Iraq War: Not A Failure

[hamandcheese]

In the last few years a bitterness has been building against the Bush Administration and the Iraq War. Here I want to examine the main assertion against the Bush Administration which garners the most resentment. That is the notion that the Iraq War is a failure, has been lost as Harry Reid said, or that it is "the worst war ever." The first gauge of a bad war I wish to explore is perhaps the most compelling: death toll.

The causalities of the Iraq war (though horrible in their own right) are nothing compared to the wars of the past. The difference is the publics sensitivity to death and violence. This is the era of idealism, and the rise of the left as well as activist movements (which I commend) have altered the psychology of the masses.

Today the 4,050 American death toll (combat + other such as IEDs) from a 5 year occupation in Iraq has been seen by many competent analysts and activists as deplorable; yet compared to the the death tolls of other American endeavors, the deaths and the distribution of the deaths over time is relatively modest. Take these statistics*:

Deaths : War : Duration

58,151 : Vietnam : ~15 years
36,516 : Korean : ~3 years
405,399 : WWII : ~4 years
116,516 : WWI : ~1 year
4,052 : Iraq : ~5 years +

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war

This is just a glimpse. In terms of total deaths the Iraq invasion is listed as the 10th most deadly American conflict, with approximately 2.35 deaths a day (as opposed to 26 a day for Vietnam). In terms of enemy casualties, it's even sillier to call the Iraq war the "worst" war, or even a very bad one. Some estimates put enemy and civilian deaths into the millions in the Vietnam war, and I don't think I need to show the figures for other struggles because this is uncontroversial.

Perhaps death toll is not the best gauge of a bad war. In one place the Iraq war ranks as "worst" is in terms of its financial costs. Eric Leaver, prominent researcher and writer, has stated that the Iraq war is the most costly war in 60 years. This is conspicuous fact from just glancing at money stats, and it is having a ripple effect on the American economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that "the cost of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next 10 years." Still, it is not "the worst war" in that way since it still is not the more expensive, and even the expenses seem trivial when the deficit is expected to soar any how. I am not making an excuse against balancing a budget, but one expectation of any war/invasion/occupation is cost, and though no consensus existed prior to the invasion in terms of expense, every competent analyst made clear that this would be a costly endeavor (especially after the fall of Saddam).

Another way of gauging the war is in terms of public reception and blow back. If one claims that the Iraq war is a failure due to lack of support from the public, than one is employing circular logic and runs the risk of sounding absurd. The logic is this: Since people don't like the Iraq war, the Iraq war is not a success; and the Iraq war is not a success, because people don't like it; and people don't like it, because it's not a success, ad infinitum. When it comes to blow back, we will have to see. Blow back is a natural result of every war, so if blow back constitutes failure, then success becomes virtually impossible and loses all meaning. The biggest and most apparent "blow back" of the Iraq war has been it's recruiting capacity for Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists. This however, does not stand up to previous unintended consequences of American projects including the very existence of Al-Qaeda from resentment of American presents in Saudi Arabia and their support for Israel.

So what has made so many pundits, activists, and citizens in the USA to claim that Iraq has been "lost," is a failure, or even one of the worst wars in history? It has to do with several things:

1. Attention Deficit. Harvard professor and historian Niall Ferguson notes that one of the biggest liabilities of the American Empire is what he calls "an attention deficit," which is basically the fact that a president can only be president for 8 years before someone else takes over with a completely different agenda. "Despite the enormous advantages, it's very dysfunctional as an empire. It can't direct sufficient financial resources to its imperial undertakings. It never has enough men where they're needed. And, above all else, its elector lose interest in hot, poor countries almost as soon as they've been occupied." Some experts had said just prior to the invasion that an undertaking like bring democracy to Iraq would take decades -- one estimate said 40 years. A problem with the Iraq was thus the idea that the administration themselves spread, that the Iraq War might be over in a matter of years or even months. In other words, the Iraq is a long haul but because people look at it under a lens of instant gratification, they are understandably disappointed.

2. Knowledge. Yes, knowledge is one the pillars supporting Iraq War resentment. A unique difference in the Iraq War and previous wars is the amount of resources and information on the war itself. With the internet and more transparent journalism the average American has the ability to see graphic images of injured Americans. Every American that dies in Iraq is reported almost immediately, whereas other conflicts had a substantial delay between death and report. The simple fact is that war is brutal, ugly, and atrocious. The difference before has been that only the people on the front lines could truly express that. Nowadays we can see (if we so choose) dead and wounded Tibetan monks, disabled Iraq War vets, et cetera which makes us much more empathetic, much more aware, and much more reluctant.

3. Bitterness. George Bush built the Iraq War and garnered support for it by centering it on two things: 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was worthy of toppling is not debatable. He was responsible for gassing thousands of Iraqi Kurds (who are often wrongly called "his own people") which some think was only incidental in attempt to kill Iranians, but it nevertheless happened. He is responsible for the deaths of hundred of civilians and dissenters, and has used as well as expressly sought WMDs before. He was a horrible dictator who deserved to be overthrown. The mistake the Bush Administration made was in their certainty that his weapon ambitions still existed, and in their timing. The Bush Administration falsely linked 9/11 to Iraq, and with the subsequent invasion took all attention away from capturing Osama Bin Laden and revenging the terrorist attacks on the world trade center. In this way, though the invasion may have been a cause set for a later time, and though military intervention was obviously the wrong tactic, the Bush Administration effectively mislead the public and thus resentment ensues. For reasons of circular logic mentioned before, though, this is not an excuse to call Iraq a failure.

Put short, the belief that the Iraq is an epic failure is a belief arisen from lack of context, over sensitivity, and failed expectations. In other words, an erroneous mental framing. If Iraq is framed, on the other hand, as long haul with comparatively low casualties, it is not such a disaster. We are in the 5th year of the Iraq war and an astonishing amount of progress has been made. We can either see that progress continue into the next 5 - 10 years, or we can give it up and hope it doesn't turn out like the killing fields of Vietnam.

----

As I've made clear in other posts, I am not a supporter of American Imperialism, but as Christopher Hitchens notes, both withdrawing from Iraq and not invading it in the first place are Imperial in nature too. I consider myself a non-interventionist, and have thus never supported the War, however I resent those who call it a "failure," or a "loss," when realistically it's gone quite well. In my personal view, I think Saddam had to have been toppled one day, but that it was not the job of America to do it, and that military intervention as a primary strategy (in accord to Neo-Con doctrine) was a bad decision.

[TyRockwell]

I mostly agree with your fine post. Yet I wish to say that 9/11 and WMD were never the only two reasons for invading Iraq.

Saddam had violated at least 17 U.N. resolutions.

He had abused the oil for food program.

He gave money to the families of suicide bombers.

He had associated with terrorists from other countries, even allowing them to have training camps in Iraq. The list could go on...

[Augustine2004]

Saddam is gone, we hung him, yippee. Now we can go home, can we? Why are we still there?

[hamandcheese]

TYrockwell:
If you read carefully, there is no contradiction in what you bring up, and what I previously said. Saddam was genocidal, and had the worst appreciation for human rights imaginable. Hitchen's has a test to determine whether someone understands Saddam Hussein or not. If someone says "Well, Saddam was a bad guy...", than, Hitchen says, that person doesn't know what he is talking about. Richard Reid is a bad guy. Saddam Hussein is just evil. But I digress.

If you re-read "Bitterness," you'll notice I say this: "George Bush built the Iraq War and garnered support for it by centering it on two things: 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction." I don't think this is controversial. There were certainly people who wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 and the WMD scares, but it is generally those two piece of propaganda that "garnered support" for the preemptive war; a combination of 9/11 revenge and WMD fear. Of course, it turns out, neither of these reasons were actually rational or credible, which, as I explained, lead to bitterness in being mislead.

Augustine2004:
It's a perfectly justified desire to leave Iraq. One way to look at it is that we have family over there currently in great risk, that it is draining our economy, and that "if we just walked in, we can just walk out." Another way to look at it is that we have made an investment in a region, and if we leave now we will be doing something that is the antithesis of whats noble, right, and moral.

