RubySoho
Winston
Iraq: The Case of Worth vs. Cost
March 19th 2008 19:58
Five years ago America embarked upon a mission of great importance, a preemptive strike against a formidable nation of evil that threatened our very existence. As the world looked on in breathless anticipation, these two titans met in furious battle. The very earth trembled and groaned as the conflict raged, until, at last, America emerged from the dust and chaos victorious, with our fallen foe vanquished beneath our mighty heel! A collective cheer went up as order was restored and sublime peace reigned over all the nations of the world.
That sounds nice.
I wish that it all were true.
Five years ago, America embarked upon what was, in hindsight, a misguided mess. I don't even know why we went anymore. Ah yes, the weapons of mass destruction! Assured by my government that there was incontrovertible proof of immense stores of chemical and biological weapons, I supported the invasion at first, at least somewhat. Although I had misgivings about America taking preemptive action against another nation, without an act of aggression being first committed by that nation, I still believed that disabling those weapons was in our best interest. Also, I believed that Saddam's defiance of the U.N. required that action be taken, so as not to make it appear that the threat of U.N. action was only that: an empty threat. So I waited for the news that would vindicate us in the eyes of the world, eyes that were already beginning to regard us as having gone astray. I waited as the news reports spoke of things that might be related to WMDs, and I watched as those things were found to be completely unrelated time and time again. The truth became clear. The much trumpeted weapons, the principle reason we'd given for our invasion (along with our puzzling claim that Iraq had a hand in 9/11, despite the fact that almost all of the hijackers were Saudis and that there is really no evidence that Iraq had any part in the planning or execution of that event) did not exist.
With my disillusionment already beginning, I bemusedly observed the Bush administration's tune change. Iraq must have hidden the weapons, but that wasn't really the point anyway. We hadn't gone in to Iraq for WMDs, we'd REALLY gone in to topple an evil dictator and deliver democracy and liberty to the grateful throngs. How nice of us! However, if I had to nitpick, I would say that maybe, just maybe, it's not America's job to alter the governments of other nations, particularly not at the expense of American lives and dollars. By the logic of bringing liberty and democracy to the downtrodden, why do we not have 150,000 troops in Darfur? Why, in fact, do we not go charging to the aid of all beleaguered peoples everywhere who are at the mercy of cruel and capricious leadership? There are places where the people are worse off than they were in Iraq (although that is not to belittle the poor state of the people under Hussein). Can we genuinely say that we went to Iraq to grant liberty, without answering why they deserved it more than all the other equally desperate nations? To top it all off, once we got there it seemed the "grateful multitudes" were perhaps slightly less thankful than we'd been led to believe.....
And let's not forget that ultimate gem of a reason for our presence in Iraq, "we've got to fight the terrorists there so they don't come here." Brilliant. We go to war in a very unstable region with a country that has caused us little prevarication (aside from the bellicose rhetoric of its meglomaniacal dictator), as our president spouts ill-worded speeches that, in the minds of many Iraqis, cements the idea that this is a conflict between East and West, Christians and Muslims, and then we wonder why people are fighting us there? Looking back, it really shouldn't have been much of a surprise. That's not to say that a great share of the burden does not rest with the Islamic extremists fanning the flames. The radical clerics and the militant fundamentalists have used the anger and fear of the general population to their advantage, whipping up conflicts and brewing violence, in effect spinning things more wildly out of control than the war planners ever dreamed would happen. Islamic fundamentalism, and the ignorance and terror that it begets, IS a threat, and it needs to be relentlessly stamped out. But Iraq was not the place to do it. In fact, all we did was create a place for the violence to foment and breed. We've attracted terrorists there from other nations, and we've converted some of the indigenous population into a new generation of terrorists. This particular aspect of the conflict really has a lot of depth, and I realize that I am oversimplifying. However, at the most basic level, this is true. Al-qaeda was most likely not in Iraq before March of 2003. They went there after the fact, and essentially created a new franchise of the organization.
To be fair, recently it seems that some of the violence has diminished, at least somewhat. We can all feel very proud. However, how pleased should we be that we're finally starting to get under control the problem we helped to create in the first place?
Apparently, quite pleased. As the president says, we're on the right track:
"Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting ... whether the fight is worth winning ... and whether we can win it. The answers are clear to me: Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision and this is a fight America can and must win."
"The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage the battle in Iraq will end in victory," he told an audience of Pentagon leaders, soldiers and diplomats.
