Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree that this is a significant acheivement, but it pales in comparison with the harm done. The sad fact is that ordinary Iraqis had more freedom under Saddam. The situation there is still far worse than it was before we invaded.

During many wars that have been fought, there have been dark times. If at each dark time we pulled out, we'd almost never win a war.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Don't try to delegate the blame. They held those beliefs because the Bush Administration faked the intelligence

I have seen no evidence that this is true, and neither do I believe it is.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

and bullied them into taking a course which had been decided well in advance.

Sounds to me like politicians are just following the currents of anti-war public opinion if they're saying that now.

I've heard that right after 9/11, President Bush wanted to go after Iraq, and Tony Blair argued him out of it. So my view is that the intelligence the Administration was receiving about Iraq indicated that they were a threat through their links to terrorism and their WMD production from early on. If you want to see a conspiracy in the Administration though, you can do that.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

For example when the UN weapons inspectors reported that Iraq didn't have WMDs, the Bush admin's response was to besmirch the character of Hans Blix.

The weapons inspectors never reported that there weren't WMDs in Iraq, as I remember. They said they couldn't tell and that the Iraqi government wasn't being open enough. Hans Blix wanted more time though, and he was not given that time. That's where the friction between him and the US was created. I'm sure there was political mudslinging against him for that. There often is mudslinging in politics. Ugly and annoying and coming from all sides against whoever they object to, but that's the way it is. Not that the way it is doesn't stink .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Iraq was invaded because 9/11 had given the neocons the opportunity they wanted to kick Saddam's backside and put all that redundant military gear to work for good old big business. All the subsequent justifications have been proven empty: no WMDs, we've increased terrorism not defeated it (and created the ideal training ground to boot), civil society has all but collapsed, people are worse off than they were under Saddam,

I agree that our enemies have used the war as a propoganda tool and have done a good job at that. They also are doing a huge amount of damage to Iraq, as you say. I have heard President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld say again and again though, in their speeches, that it would be a long war and a very difficult process.

The people who were saying that there would be huge collapse of infrastructure and civilian casualties in Iraq were talking about our war with Saddam. They were saying that when we attack Saddam, we will pulverize all the country's infrastructure and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. That did not happen. We killed a minimal number of civilians when we attacked and opened opportunities for the Iraqi troops such that many of them were able to stand down. We then targetted Saddam's Republican Guard directly. The initial invasion was very well strategized and flawlessly executed, although Democrats and many anti-war generals had said it would be a total mess with hundreds of thousands of deaths and complete destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and economy. They were completely wrong because they didn't understand how technology had improved since the Persian Gulf War, and the pro-war folk were shown to be right.

When President Bush declared victory in Iraq, he was correct in doing so. We had defeated Saddam Hussein and most of his forces. They were our only opponents of that moment. The insurgency was born later on, and they were largely a new enemy born partly from the civilian population and partly from foreign combatants, and funded and equipped by anti-US terrorist groups and Iran and Syria. When the insurgency attacked us, the dire predictions (or some of them) were fulfilled. But none of those people making the dire predictions linked them to an insurgency that I recall. Rather, they said we would do that to Iraq ourselves in our military campaign to oust Saddam, and they were wrong.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

and now we're reduced to justifying it by saying that we can't leave because that will only make things worse

Both anti-war and pro-war predictions have turned out to be false.

The people of Iraq celebrated when we invaded their land, rejoicing to be free from Saddam. They wanted freedom and we came to give it to them. We have sought to free an abused people from oppression. Because of the way they were treated and the fact that we sacrificed much on their behalf, our efforts were justified. Our invasion is morally justified, for our intentions have been noble from the beginning. But being morally in the right isn't a guarantee that it'll be easy. Al'Qaeda in Iraq is attacking the country and tearing apart the good that has been done. The Iraqis are willing to pay a price for their freedom though, just as we did in the Revolutionary War. We must help them, as they are under our protection.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

). The only justification/explanation which holds any water based on the observed evidence is the "kick his ass, grab the gas" one.

Since when has that one held up?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I mostly agree. I'll qualify that by saying that a morally unjust war (as I believe it is) remains morally unjust and there may be an imperative to rescind those immoral actions as a priority.

Why do you say the war was morally unjust? Our effort to help the Iraqi people find democracy and to save them from a brutal regime was certainly morally upright. The fact that it is attacked by another savage force doesn't make our actions less moral. It only speaks about the insurgency's actions.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

That would be separate from a utilitarian concern regarding the consequences of pulling out and might override them, depending on one's view. Personally, I am unsure of what the right balance is here.

As I see it, the moral issue comes first. We've got to protect Iraq to the maximum of our ability until there is no chance at all left for our efforts, even if that costs us dear. And then if it comes to that, we must do all we can to compensate the remnants for our failure.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Now you're in danger of doing that conflation thing: which enemies? which war?? what is the purpose of this war? is it that Terror thing again?

I'm going to keep using those words because they do have real meaning and they are true. They can be abused when they're applied to all situations and people as though it's all the same thing, when often there are strong differences between different groups and conflicts. I do my best to use them only where I see them as justified.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Another pre-2003 prediction comes true: Iran is the only winner, no matter what happens.

Unless we refuse to pull out.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But it is not clear to me that US foreign policy should dictate the morality of war.

I don't think I really understand what you mean by this. I agree that morality can't be determined by any Administration. Rather, it's a question of whether or not their actions correspond to a morality that already exists. Is that what you mean?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's not just about good and evil, it's about the shameless use of the rhetoric of war, terror, freedom etc, and the senseless conflation of complex issues into simplistic slogans to bolster a flawed policy.

I agree that this sometimes happens. Sometimes those words are used very accurately, I think, for many of those we fight against want to see a totalitarian Islamic Empire spread throughout the world. They detest democracy and attack civilians to inspire fear so that they can achieve their objectives. That's terrorism. So often I've seen those words well used, but then I agree that I've also seen them used in cases where I don't think they should be. For example, I right now have very real doubts as to whether or not the US is right in classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist group. They are certainly not as bad as Al'Qaeda. Yet even if they are terrorists, is it right to call them so? For doing so basically blacklists them and alienates us further from the Muslim world. Applying labels like that is essentially saying that these people are evil. And sometimes that label is justly applied, but other times it may do more harm than good.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Anyone who questioned the war was branded a traitor.

More political mudslinging. Ugly, I agree, and downright mean. That has come from both sides; let's be fair.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

They faked the evidence on WMD to frighten Congress. The Bush administration has done everything it can to manipulate people's beliefs about the situation in the process of doing lasting damage to the state of the world.

I've never seen any evidence to support this.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I'm glad we can hold almost polar opposite views and still discuss it civilly. I know I tend to use rather blunt language at times...

Sometimes I fear my language is too blunt too . Sometimes I take care to edit afterward, for that reason.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

We can agree on this. At the moment, however, it's not at all clear to me that the Coalition troops are succeeding at all at protecting ordinary Iraqis.

Even if there's only one police officer in the country and no one else who's upholding the law and trying to protect democracy, that's better than none. A poor defense is better than no defense.