For example, leaving could result in something reminiscent of the killing fields after we left Vietnam as brought on by an invasion from a less democratic country like Saudi Arabia or Iran, to (the somewhat less probable) Iraq picking up the pieces on their own, and then a rapid decline in violence as the Iraqi government gets the incentive to shape up. But insofar as we can be objective, no one really knows how it will happen. I am personally not much a gambler and thus prefer the safer choice to stay until Iraq is stable and has a self sufficient security force, so when we then leave the maimed Iraq(is) are able to rebuild and gain control.

"One cannot undue three decades of war an fascism in a short amount of time." - Christopher Hitchens in a TV interview

As you may have notice I am a definite admirer of Hitchens.

[Augustine2004]

You call yourself a libertarian! Well! A pro-war libertarian.

I googled the Hitchens quotation, and did not find an exact version. You probably misquoted him.

In any case, ironically the USA is fascistic and is becoming increasingly so. You as a libertarian ought to know that.

I don't know what he means by that anyway. The damage can't be undone, certainly. However, wars that we've started can be stopped, after a fashion anyway. There may be future blowback, sure, but I cannot see that it would be much worse than the losses we'd incur by continuing our aggression against the Mideast.

Do you not understand why Iraq is not now stable? Why the puppet government may never have a 'self sufficient stable security force'? Why are you so unwilling to trust the Iraqi with their own lives? Civil or intersectarian war may continue, but would that be worse than what's happening now?

[Timothy Leary]

The Iraq war is a failure in the sense that 1) it was completely mismanaged from the beginning, 2) none of the reasons we invaded Iraq were accurate

[jordanriver]

The Iraq war is a failure in the sense that 1) it was completely mismanaged from the beginning, 2) none of the reasons we invaded Iraq were accurate

President GW Bush said the reason a country makes itself our enemy is by harboring terrorists.

And Human Rights Watch said that Iraq was one of the terrorist sponsoring countries.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/26/se.23.html
CNN Sept 26, 2001 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/26/se.23.html)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you harbor a terrorist, you are just as guilty as the terrorist. If you provide safe haven to a terrorist, you are just as guilty as a terrorist. If you fund a terrorist, you are just as guilty as a terrorist. And in order to make sure that we're able to conduct a winning victory we have got to have the best intelligence we can possibly have. And my report to the nation is, we have got the best intelligence we can possibly have thanks to the men and the women of the CIA.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-06.htm
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 2002 Report (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-06.htm)
IRAQ:
The government of Iraq has expressly endorsed and encouraged suicide bombing attacks against civilians. Iraq, in its provision of funds to families of "martyrs" and others, has established a differential in which families of suicide bombing operatives are said to receive a considerably larger sum of $25,000, while other families that have suffered a death receive $10,000.33 In promoting suicide attacks, Iraqi leaders have made no distinction between attacks against civilians and attacks against military targets.

JR

[hamandcheese]

You call yourself a libertarian! Well! A pro-war libertarian.

Please read my whole post before you put labels on me. I am not pro-war, and if you read the aside in my first post you'd see that I didn't support the invasion. I supported toppling the Hussein regime when we had the chance, but not through military intervention. Instead, it would have made more sense to do it through intense diplomacy and something collaborative with other participating nations (not just Britain). I think this because of his war crimes and the resulting obligations offered by the Geneva convention in regards to genocide. In a way, American intervention may have been inevitable due to circumstance, but now that we're there, I oppose leaving until stability in the region, and for other reasons already stated.

I googled the Hitchens quotation, and did not find an exact version. You probably misquoted him.

As already said, it was in a TV interview. Here it is if you want:
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osJaH1Ow3fA
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbzLog3_EWs&feature=related


In any case, ironically the USA is fascistic and is becoming increasingly so. You as a libertarian ought to know that.

All too well. In my opinion the biggest failure of the Iraq war has been the way it's been used to increase government, ruin the economy, and take away civil liberties. However, in some extent that has happened in every war, so the Iraq War is not a failure in comparison to previous wars, and is in fact quite typical. If you've noticed, this post is in response to the notion that the Iraq War is the worst war in history, has failed completely, etc. etc. Compared historically, the Iraq War has been very successful. QED

Agent Yoshi: I agree that the war was mismanaged from the beginning, but that's easy for me to say because I consider the war itself to be a mistake. I also think it would be a bigger mistake to stop before we finish 1. because 5 years is not long in war standards and some more time should be invested before calling it quits; 2. because the blow back from leaving (i think) would be more devastating than staying for a few more years. Again, this post is meant to debunk the myth that the Iraq war was "the worst war in history" and other such foolery.

Also, I don't think that the reasons for invading were necessarily inaccurate. WMD weren't that improbable, but thats not what I'm getting at. WMDs and 9/11, in my opinion, were reasons designed for motivating popularity with the American public. I think the sincere reasons for invading had more to do with Imperialism, as well as over throwing a ruthless, fascist, tyrannical dictator -- regardless of WMD and 9/11 connections.

[Augustine2004]

I think the sincere reasons for invading had more to do with Imperialism, as well as over throwing a ruthless, fascist, tyrannical dictator -- regardless of WMD and 9/11 connections.I apologize if I misclassified you, but that's still a funny thing for a libertarian to write. You call a war successful if it advances American hegemony.

[hamandcheese]

I am an avid reader of Chomsky. I finished his book Hegemony or Survival a month ago and am currently immersed in his latest entitled Failed States. Everything he writes details the risk and reasons against American Hegemony and hegemony period. I believe in what he says. I understand the American Empire has done more bad than good. If you're like Niall Furgeson, he favours the American Empire solely on the basis that if not America, than other, meaner nations would have hegemony. I believe that to.

I never said that a successful war is one that progresses hegemony. If anything, it's one that decreases hegemony, and that includes murderous microcosmic ones like Saddam Hussein's. I don't think we should be there for the resources, or the bragging rights. I think we should stay there for morality and human rights. I think we should stay there for the Iraqi people to fix the mess we made and to give them a fresh start under their own parliament. I don't think that is that far off.

Now though, the American Hegemony has become a bit redundant and is increasingly sadistic. For that, and many other reasons, I oppose the American Hegemony with all my heart. Nevertheless, when you have a country like America, it is as much an imperialistic affront to stay in a tyrannical, genocidal maniacs country to keep stability, as it would be to leave it to rot. American Imperialism is unavoidable under the current circumstances. But, as I've made clear repeatedly now, I support finishing our job, and that means a self-sufficient Iraqi government that doesn't need us to prop it up. I'm not in that way pro-war. I'm not pro-intervention. I'm simply pro-we're there so we might as well leave it better than we found it and that is all. By scholarly estimation and personal gauging, I don't think we need to be there much longer any way. In fact, it may be suitable to leave by the time the general election rolls around.

[Augustine2004]

hamandcheese, you're seeing something that is not just there. I don't think you have any idea how fractured Iraq is - a hundred or so warlords, each with its own militia. You don't seem to understand that the puppet government is not at all a government. How can it be when just about all it rules is the Green Zone? If you mean the attacks on al Sadr's militia, I doubt it's close to crumbling any time soon. You probably have no idea how ineffective air power is. How counterproductive it is. The best option is simply to leave now. Any other option for staying on fighting in the Mideast only makes things ever worse, with more terrorists and insurgents being created weekly by air and other attacks.

[hamandcheese]

hamandcheese, you're seeing something that is not just there. I don't think you have any idea how fractured Iraq is - a hundred or so warlords, each with its own militia. You don't seem to understand that the puppet government is not at all a government.

It's precisely because I understand that that I think we should stay. The repercussions for taking the non-sequitur position to withdraw are infinitely larger than for us staying there, but a stable Iraq will have a long term and significant effect in the middle east, whereas if we leave, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey would all have an open door to tremendous oil resources and an impressively big region, which, if a place like Iran invaded, would reverse all the progress we've made in the middle east not just in the last 5 years, but in the last 50 years. Al-Qaeda would flourish and Americas security would be dangerously diminished directly. It's you who doesn't have the understanding of blow back.

A reminder: Even though I support continuing the occupation, this thread was not meant to directly advocate it. Instead, it was meant to show that, compared to other wars, the Iraq War has seen impressive success in a short 5 year period, and the failures and deaths of the war have been comparatively low. I also offered explanations for the new sensitivity to war, which is what I was hoping to discuss.

