have never suffered in vain. I am proud of this new generation of veterans, and, like all veterans, I pray for a day when no more will have to suffer and die. Until then, I thank God, and their families, for those willing to do the job.
Have you helped someone in trouble? If so, why haven't you helped every single person in trouble?
Have you ever felt the need to stand up and defend somebody? If so, why haven't you stood up to defend every person in need of defending?"
More important, I think, are the answers to the following questions:
Could it perhaps be that, albeit Iraq was and is is a much lesser threat to the U .S. than, say, North Korea, China, Iran, etc., etc. it was and is militarily a much weaker target and much easier to defeat and did not have the ability to strike back at the U.S. or our allies?
Could it perhaps be that, albeit other countries have provided much more support to terrorist organizations--including WMD technology, etc.,that the consequences of attacking them would have been or would be much more serious than attacking Iraq?
Could it perhaps be, that other countries and regimes that have committed much greater atrocities, are or were not as strategically important as Iraq?
Could it be that going to war because hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children are
murdered, plundered and their women raped---such as in Darfur---does not really threaten our national interests?
Could it be that some of these regimes that have been guilty of violations, atrocities, etc., etc., do not have ....oil, or other critical natural resources?
Just some questions...
does not really threaten our national interests?
What in the world is a better reason? If it is not in our national interests, of course we should not go to war. That was MY point.
Exactly my point, too.
We should go to war only when there is an imminent threat to our national security. And don't use crap like "he" is a despicable dictator, a despot, tried to assassinate my dad, a mass murderer, we are going to install democracy, freedom, etc., etc.
The only reason we should go to war and risk the lives of thousands of our bravest is when our country is attacked or when a country or group poses an imminent threat to the United States of America.
Iraq DID NOT pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States of America.
Thanks for making my point
IMHO
Such as...?
The securing of access to strategic assets necessary in the long run.
Sometimes, you just have to do what is right even if it costs you in blood and money. Sometimes, you can’t just sit back and wait for a small threat to grow into a large threat. Sometimes, you need to think and act for the good of the world, not just yourself.
Going into Iraq was a courageous, noble decision. It was an attempt to change the direction of the Middle East while removing a sadistic dictator who had nuclear ambitions.
Every indication pointed to the ability of Iraq to reconstitute under a new leader quickly after Saddam was removed, but sadly that didn’t happen.
Part of our problem is the lack of a “tough love” stance on foreign policy. Don Rumsfield showed that the U.S. could demolish a million-man army equipped with the best available weapons in a matter of days. This type of success sends a message to other dictators.
What should have occurred was the removal of Saddam’s government, followed by his hanging, along with the execution of his top leadership. Then a quick withdrawal.
This should have been followed by another invasion of another dictator who has committed crimes against humanity. Simply go in, neutralize the military, execute the government leaders and leave – along with the promise to return if the next government acts the same way.
At some point, even the craziest of regimes will get the message and clean up their acts.
When the world has one superpower, this is what it should be used for.