I'm not even sure what victory in Iraq means anymore. But seeing as we're on the verge of achieving this victory, I suppose I should be happy. It's all been worth it, obviously. So what, exactly, is the "it" that you find this whole endeavor to be worth, Mr. President?
Is "it" the immense financial cost we continue to incur? Is it worth spending countless billions of dollars to help another nation's people at the expense of helping our own? We've spent over $500 billion of taxpayer money thus far, with no clear end in sight. In the meantime, our economy is foundering, our educational and health insurance institutions are in serious need of rehabilitation, and people are falling ever deeper into debt.
Is "it" the squandering of all of the international good will we garnered following the attacks of 9/11, until we are now regarded as a childlike brute with a big stick by much of the world?
Is "it" siphoning off resources that should have been used in Afghanistan to track down bin Laden and to ensure that the Taliban was thoroughly destroyed? Is it our failure to implement all of the necessary critical fixes to our border/port/domestic security, as we instead continue to focus our money and resources on this conflict abroad?
Is "it" the fact that, with Iran and North Korea presenting much more imminent danger than Iraq ever did, we are now greatly diminished in our capacity to meet any new threats of force?
Is "it" the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in the conflict and in the ensuing sectarian violence? Is it the 4000 U.S. troops who have given their lives?
Is it worth any of these things?
We have not made ourselves stronger with this conflict. We have gained very little in terms of security, and lost much in terms of lives and wealth. The nobility, necessity, and justness of the cause is suspect, whatever the president may say. There is no doubt that action was and is required to protect our nation and her citizens, but the case that invading Iraq was the correct action is far from compelling. If all of this was worth it, I shudder to think what it takes to not be so....
For this post, I used some quotes from President Bush's speech as reported 03/19/2008 on MSNBC.com and Huffingtonpost.com
That sounds nice.
I wish that it all were true.
Five years ago, America embarked upon what was, in hindsight, a misguided mess. I don't even know why we went anymore. Ah yes, the weapons of mass destruction! Assured by my government that there was incontrovertible proof of immense stores of chemical and biological weapons, I supported the invasion at first, at least somewhat. Although I had misgivings about America taking preemptive action against another nation, without an act of aggression being first committed by that nation, I still believed that disabling those weapons was in our best interest. Also, I believed that Saddam's defiance of the U.N. required that action be taken, so as not to make it appear that the threat of U.N. action was only that: an empty threat. So I waited for the news that would vindicate us in the eyes of the world, eyes that were already beginning to regard us as having gone astray. I waited as the news reports spoke of things that might be related to WMDs, and I watched as those things were found to be completely unrelated time and time again. The truth became clear. The much trumpeted weapons, the principle reason we'd given for our invasion (along with our puzzling claim that Iraq had a hand in 9/11, despite the fact that almost all of the hijackers were Saudis and that there is really no evidence that Iraq had any part in the planning or execution of that event) did not exist.
With my disillusionment already beginning, I bemusedly observed the Bush administration's tune change. Iraq must have hidden the weapons, but that wasn't really the point anyway. We hadn't gone in to Iraq for WMDs, we'd REALLY gone in to topple an evil dictator and deliver democracy and liberty to the grateful throngs. How nice of us! However, if I had to nitpick, I would say that maybe, just maybe, it's not America's job to alter the governments of other nations, particularly not at the expense of American lives and dollars. By the logic of bringing liberty and democracy to the downtrodden, why do we not have 150,000 troops in Darfur? Why, in fact, do we not go charging to the aid of all beleaguered peoples everywhere who are at the mercy of cruel and capricious leadership? There are places where the people are worse off than they were in Iraq (although that is not to belittle the poor state of the people under Hussein). Can we genuinely say that we went to Iraq to grant liberty, without answering why they deserved it more than all the other equally desperate nations? To top it all off, once we got there it seemed the "grateful multitudes" were perhaps slightly less thankful than we'd been led to believe.....
And let's not forget that ultimate gem of a reason for our presence in Iraq, "we've got to fight the terrorists there so they don't come here." Brilliant. We go to war in a very unstable region with a country that has caused us little prevarication (aside from the bellicose rhetoric of its meglomaniacal dictator), as our president spouts ill-worded speeches that, in the minds of many Iraqis, cements the idea that this is a conflict between East and West, Christians and Muslims, and then we wonder why people are fighting us there? Looking back, it really shouldn't have been much of a surprise. That's not to say that a great share of the burden does not rest with the Islamic extremists fanning the flames. The radical clerics and the militant fundamentalists have used the anger and fear of the general population to their advantage, whipping up conflicts and brewing violence, in effect spinning things more wildly out of control than the war planners ever dreamed would happen. Islamic fundamentalism, and the ignorance and terror that it begets, IS a threat, and it needs to be relentlessly stamped out. But Iraq was not the place to do it. In fact, all we did was create a place for the violence to foment and breed. We've attracted terrorists there from other nations, and we've converted some of the indigenous population into a new generation of terrorists. This particular aspect of the conflict really has a lot of depth, and I realize that I am oversimplifying. However, at the most basic level, this is true. Al-qaeda was most likely not in Iraq before March of 2003. They went there after the fact, and essentially created a new franchise of the organization.