[SteveF]

Your definition of success, concentrating primarily on cost, American lives lost and "blow back", seems rather narrow. Surely cost should primarily be judged on achievement of aims and the lot of the Iraqi people.

[Augustine2004]

A stable Iraq is not just in the cards.

If Saudi Arabia, Iran or Turkey did grab the Iraqi oil, I'm not sure it'd be a lot of skin off our nose in the long run. Immoral, sure, but then our occupation is not moral, either.

The progress ('impressive success' - ha!) that you and others talk about, I just don't see. Please describe in detail. I'm so sorry to be so dense, but maybe if you do that then you might convince me to become a supporter of the wars in the Mideast.

al-Qaida wanted to draw our military to the Mideast, so that we'd get bogged down there. So far that strategy seems to be succeeding. As someone put it, al Qaida is playing us like a fiddle.

So, you think that if we were to pull out we'd subsequently suffer losses from terrorist attacks far greater than we'd suffer from continuing our Mideast occupation (hardly the right term, but I can't think of a better one now). Please supply details to support that thesis.

[Augustine2004]

Your definition of success, concentrating primarily on cost, American lives lost and "blow back", seems rather narrow. Surely cost should primarily be judged on achievement of aims and the lot of the Iraqi people.Was that aimed at my argument? In the first place what are our aims? In the second place what are the REALISTIC chances of achieving them?

[SteveF]

Was that aimed at my argument?

No. H&Cs.

[hamandcheese]

Please supply details to support that thesis.

Miscellaneous successes

Here is a list I gathered off the internet. It's from 2006, and I notice some of the references are even older than that, so some of the numbers are almost definitely outdated. I don't have the time to verify them all, so take them with a grain of salt. However, I recognize many I know to be fact, and Snopes.com says it is mostly accurate, but still don't take it as canon.

... The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.
... Over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.
... Nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.
... The Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.
.. On Monday, October 6, power generation hit 4,518 megawatts, exceeding the prewar average.
... All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.
... By October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than scheduled.
... Teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.
... All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.
... Doctor's salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.
... Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.
... The Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq's children.
... A Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.
... We have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.
... There are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by year-end.
... The wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.
... 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.
... Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.
... The central bank is fully independent.
... Iraq has one of the world's most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.
... Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.
... Satellite TV dishes are legal.
... Foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for minders and other government spies.
... There is no Ministry of Information.
... There are more than 170 newspapers.
... You can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.
... Foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.
... A nation that had not one single element -- legislative, judicial or executive -- of a representative government now does.
... In Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.
... Today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.
... 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government.
... The Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.
... Shiva religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't anymore.
... For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.
... The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.
... Uday and Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.
... Children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.
... Political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.
... Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.
... Saudis will hold municipal elections.
... Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.
... Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.
... The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian
-- A Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.
.. Saddam is gone.
... Iraq is free.
….Terrorists are being drawn to an arena in which our military can kill or capture them
Mine: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was assassinated.

Examples of economic success:

"7,100,000 cell phone subscribers - up from 1,400,000 only two years ago. This nation's leading cell phone company took in $333,000,000 in 2005, and is on track to take in $520,000,000 in 2006.

34,000 registered companies in the chamber of commerce - up from 8,000 two years ago.

GDP growth in 2005 was 17%, in 2006 13%. (We get jazzed when our GDP is 3-4%.)

$41,000,000,000 in oil revenues in 2006.

Salaries have risen more than 100% since 2003.

Income taxes have been reduced from 45% to 15%.

Real Estate prices have risen several hundred percent in the last two years, indicating a red hot real estate market.

Gasoline is .14 cents a liter."
Source: http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/blog/g/f96a83e2-8167-4342-b2dd-5efa585e1639
Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq

Recent:

In recent months violence has diminished dramatically. "In late 2007, al-Qaeda seemed to have lost its foothold in Iraq and appears to be severely crippled," the Washington post reports. I think I could go one but won't.

We've done all this, and it looks like if this level of progress remains constant that Iraq will be self sufficient before the first term of the next president is up. If that is so, and I think that is a very generous amount of time, we will have beating the expectations of the experts and analysts, who, at the beginning of the invasion, predicted that to rebuild the nation of Iraq it might take decades. I can recall, but not cite, one guess at 40 years that Chomsky reuses in his book Hegemony or Survival.

Anyway, and I am repeating myself. This thread is not about defending the continued presence in Iraq. It's an attempt to explain the psychology of increased sensitivity to violence in war that is significantly less than any war in the past, with, might I add, fewer failures.

[Augustine2004]

[I was going to post that in AW’s Why we must stay in Iraq, but this is to counter your somewhat dubious progress report.] AW, my local newspaper has nothing to do with Lew Rockwell, except maybe to mention his name (I may have included his name in letters to the editor). Today the newspaper reported the Bush Administration admitted that al Qaida is ‘gaining strength.’ Also, troop deaths hit a 7-month high.

Reasons to doubt your progress report: Sometimes the items are about essentially the same thing. E.g., ‘The first battalion has graduated . . .’ and ‘Over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.’

No considerations of quality is made. As the attacks on al Sadr’s Mahdi militia show, the Iraqi government forces may not be willing to commit violence against their fellows. As I understand, electricity service is still spotty.

‘There is no Ministry of Information.’ What in the world is that a sign of progress? If the USA Federal Government got rid of all the propaganda agencies or bureaucracies that it runs, that would be progress all right.

No, Foreign journalists are not free to go anywhere in Iraq.

Some of the stuff are indeed old. Not indications of recent progress. ‘Saddam is gone.’

‘The Nobel Peace Prize was . . .’ You were really looking for something to put in your report!

Slanted or exaggerated reportage may be involved.

‘Iraq is free.’ No comment!

‘Terrorists are being drawn into . . .’ That shows you don’t understand what had happened and what’s going on.

That’s after a quick scan. With more time I think I can find more items to rip apart.

What, no respect for the wishes of the Iraqi people, AFAIK who 4 to 1 or 3 to 1 still wants us to leave? No due consideration given to the probable statistic that more than 1 million Iraqi civilians have perished and the likely statistic that 4 million Iraqi have been displaced?

[hamandcheese]

Recall that the first one isn't my list for I frankly didn't feel like researching a whole list myself, nor fact checking and removing superfluous information for the one I found. I'm speaking of general success relative to time and loss. In other words, succeeding what we have in the 5 year period is good relative to the lives lost (compared to other conflicts) and good relative to the time taken (estimations of a 40 year struggle for the same results).

[Augustine2004]

A just war aims at minimizing violence and achieving justice IMO, and must be conducted to achieve those aims IMO. Impeach Cheney and Bush. Line them against a wall before a firing squad. Shoot 'em dead.

[hamandcheese]

Non-sequitur much? I also would disagree on your exact definition of just war, but would like to point out that staying in Iraq is one by your definition.

[nickcopernicus]

hamandcheese:
In the last few years a bitterness has been building against the Bush Administration and the Iraq War. Here I want to examine the main assertion against the Bush Administration which garners the most resentment. That is the notion that the Iraq War is a failure, has been lost as Harry Reid said, or that it is "the worst war ever."
Nick:
I’ll take you up on that. I’m going to assert that the war is a complete failure. but not “the worst war ever.”
hamandcheese
The first gauge of a bad war I wish to explore is perhaps the most compelling: death toll.

The causalities of the Iraq war (though horrible in their own right) are nothing compared to the wars of the past.
Nick:
False. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have been killed and millions displaced.
Are you aware of the name of the Iraqi Conflict in military Terms? it’s called
Operation Iraqi Freedom. This signifies the mission objective. If the mission objective was to play a role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens and “liberate” them of security in their country so much that they ran away….the mission was a complete success. However if the mission objective was to topple the then current regieme, and stabilize the Iraqi Nation shortly after “Mission Accomplished: Major Combat Operations Over” the mission is a complete failure.
hamandcheese:
Some estimates put enemy and civilian deaths into the millions in the Vietnam war, and I don't think I need to show the figures for other struggles because this is uncontroversial.
Nick:
That more people died in other wars is not controversial between us, but it is controversial as the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocents after “Major Combat Operations are Over” is not an indication of success.
hamandcheese
[…] Still, it is not "the worst war" in that way since it still is not the more expensive, and even the expenses seem trivial when the deficit is expected to soar any how. I am not making an excuse against balancing a budget, but one expectation of any war/invasion/occupation is cost, and though no consensus existed prior to the invasion in terms of expense, every competent analyst made clear that this would be a costly endeavor (especially after the fall of Saddam).
Nick:
Your attempt to write off a war that costs over $3,000 per second is duly noted. Your OP is that the Iraq war was “not a failure” not “not the bloodiest, most costly war in US history.” Your attempt to equivocate between the two…is also duly noted.

Hammandcheese, if a Basket ball team losses to another team by 2 points, and the measure of success was winning the game, can the coach go to the Basketball league and claim “Well, we did not really loose, I mean, there was this ONE game were we lost by like 35 pts?”

Bottom line, a war is not won based on how much it cost and deaths compared to other wars (though those are to a degree relevant).

The so called Iraqi “War” is not a war anyway, it is a police action. It had a mission. I the mission parameters were met, then the mission is a success, if the mission parameters were not met, then the mission is a failure. We being the public can’t know what all the parameters were, but we do know some of them

1. Infiltrate Iraq and topple the regime. :thumb:
2. Find, locate, and put Saddam Hussein on trial :thumb:
3. Locate WMD (Biological, Nuclear, Chemical) :thumbd:
4. Stabilize the region :thumbd:
5. Prove Saddam’s connection to Al Qaida :thumbd:
6. Safeguard Iraqi Citizens :thumbd:
7. A functioning Democratic government :thumbd:
8. Rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure :thumbd:

The problem here hamandcheese, the largest problem at that, is there was no clear cut plan on what to do once Saddam was captured and his army defeated. If there was one, it was so poorly executed as to be considered a failure.
If there are no clear objectives, one can never really succeed.
hamandcheese:
Another way of gauging the war is in terms of public reception and blow back….Al-Qaeda from resentment of American presents in Saudi Arabia and their support for Israel.
Nick:
No real qualms here.
hamandcheese:
So what has made so many pundits, activists, and citizens in the USA to claim that Iraq has been "lost," is a failure, or even one of the worst wars in history? It has to do with several things:

1. Attention Deficit <snip>
Nick:
N/A
hamandcheese
2. Knowledge. Yes, knowledge is one the pillars supporting Iraq War resentment. A unique difference in the Iraq <snip>
Nick:
N/A
My knowledge of the Iraq war is good enough to judge whether it is a success or failure
hamandcheese:
3. Bitterness. George Bush built the Iraq War and garnered support for it by centering it on two things: 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was worthy of toppling is not debatable.
Nick:
Argument by assertion. Saddam Hussein had a stable Iraq, the current Iraqi government is bursting at the seams. It is unable to function without the support of the US.
Politicical situations are more complex then A leader is bad therefore we should remove him/her. Preferably, we prefer for that leader to be voted out in a democracy. My point here is that Saddam was able to do what the current Iraqi Government is unable to do.
hamandcheese:
He was responsible for gassing thousands of Iraqi Kurds (who are often wrongly called "his own people") which some think was only incidental in attempt to kill Iranians, but it nevertheless happened.
Nick:
And some of the Iraqis complain, indeed some of them do complain that the American Invasion lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, which some think was only incidental in attempt to kill Saddam’s troops, but it nevertheless happened.
hamandcheese:
He is responsible for the deaths of hundred of civilians and dissenters, and has used as well as expressly sought WMDs before.
Nick:
He could have also sought a moon made of cheese. Was the fact that he was trying to get them worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraq lives and hundreds of billions of dollars? Sorry, but no.
hamandcheese:
He was a horrible dictator who deserved to be overthrown.
Nick:
Baloney. We should do what’s best for the Iraqi people. The lives of the Iraqi people are more important then bringing a single man and perhaps his family to justice. “Justice” is about balance. By taking Saddam’s life, it’s possible that cost thousands of Iraqi lives. Way more than the 5,000 he took.
hamandcheese:
The mistake the Bush Administration made was in their certainty that his weapon ambitions still existed, and in their timing.
Nick:
:lol:. I’m sorry, but that’s just deliciously naive. “Mistake?” I'll admit that the US government can be pretty ineffective at times, but I seriously doubt that the CIA was that misinformed. It's more likely that the CIA was used as a scapegoat to take the blame away from the Bush Administration.
hamandcheese:
[…] We are in the 5th year of the Iraq war and an astonishing amount of progress has been made. We can either see that progress continue into the next 5 - 10 years, or we can give it up and hope it doesn't turn out like the killing fields of Vietnam.[…]
Nick:
Emphasis mine.
No, we have not.

EDIT TO ADD:
I want to make something clear. For all my critiques of your post. I am not against the war per se. Does the liberal and conservative sides of the media distort the issues? :duh:. Of course they do. My main complaints are

a) you over state the achievements of the war by basically claiming that there were other wars that were "worse" and not presenting how the objectives in the war were met.

b) the war is not being managed well. The first thing America should have done in their less than 50 day march to Baghdad was secure the oil refineries, or at least one. That way the 1 million gallons of oil per day that it takes to power the vehicles and generators came directly from the source. Even if America paid Iraq back for the oil, it would have been far cheaper and more effecient then shipping it from Kuwait and other sources. This war is a logicstical nightmare. Wars are extremely complex and I don't purport myself to be some kind of military analyst or "insider," but suffice it to say that I get my information from other sources besides the media.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

Miscellaneous successes<snip very few prewar statistical comparisons?>
Nick:
If these weren't objectives then they're not sucesses.
hamandcheese
Recent:

In recent months violence has diminished dramatically. "In late 2007, al-Qaeda seemed to have lost its foothold in Iraq and appears to be severely crippled," the Washington post reports. I think I could go one but won't.
Nick:
You might want to recheck your newspapers.

Cheers,

Nick

[Yoda]

The Iraq war is a failure in the sense that 1) it was completely mismanaged from the beginning, 2) none of the reasons we invaded Iraq were accurate

Amen! Could not agree more! Been a total diaster from the start. Bushs wild assumptions about Saddam having WMDs was a crock. Folks can say what they want but that was a get even score for his dad......Hes getting our troops killed over assumptions. Granted I do not agree with what Saddam done over there but former President Clinton kept him in check for 8 years enforcing the no fly zone he was not going anywhere. The Iraqi people should have stood up and took matters into their own hands. Thats the problem now. THe US tries to police the entire world while our country goes to hell in a hand basket! I will support our troops to the end but the war should have never happened because it was based on stupid assumptions and accusations that the US has not been able to prove!

[Jezz]

In the last few years a bitterness has been building against the Bush Administration and the Iraq War. Here I want to examine the main assertion against the Bush Administration which garners the most resentment. That is the notion that the Iraq War is a failure, has been lost as Harry Reid said, or that it is "the worst war ever." The first gauge of a bad war I wish to explore is perhaps the most compelling: death toll.

The causalities of the Iraq war (though horrible in their own right) are nothing compared to the wars of the past. The difference is the publics sensitivity to death and violence. This is the era of idealism, and the rise of the left as well as activist movements (which I commend) have altered the psychology of the masses.

Today the 4,050 American death toll (combat + other such as IEDs) from a 5 year occupation in Iraq has been seen by many competent analysts and activists as deplorable; yet compared to the the death tolls of other American endeavors, the deaths and the distribution of the deaths over time is relatively modest. Take these statistics*:

Deaths : War : Duration

58,151 : Vietnam : ~15 years
36,516 : Korean : ~3 years
405,399 : WWII : ~4 years
116,516 : WWI : ~1 year
4,052 : Iraq : ~5 years +

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war

This is just a glimpse. In terms of total deaths the Iraq invasion is listed as the 10th most deadly American conflict, with approximately 2.35 deaths a day (as opposed to 26 a day for Vietnam). In terms of enemy casualties, it's even sillier to call the Iraq war the "worst" war, or even a very bad one. Some estimates put enemy and civilian deaths into the millions in the Vietnam war, and I don't think I need to show the figures for other struggles because this is uncontroversial.