To be fair, recently it seems that some of the violence has diminished, at least somewhat. We can all feel very proud. However, how pleased should we be that we're finally starting to get under control the problem we helped to create in the first place?
Apparently, quite pleased. As the president says, we're on the right track:
"Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting ... whether the fight is worth winning ... and whether we can win it. The answers are clear to me: Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision and this is a fight America can and must win."
"The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage the battle in Iraq will end in victory," he told an audience of Pentagon leaders, soldiers and diplomats.
I'm not even sure what victory in Iraq means anymore. But seeing as we're on the verge of achieving this victory, I suppose I should be happy. It's all been worth it, obviously. So what, exactly, is the "it" that you find this whole endeavor to be worth, Mr. President?
Is "it" the immense financial cost we continue to incur? Is it worth spending countless billions of dollars to help another nation's people at the expense of helping our own? We've spent over $500 billion of taxpayer money thus far, with no clear end in sight. In the meantime, our economy is foundering, our educational and health insurance institutions are in serious need of rehabilitation, and people are falling ever deeper into debt.
Is "it" the squandering of all of the international good will we garnered following the attacks of 9/11, until we are now regarded as a childlike brute with a big stick by much of the world?
Is "it" siphoning off resources that should have been used in Afghanistan to track down bin Laden and to ensure that the Taliban was thoroughly destroyed? Is it our failure to implement all of the necessary critical fixes to our border/port/domestic security, as we instead continue to focus our money and resources on this conflict abroad?
Is "it" the fact that, with Iran and North Korea presenting much more imminent danger than Iraq ever did, we are now greatly diminished in our capacity to meet any new threats of force?
Is "it" the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in the conflict and in the ensuing sectarian violence? Is it the 4000 U.S. troops who have given their lives?
Is it worth any of these things?
We have not made ourselves stronger with this conflict. We have gained very little in terms of security, and lost much in terms of lives and wealth. The nobility, necessity, and justness of the cause is suspect, whatever the president may say. There is no doubt that action was and is required to protect our nation and her citizens, but the case that invading Iraq was the correct action is far from compelling. If all of this was worth it, I shudder to think what it takes to not be so....
For this post, I used some quotes from President Bush's speech as reported 03/19/2008 on MSNBC.com and Huffingtonpost.com
| 105 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Onesnap
And now with each passing day the news gets worse and worse regarding the US economy, the weak dollar, and fuel prices. Delta Airlines is going to cut 30,000 jobs due to fuel prices (which of course will be a chain reaction to the entire airline industry).
5 years ago a war begun. 5 years ago put in place a series of events that led to everything falling down around us.
There used to be a claim that the USA was the 'next Roman Empire' I have not heard that phrase in a very very long time. The past few days I keep thinking to myself that this is our empire's time to fall.
4,000 dead and aprox 16 injured for each one dead.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Let's face it, the lives of the Iraqis are considered worthless, so it's certainly not that. The lives of the soldiers are expendable. And they get to die as hero's, right? So what's the problem?
However, the biggest underlying issue is the fact that this war is simply about profit. US Corporations are quite literally making a killing. They certainly don't want to withdraw. Go Halliburton! Go Blackwater!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
If it ever does appear that to me that this is a truly valid position, it's going to be a very sad day for me indeed. I would prefer (slightly) to have leadership that is inept over leadership that is intrinsically corrupt...
Thanks for the comment!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Leadership that is both inept and corrupt!
Comment by Damo
All that advice was ignored and the advisors were demonized.
5 years later and some people still think it is just a PR campaign that went wrong.
Comment by Anna Kovacevic
So who are you anyway?
"Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.
The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February".
I also found this on a CNN website:
"The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."
Yet Cheney continues to peddle the lie that there was a direct link.
Yes, Cheney, who was once CEO of Haliburton with their multi-billion dollar Iraq war contracts and still receives payment from Haliburton.
I do hope that the upcoming elections bring the massive changes in your government not just for the sake of my many American friends but also the world in general.