Perhaps death toll is not the best gauge of a bad war. In one place the Iraq war ranks as "worst" is in terms of its financial costs. Eric Leaver, prominent researcher and writer, has stated that the Iraq war is the most costly war in 60 years. This is conspicuous fact from just glancing at money stats, and it is having a ripple effect on the American economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that "the cost of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next 10 years." Still, it is not "the worst war" in that way since it still is not the more expensive, and even the expenses seem trivial when the deficit is expected to soar any how. I am not making an excuse against balancing a budget, but one expectation of any war/invasion/occupation is cost, and though no consensus existed prior to the invasion in terms of expense, every competent analyst made clear that this would be a costly endeavor (especially after the fall of Saddam).

Another way of gauging the war is in terms of public reception and blow back. If one claims that the Iraq war is a failure due to lack of support from the public, than one is employing circular logic and runs the risk of sounding absurd. The logic is this: Since people don't like the Iraq war, the Iraq war is not a success; and the Iraq war is not a success, because people don't like it; and people don't like it, because it's not a success, ad infinitum. When it comes to blow back, we will have to see. Blow back is a natural result of every war, so if blow back constitutes failure, then success becomes virtually impossible and loses all meaning. The biggest and most apparent "blow back" of the Iraq war has been it's recruiting capacity for Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists. This however, does not stand up to previous unintended consequences of American projects including the very existence of Al-Qaeda from resentment of American presents in Saudi Arabia and their support for Israel.

So what has made so many pundits, activists, and citizens in the USA to claim that Iraq has been "lost," is a failure, or even one of the worst wars in history? It has to do with several things:

1. Attention Deficit. Harvard professor and historian Niall Ferguson notes that one of the biggest liabilities of the American Empire is what he calls "an attention deficit," which is basically the fact that a president can only be president for 8 years before someone else takes over with a completely different agenda. "Despite the enormous advantages, it's very dysfunctional as an empire. It can't direct sufficient financial resources to its imperial undertakings. It never has enough men where they're needed. And, above all else, its elector lose interest in hot, poor countries almost as soon as they've been occupied." Some experts had said just prior to the invasion that an undertaking like bring democracy to Iraq would take decades -- one estimate said 40 years. A problem with the Iraq was thus the idea that the administration themselves spread, that the Iraq War might be over in a matter of years or even months. In other words, the Iraq is a long haul but because people look at it under a lens of instant gratification, they are understandably disappointed.

2. Knowledge. Yes, knowledge is one the pillars supporting Iraq War resentment. A unique difference in the Iraq War and previous wars is the amount of resources and information on the war itself. With the internet and more transparent journalism the average American has the ability to see graphic images of injured Americans. Every American that dies in Iraq is reported almost immediately, whereas other conflicts had a substantial delay between death and report. The simple fact is that war is brutal, ugly, and atrocious. The difference before has been that only the people on the front lines could truly express that. Nowadays we can see (if we so choose) dead and wounded Tibetan monks, disabled Iraq War vets, et cetera which makes us much more empathetic, much more aware, and much more reluctant.

3. Bitterness. George Bush built the Iraq War and garnered support for it by centering it on two things: 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was worthy of toppling is not debatable. He was responsible for gassing thousands of Iraqi Kurds (who are often wrongly called "his own people") which some think was only incidental in attempt to kill Iranians, but it nevertheless happened. He is responsible for the deaths of hundred of civilians and dissenters, and has used as well as expressly sought WMDs before. He was a horrible dictator who deserved to be overthrown. The mistake the Bush Administration made was in their certainty that his weapon ambitions still existed, and in their timing. The Bush Administration falsely linked 9/11 to Iraq, and with the subsequent invasion took all attention away from capturing Osama Bin Laden and revenging the terrorist attacks on the world trade center. In this way, though the invasion may have been a cause set for a later time, and though military intervention was obviously the wrong tactic, the Bush Administration effectively mislead the public and thus resentment ensues. For reasons of circular logic mentioned before, though, this is not an excuse to call Iraq a failure.

Put short, the belief that the Iraq is an epic failure is a belief arisen from lack of context, over sensitivity, and failed expectations. In other words, an erroneous mental framing. If Iraq is framed, on the other hand, as long haul with comparatively low casualties, it is not such a disaster. We are in the 5th year of the Iraq war and an astonishing amount of progress has been made. We can either see that progress continue into the next 5 - 10 years, or we can give it up and hope it doesn't turn out like the killing fields of Vietnam.

----

As I've made clear in other posts, I am not a supporter of American Imperialism, but as Christopher Hitchens notes, both withdrawing from Iraq and not invading it in the first place are Imperial in nature too. I consider myself a non-interventionist, and have thus never supported the War, however I resent those who call it a "failure," or a "loss," when realistically it's gone quite well. In my personal view, I think Saddam had to have been toppled one day, but that it was not the job of America to do it, and that military intervention as a primary strategy (in accord to Neo-Con doctrine) was a bad decision.
I thought that this was a good post. I don't think that the war has been as bad as its detractors make out. Of course, it hasn't been plain sailing and it is far from over, and some things could have been handled better - but I agree that the relative silence on that front in recent times is a good indicator.

However, I think the above analysis has a couple of serious flaws - one of them which nickcopernicus alluded to, and that is that when it says "cost of the war", what it really means is "cost of the war to the United States". This is a problem - if one of the reasons for the US and allies being there is, as is argued, the moral, humanitarian reason, then the cost of the war must be measured as the cost to humanity, not to the US. This means that the death toll must not include American soldiers only, but also Iraqis. Likewise the economic cost must be measured, not only in the cost to the US, but also in the cost to Iraq. Now it is entirely possible that when you factor that into the equation that it still comes out as a relatively "successful" war, but until you have taken this into account the analysis is flawed.

[Jezz]

Hammandcheese, if a Basket ball team losses to another team by 2 points, and the measure of success was winning the game, can the coach go to the Basketball league and claim “Well, we did not really loose, I mean, there was this ONE game were we lost by like 35 pts?”
Well, I think this point sticks out like a sore thumb in your post, which had some good insights. A war is not like a basketball game. The line between "win" and "loss", or "success" and "failure" is extremely fuzzy. Comparing it to a basketball game is not a very good analogy. Your attempt to reckon up and tally all the objectives as a way of measuring the "score" is misleading, because not all the objectives were equally valuable (they are not), some of them you marked as "not achieved" when really they simply became irrelevant (does their failure to find WMDs really make the war a failure?), and moreover the "game" is not even over yet!

Anyway, I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'm just randomly picking on various points which I think are not well made. This is no comment on the rest of your post or on your conclusion, nor a vote for or against the conflict in Iraq.

[Jezz]

The Iraq war is a failure in the sense that 1) it was completely mismanaged from the beginning, 2) none of the reasons we invaded Iraq were accurate
There was mismanagement, yes. They should have had more troops from the beginning. But complete mismanagement? I think that's an exaggeration. Surely they managed some things right? The UN food vans that came in hot on the heels of the advancing tanks in order to feed people, that was something that they got right? The shock tactics and propaganda leaflets that they used in order to scare Iraqi conscripts into surrendering without having to shed blood (Iraqi or American) - that was something that they got right?

And again - none of the reasons that we invaded Iraq were accurate? This too is an exaggeration. One of the reasons we invaded was because he was a brutal dictator who liked to kill his own citizens. Are you claiming that this reason was not accurate?

[historic salve]

There was mismanagement, yes. They should have had more troops from the beginning. But complete mismanagement? I think that's an exaggeration. Surely they managed some things right? The UN food vans that came in hot on the heels of the advancing tanks in order to feed people, that was something that they got right? The shock tactics and propaganda leaflets that they used in order to scare Iraqi conscripts into surrendering without having to shed blood (Iraqi or American) - that was something that they got right?
There was actually a lot of mismanagement. I don't think the Bush admin lied about the evidence, but they were certainly selective about the evidenced they wished to see. Not only did they refuse to send in more troops, but there were many other problems. Almost none of Iraq's key sites were protected when the war began. Many museums, libraries, and so on were ransacked, and irreplaceable treasures were lost forever, to great financial loss. Some people who worked at these places risked their lives to recover artifacts, books, manuscripts, and so on when the places were burned or otherwise trashed.

There were problems with troop deployment, too. I believe it was as late as 2006, maybe even 2007, before American soldiers started living with the Iraqis. Before that, American bases were protected in Green Zones while Iraqi police and army bases were left unsecured. This fostered some discontent and distrust on the part of these Iraqi soldiers, whose lives we essentially valued less than our own soldiers' lives.

There are still many other problems that we haven't been able to solve... Death squads still operate among the Iraqi police, creating a tense atmosphere and a sense of distrust among Iraq's minority populations. We're paying individual Iraqi civilians about $300USD a month to secure their own streets. We're arming them and everything, which is not the smartest idea when you don't know who your enemies are, and it's a mystery whether or not we're going to get those arms back when the war is over. They're essentially mercenaries, and every war in history that needed to use mercenaries has been a losing war.

If you want to learn more about how the war was mismanaged before it even started, I'd recommend the documentary No End In Sight. It seems to have been well-researched, and it's an actual documentary, not a "shockumentary."

[hamandcheese]

Nick & Others. I'm at school so I can't compose a rebuttal at the moment. I will when I get the chance.

Thanks,
Sam

[Yankee_Doodle]

Augustine, this wasn't my post so I don't why you were addressing me in a thread I wasn't even participating in?

Anyway, Hamandcheese GREAT JOB in your OP.

AW

[nickcopernicus]

Well, I think this point sticks out like a sore thumb in your post, which had some good insights. A war is not like a basketball game. The line between "win" and "loss", or "success" and "failure" is extremely fuzzy. Comparing it to a basketball game is not a very good analogy. Your attempt to reckon up and tally all the objectives as a way of measuring the "score" is misleading, because not all the objectives were equally valuable (they are not), some of them you marked as "not achieved" when really they simply became irrelevant (does their failure to find WMDs really make the war a failure?), and moreover the "game" is not even over yet!

Anyway, I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'm just randomly picking on various points which I think are not well made. This is no comment on the rest of your post or on your conclusion, nor a vote for or against the conflict in Iraq.
Nick:
That's a pretty valid criticism. I'll admit that I could have used a better analogy. I used the basketball analogy only to overemphasize that whether one wins or looses is not based on this not being their "best performance."

Cheers,

Nick

[Jezz]

There was actually a lot of mismanagement.
I never argued that there wasn't mismanagement, nor did I even argue that there wasn't a lot of mismanagement. What I argued is that the war wasn't (and isn't being) completely mismanaged. They got some things right.

Even the issue with the lack of troops (which you and I both mentioned) they eventually got sorted out (better late than never). Again, I'm not arguing that they got nothing right - I'm arguing that they at least got some things right (ie, contra what Agent Yoshi said, the mismanagement was partial, not complete).

[historic salve]

I never argued that there wasn't mismanagement, nor did I even argue that there wasn't a lot of mismanagement. What I argued is that the war wasn't (and isn't being) completely mismanaged. They got some things right.

Even the issue with the lack of troops (which you and I both mentioned) they eventually got sorted out (better late than never). Again, I'm not arguing that they got nothing right - I'm arguing that they at least got some things right (ie, contra what Agent Yoshi said, the mismanagement was partial, not complete).
When he said "completely," I don't think Agent Yoshi meant that every detail in planning the war was mismanaged. I think he meant that the totality of problems made the war mismanaged, and that's why it's relevant to show the depth and breadth of the errors the administration made...

FWIW, I do disagree with Yoshi that the war is a failure.

[nickcopernicus]

Historic Salve:
FWIW, I do disagree with Yoshi that the war is a failure.
Nick:
What would constitute a "sucess" or "Failure."
I don't expect you to know every single detail, but what, in your opinion would be generally needed for Americans, and perhaps the world to say, "regardless of their reasons for going in, over all, the Iraqi war was a sucess?"

Cheers,

Nick

[themuzicman]

Saddam is gone, we hung him, yippee. Now we can go home, can we? Why are we still there?

Because when you depose a government, you're obligated to provide security until a new government is in place, stable, and able to provide for its own security. If we leave now, we leave Iraq to the Iranian and Syrian governments to engage in their bloodbath and set up an even worse government than Saddam.

I don't want that blood on my hands

MIchael

[historic salve]

Nick:
What would constitute a "sucess" or "Failure."
I don't expect you to know every single detail, but what, in your opinion would be generally needed for Americans, and perhaps the world to say, "regardless of their reasons for going in, over all, the Iraqi war was a sucess?"
The war can and will be a failure if no political progress is made. If that doesn't happen, even a significant and prolonged decrease in violence won't justify staying in Iraq. In that case, a phased withdrawal would be the best option.

[nickcopernicus]

So you'd say something like a United Iraqi government that contained representatives from all three factions or "denominations" i.e. Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites? I believe the Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting/at odds ever since Mohammad's death some 1300 or so years ago. Perhaps it took a brutal tyrant like Saddam to hold it together. Perhaps it would be best if Iraq were split into 3 countries. I'm not sure if that would work as perhaps Iraq's oil resources aren't split into convenient locations (or are they?)

In any case, as you said, regardless of what security progress is made by increasingly efficient US military forays, a fractioned Iraqi people continues to be the major setback in "OIF."

It will be very hard to create a stable nation who hates each other so much that they won't united to rid themselves of us "greedy westerners." I'll add that Iran's meddling isn’t helping the matter much. If we had to go to war, Iran was the one we should have waged. It likely would have cowered Saddam into compliance.

Ah well, hindsight is usually 20/20, Unless you're blind like GWB jr.
In any case, I don't see much progress being made.


cheers,

Nick

[themuzicman]

The "progress" you'd be looking for you won't find. The progress that needs to be made is in the development of a security forces with the emergence of the natural military and civil leaders in each realm. The US military takes 20 years (and relative obscurity) to build a good military officer. Civilian police forces require that kind of time, as well.

And the US is a place where these institutions have the kind of internal knowledge and structures to develop these people.

TO find and develop these leaders in Iraq is going to take time.

Michael

[nickcopernicus]

I see.

I am not sure, however if the US needs to be spending circa 20 solidier's lives per month and $3000 per second for the next 20 years to do so. That's a tad bit excessive.

Cheers,

Nick

[themuzicman]

I think that will decline as the Iraqi security forces mature.

[nickcopernicus]

The current situation suggests that it could be years before that happens. That's a price tag a little to high. Now, if we were ACTUALLY getting oil cheap from Iraq like many people think (war over oil) then I'd say that perhaps it's worth it. As of yet, it just seems like a waste of lives and money. I doubt America is now "safer" after the invasion.

Cheers,

Nick

[themuzicman]

You doubt it? Terrorists have flocked to Iraq, and aren't attacking us here. Terrorists don't have Iraq as a safe training ground anymore. And they lost a fiscal sponsor.

Sounds like some good things.

That, and a dictator who has used WMDs in the past is now dead.

Michael

[nickcopernicus]

You doubt it? Terrorists have flocked to Iraq, and aren't attacking us here. Terrorists don't have Iraq as a safe training ground anymore. And they lost a fiscal sponsor.

Sounds like some good things.
Nick:
Yes, I doubt it. If it's not a safe training ground then why are they there? They did not get the memo?
themuzicman
That, and a dictator who has used WMDs in the past is now dead.

Michael
Nick:
Saddam's death was not worth hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian's lives.


Cheers,

Nick

[SteveF]

Terrorists have flocked to Iraq, and aren't attacking us here.

Yeah and have killed thousands upon thousands of people in Iraq. Still, if they haven't attacked the good ol USofA, who cares eh. It's a "good thing".

To carry out a terrorist atrocity requires a basic command of google. Just because plenty of terrorists are in Iraq doesn't mean that it isn't perfectly possible for others to attack America. They are certainly giving it a good go in Europe.

[themuzicman]

Nick:
Yes, I doubt it. If it's not a safe training ground then why are they there? They did not get the memo?



They're trying to make it a terrorist haven again.


Nick:
Saddam's death was not worth hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian's lives.


So, you'd rather that Saddam continue to torture and kill them?

Michael

[nickcopernicus]

They're trying to make it a terrorist haven again.
Nick:
How many terrorist organizations were based in Iraq that attached the US? I doubt there were many, if any. That is not to say that if terrorists don't attack the US they are none of our concern; it's just that if we are doing this for "defensive" reasons then we have/had no business invading Iraq.
themuzicman
So, you'd rather that Saddam continue to torture and kill them?

Michael
Nick:
I doubt they were dying under Saddam as much as they are under their current government. IOW, the Iraqi people are not better off now, and it does not seem like it's getting better. We could have, for example, scared Saddam into compliance. A full scale invasion was overdoing it.