We shall see..
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Oh yes, there was dissent galore from the international community prior to the invasion. The way it was portrayed here was that the case for invasion was so compelling that anyone who did not support us was, essentially, a jackass. As it turns out, the case was anything but compelling, the intelligence was deeply flawed and we would have been much better off listening to everyone else.
Does "oops" suffice?
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I also hope the elections shake things up here a bit. We'll know in a year or so how realistic that hope is.
Thanks for the comment
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I still think that Bush & Co. believed at least SOME of what they were saying, but I think they knew the case was really much thinner than they said.
Comment by Damo
I don't think oops is enough.
The reality is coming back to haunt the US for trusting the emotional rants of your elected representatives rather than a little cold hard analysis.
It is as if nothing has been learned from the errors of the Nazi era or Communism.
In going to war America (and coalition nations) was forced to accept a new morality that had until then rejected publicly. I started to accept the morality Napoleon : War is good.
As such I feel sorry for what will come as a result of this absolute blunder in Iraq.
It is not over by a long shot.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Winston, the UN weapons inspectors were quite clear when they insisted they could find no evidence of WMDs. None.
What possible evidence did the US have that was so compelling, so strong that it could leave them without a shadow of a doubt and yet completely go over the head of the UN? Did the Bush administration believe they were doing the right thing? Maybe, but not for the reasons they put forward. I think for Bush it was a case of finishing the job his father started, remember the "we're talking about the man who tried to kill my Dad" incident? A simple case of bloody revenge made more attractive by the fact that Iraq, in the words of Paul Wolfowitz, "swims on a sea of oil".
As Damo said, the US public fell behind the President based purely on his empty rhetoric. The power of language, huh? Even now, his "with us or against" mantra is steadfastly adhered to by many. It seems anyone who dares criticise the US is automatically a terrorist sympathiser.
But I admire your willingness to try to look for at least a little good in people who have shown us that they are actually rotten to the core. I gave up on them a long time ago.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Let me try to explain how we were so easily led into this conflict by the government. I feel as though people overseas hold American citizens somewhat accountable for what happened, and I can understand why, but it is a complex issue.
Firstly, I do obviously realize that "oops" is not enough. I think my post makes that fairly clear. I know that the U.N inspection brought nothing to light to suggest that WMDs were a reality (although Saddam's frequent refusal to admit inspectors to various locations hardly helped his case). The one thing that you can't account for on your end in your analysis is the political climate over here. At the time we went to Iraq, the wounds of 9/11 were still pretty fresh. Unfortunately, emotion allowed people to be led more easily than we normally would. As I said, I had some trepidation, but I don't think I was as objective as I would have been under other circumstances. As someone who was a couple miles uptown from the World Trade Center that day, I can testify to the emotional impact of the event. The media and the government worked together to create an unending drumbeat of fear. Orange alerts and terrorist "chatter" filled the news. Shoe bombs and anthrax and death, oh my! They stopped short of having blinking "Be Scared, Be Scared, Be Scared" signs on every street corner, but only just.
More importantly, though, is the fact that we naturally had some trust in our government. Too much, most likely. When the U.S. government, which presides over the wealthiest and most well-armed country in the world, says that it has "bullet-proof" intelligence, the inclination is to assume that there actually IS some compelling, sensitive data that they are acting on. Remember, this is before we knew about Haliburton, before all of the scandal and the blunders came to light. There were those of us who did not entirely understand the decision, but it seemed like there must have been a valid reason at that point. Had we known then what we know now, I can guarantee a much larger outcry would have gone up.
Does that excuse us? No. Would many of us like to take it back? Of course. But, democracy or no, We the People are sadly at the mercy of our government. There's no referendum about going to war put out on a ballot. We don't get to choose. The government had our tacit permission, a blank check for all that has followed. I wish that it were not so, not because I think the U.S. should not fight, but because this is the wrong fight to be in. We've weakened ourselves, in more ways than one, and it's very disheartening.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
re-elected in 2004, though. But then again, Australia voted John Howard back in that same year, so it's not like we can claim the moral high ground at all.But I do recall some millions of protesters marching against the call for war in 2003, so it's not as if all Americans were taken in by the lies and deceit.
I know you guys were led into the war under false pretenses. Maybe we can excuse the enthusiasm which many Americans felt for the 'cause' at the time, but what I can't excuse is the failure of anyone to hold this administration accountable for its actions. Clinton's sex life is an impeachable offense but lying in order to wage an unjust war is somehow okay, or at least forgivable? How can that be?