Cheers,

Nick

[RCNicholas]

Nick:
I doubt they were dying under Saddam as much as they are under their current government.

First of all, let me say to all sides here that this is one of the best debates on the Iraq war that I have ever seen. Both sides are extremely well-spoken and seem willing to listen to opposing arguments. That's awesome! However, I do have to say based on evidence like this...: http://www.state.gov/s/wci/us_releases/fs/19352.htm


...I have to disagree with your claim here. Also, keep in mind the reason why so many civilians have died in Iraq since the US invasion. It's not because American military people are intentionally shooting them. When your enemy hides behind women in children in mosques and houses, things are going to get ugly.

[jordanriver]

Yeah and have killed thousands upon thousands of people in Iraq. Still, if they haven't attacked the good ol USofA, who cares eh. It's a "good thing".

.

goddamn right.
What are we supposed to do when looking at the options of the several candidates.
Who are we supposed to choose for our advocate.

What do you want, that we should look and pick one who will be 'more fair' to the rest of the world and allow some of the fighting to take place in Topeka or Poughkeepsie.

One candidate is for keeping the fighting in the Middle East (which is where the freaking Islamic terrorists freaking come from in the first place)

And suppose some other candidate is for us leaving Iraq so the terrorists won't keep gathering there, (i guess if they want to kill Americans they'll just have to come over here , oh yeah, that'll inconvenience them)

oh yeah, what a hard decision, , hmmm, do we want all the fighting to be in the Islamic Middle East or do we pick a candidate who will bring the fighting to Dayton so we can be proud that we're more fair this way.

sheesh

JR

[themuzicman]

Why are liberals always so quick to call America a failure?

[SteveF]

goddamn right.

One estimate has the number of dead in Iraq at around a million.

Glad you are so pleased with this.

[jordanriver]

One estimate has the number of dead in Iraq at around a million.

Glad you are so pleased with this.

Are you asking me if it would be better to sacrifice Americans.

JR

[SteveF]

Are you asking me if it would be better to sacrifice Americans.

JR

I'm simply noting the callous way in which you are able to dismiss the death of (possibly) a million people. Well, who cares if a few brown skinned savages die, so long as Ma and Pa Jones are safe in small town America.

How on earth do you sleep at night?

[jordanriver]

I'm simply noting the callous way in which you are able to dismiss the death of (possibly) a million people. Well, who cares if a few brown skinned savages die, so long as Ma and Pa Jones are safe in small town America.

How on earth do you sleep at night?

oH here we go, the poor innocent Iraqis.

Here's a clue, they're killing eachother.

Here's another clue, as soon as we got Saddam off their back, they came out of the gate killing eachother.

Here's another clue, they've been killing eachother for thousands of years and it was only under the restraint of ruthless Saddam that they had to put if off until we 'liberated' them.

Here's another clue, Iraq harbored Islamic terrorists. (verified by Human Rights Watch, no friend of the GW Bush administration)

Here's another clue; Islamic terrorists' purpose in life is to kill infidels , (and if no infidels are available, they keep in practice killing eachother)
Its been that way for over a thousand years , they tried to overrun Europe from their beginning but Charles Martel stopped them at Tours (thats way back in 732)

They intend to freaking kill you, SteveF. even those innocent Iraqis.

So stuff your guilt trip..

freaking Europeans, they loved us immediately after 9/11. Thats when our approval ratings were at their highest.
They love us when we're dying. Thats the civilized way to live, after all, its the way Europeans live, live with occasional terror attack from time to time.

But when we said 'ef that, we're going to start killing terrorists before they can kill us, the Europeans were indignant. Who do those Americans think they are.

JR

[SteveF]

I think your comment stands for itself.

[jordanriver]

How on earth do you sleep at night?

That reminds me of a good movie quote from 'A Few Good Men' when Lt Weinberg asked Demi Moore/Lt Galloway why she liked the military (marines specifically)
"Galloway: Because they stand upon a wall and say, "Nothing's going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch."

I sleep like a baby because its President GW Bush's watch.

JR

[SteveF]

How moving.

[Stabbytheclown]

Uh, Britain joined you in your dumb war (and we should have known better, this is like the third time we've invaded Mesopotamia, installed a puppet government and whined about how ungrateful the locals were), and it hasn't stopped terrorist attacks here.

But hey, if you believe America is safer after this little soirée, I have a rock that keeps tigers away. Would you like to buy it?

[jordanriver]

Uh, Britain joined you in your dumb war (and we should have known better, this is like the third time we've invaded Mesopotamia, installed a puppet government and whined about how ungrateful the locals were), and it hasn't stopped terrorist attacks here.

But hey, if you believe America is safer after this little soirée, I have a rock that keeps tigers away. Would you like to buy it?

Even if we are finally attacked again later today or tomorrow, we havent been attacked here since 9/11/2001, almost seven years, which is a pretty good record since every Islamic terrorist in the world wants to attack Americans. And since you admit you're still getting attacked, and since Madrid was attacked, and since the Muslims have tried to burn down France during this past seven years, somebody here must be doing something right.

Those are the facts, jack.

JR

[Stabbytheclown]

Even if we are finally attacked again later today or tomorrow, we havent been attacked here since 9/11/2001, almost seven years, which is a pretty good record since every Islamic terrorist in the world wants to attack Americans. And since you admit you're still getting attacked, and since Madrid was attacked, and since the Muslims have tried to burn down France during this past seven years, somebody here must be doing something right.

Those are the facts, jack.

JR

What??????

Britain JOINED THE WAR WITH YOU AND IS STILL IN IRAQ. Yet we still get attacked. Spain was in Iraq when they were attacked. Now they are out and they are not being attacked. America hasn't been attacked by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 and hadn't been attacked for the seven years before that. Or the two hundred years before that. Because you live thousands of miles from major Islamic populations. Those are the facts, Jack.

Your war is a Bear Patrol.

[jordanriver]

What??????

Britain JOINED THE WAR WITH YOU AND IS STILL IN IRAQ. Yet we still get attacked. Spain was in Iraq when they were attacked. Now they are out and they are not being attacked. America hasn't been attacked by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 and hadn't been attacked for the seven years before that. Or the two hundred years before that. Because you live thousands of miles from major Islamic populations. Those are the facts, Jack.

Your war is a Bear Patrol.

You're a fool if you think the Islamic terrorists will leave us alone if we leave them alone. They've attacked Americans several times before President GW Bush's watch:
POST 41 'What are we doing in Iraq' thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1659960&postcount=41)
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1659960&postcount=41

That might be acceptable to misguided you, but its unacceptable to Americans.

JR

[Stabbytheclown]

You're a fool if you think the Islamic terrorists will leave us alone if we leave them alone. They've attacked Americans several times before President GW Bush's watch:
POST 41 'What are we doing in Iraq' thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1659960&postcount=41)
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1659960&postcount=41

That might be acceptable to misguided you, but its unacceptable to Americans.

JR

Explain why Britain was attacked post war. Several times.

[jordanriver]

Explain why Britain was attacked post war. Several times.

Its called jihad.

Its what they do. (do ye not get it?)

Explain why Muslims tried to invade Europe pre-Crusades. Several times.

JR

[themuzicman]

Explain why Britain was attacked post war. Several times.

Britain (and Spain) have shown weakness to caving to terrorists. The US's response to 9/11 in coming out swinging has probably been the biggest deterrent to terrorism (that, and security increases).

Michael

[Stabbytheclown]

Its called jihad.

Its what they do. (do ye not get it?)

Explain why Muslims tried to invade Europe pre-Crusades. Several times.

JR

Look, you claim the war is stopping terrorism, but it isn't. We're still being attacked. More than we were pre-war. If we'd stayed out of the war, we wouldn't have lost the biggest number of troops since the Falklands or spent a fortune just to give Muslims one more reason to hate us. The only downside is American rednecks would have renamed English Muffins "Freedom Muffins".

[Stabbytheclown]

Britain [...] have shown weakness to caving to terrorists.

Michael

When?

[themuzicman]

When?

The IRA?

Michael

[Stabbytheclown]

The IRA?

Michael
What's weak about that? The Irish paramilitaries have all but stopped their activities and NI is as peaceful as it's been in a century.
In the early twentieth century, Britain adopted a "Hulk smash!" attitude to the Irish troubles. It was brutal and did nothing but beget more violence. Is that the "strength" we need?

[SteveF]

To quote Al Murray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Murray):

"I'd like to thank the Americans for their help in the war on terror, because if you hadn't funded the IRA for 30 years we wouldn't know how to deal with terrorists"

[themuzicman]

What's weak about that? The Irish paramilitaries have all but stopped their activities and NI is as peaceful as it's been in a century.
In the early twentieth century, Britain adopted a "Hulk smash!" attitude to the Irish troubles. It was brutal and did nothing but beget more violence. Is that the "strength" we need?

But the point is that you tolerated it for more than a century. Yeah, you tried to get tough from time to time, but you didn't have the stomach to keep it up.

Michael

[Stabbytheclown]

But the point is that you tolerated it for more than a century. Yeah, you tried to get tough from time to time, but you didn't have the stomach to keep it up.

Michael

:twitch:
This post is... well it's indescribable in any way that won't get moderated.

"Tried to get tough from time to time"? Tolerated???

It was brutal and barbaric and was consistently so for decades. We made your administration look like blouse wearing sissies. If we lost our stomach, it was when we acquired our brains, adopted a measured approach and found peace at the end of it.

[RCNicholas]

One estimate has the number of dead in Iraq at around a million.

Glad you are so pleased with this.

Source please?

[SteveF]

Source please?

There are two estimates that provide a death toll of around a million. One is the ORB survey - see this (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78) followed by this (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88). The other estimate is an extrapolation of the second Lancet article on post war mortality, which estimated around 650,000 up to July 2006:

Burnham, G. (2006) Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey. Lancet, 368, 1421-1428.

There are other estimates that are lower:

Iraqi Family Health Survey (extrapolated) is around 700,000 excess deaths (280,000 violent). Their article for up to July 2006 is here (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782) (at which point it was 151,000 violent).

Iraq Body Count substantially smaller (getting on for around 90,000 I think).

The extrapolations come from here (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/01/deaths_in_iraq.php#more) (the table is slightly out of date as the ORB estimate has been lowered a little).

[jordanriver]

Look, you claim the war is stopping terrorism, but it isn't. We're still being attacked. More than we were pre-war. If we'd stayed out of the war, we wouldn't have lost the biggest number of troops since the Falklands or spent a fortune just to give Muslims one more reason to hate us. The only downside is American rednecks would have renamed English Muffins "Freedom Muffins".

OK, I see your reasoning and your concern.
I guess we 'rednecks' look at it differently.

Lets say the terrorists have basically put you on notice that if they kill some of you, you better not oppose them or they will increase the killing. They're saying, "now see here, we need to kill about 40 or 50 of you blokes a year, ... now, you better not make a beef of it, or we'll get mad and quadruple that , so you better just sit back and let us kill the 40 or 50"
..........."and if you make a beef, then its YOUR fault if YOU make us kill more of you"

You've got abused wife syndrome.

JR

[Yankee_Doodle]

actually ... "freedom fries" never stuck. We still call them french fries? I have to admit that trying to rename french fries was not our shining moment. That being said I disagree with everything else Stabbytheclown said.

[Augustine2004]

A reason we've been not attacked is probably that the Federal government does not want to appear to be powerless to prevent future attacks. It's already unpopular. Bush is among the least popular POTUS in history, and Congress has even lower ratings. So you bet it's doing everything it can - intelligence gathering, primarily.

Jordan River, your opinion on letters of marquee and reprisal? AW said that Osama bin Laden and his people laugh at them, but it's clear by now that AW is an idiot.

[Yankee_Doodle]

A reason we've been not attacked is probably that the Federal government does not want to appear to be powerless to prevent future attacks. It's already unpopular. Bush is among the least popular POTUS in history, and Congress has even lower ratings. So you bet it's doing everything it can - intelligence gathering, primarily.

Jordan River, your opinion on letters of marquee and reprisal? AW said that Osama bin Laden and his people laugh at them, but it's clear by now that AW is an idiot.


yup I'm an idiot

Would a letter of marquee have been useful against Usama (who already bombed our buildings)? I don't get your logic. I've already said we should have never gone into Iraq & the sanctions we had (along with the no fly zone and other restrictions imposed) were basically the same thing as a letter of marquee? However, if I disagree with the initial decision to go into Iraq I see no logic in trading insults with me about letters of marquee? Sure they might be useful in certain situations .... and again I see little difference in the sanctions we had against Saddam & a LOM. Now if I did support the initial decision to invade then it would be logical to pick a fight over LOM's with me. Then you could say we shouldn't have gone in we should have issued a LOM ... again since that is not my position there's no logic in what you're saying.

Regarding Usama you don't respond to an attack on your soil with a letter? I hope I misunderstood your statement here?

So I really don't get your point ... do you just get a kick out of insulting people.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Source please?

Hey RC:

The only source there is for this wild assertion is I think a very obscure John Hopkins study; that flies in the face of all official reports (even those done by humanitarian organizations). The study that said this (if I remember right) had virtually no funding (like $50K) and is rejected by all credible organizations who have studied this. They tried to figure out how many more people died under our occupation than would have died if we never invaded (of course relying on data from Saddam's government regarding the pre-war mortality rate, which undoutedly conveniently forgot to mention all those poor souls he gased and buried in mass graves).

AW

[Augustine2004]

The table below is admittedly speculative, but perhaps it will help put things in perspective. The second column shows the projected costs of the ‘occupation’ of Iraq in the next 5 years versus the third column, the speculative costs of withdrawing in a week starting now and staying out for the next 5 years. The fourth column shows the differences between the third and second columns where relevant (second column number subtracted from third column number). The reason I put ‘occupation’ in quote marks is that it is not really much of an occupation anyway.




versus[break]
‘Occupation’[break]
Get & stay out[break]
Difference



American casualties
deaths / incapaciting injuries[break]
4000/10000[break]
3000/20000[break]
-1000/10000


cost of
‘occupation’[break]
$2T[break]
$0.1T[break]
$-1.9T


Iraqi civilian
deaths[break]
1M[break]
0.5M[break]
-0.5M


refugees and
displaced persons[break]
4M[break]
2M[break]
-2M



Assumptions on which the table were made: If the occupation were continued for the next 5 years, they would be roughly the same as the past 5 years. On the other hand, for the withdraw alternative, terrorist attacks would be made on America at an average annual cost of 600 deaths and 4000 injuries per year, and property damage of 200B per year (probably too high). Civilian deaths for the withdrawal case is purely conjectural, but I believe it would not be in any case worse than now. I don’t think the refugee problem would be worse also.

[Yankee_Doodle]

that's different than saying we killed a million Iraqi's?? I'm not sure who made that assertion, but you're presenting a projection versus current statistics.

[Augustine2004]

yup I'm an idiot

Would a letter of marquee have been useful against Usama (who already bombed our buildings)? I don't get your logic. I've already said we should have never gone into Iraq & the sanctions we had (along with the no fly zone and other restrictions imposed) were basically the same thing as a letter of marquee? However, if I disagree with the initial decision to go into Iraq I see no logic in trading insults with me about letters of marquee? Sure they might be useful in certain situations .... and again I see little difference in the sanctions we had against Saddam & a LOM. Now if I did support the initial decision to invade then it would be logical to pick a fight over LOM's with me. Then you could say we shouldn't have gone in we should have issued a LOM ... again since that is not my position there's no logic in what you're saying.

Regarding Usama you don't respond to an attack on your soil with a letter? I hope I misunderstood your statement here?

So I really don't get your point ... do you just get a kick out of insulting people.You seem to not know what a letter of marquee and reprisal is. It's like offering a reward on Osama's head and arranging with countries to give bounty hunters a chance to nab him. The hunters are not necessarily Americans. They in some cases would have to be citizens of nations in which terrorists are taking cover. If the 'cover' nations refuse to negotiate and allow letters of marquee and reprisal to take effect, then a declaration of war may be justified, but it should be only for the purpose of nabbing the terrorists.

[Augustine2004]

that's different than saying we killed a million Iraqi's?? I'm not sure who made that assertion, but you're presenting a projection versus current statistics.I still insist on accepting that a million civilians died since the invasion. I do not insist that we killed 'em all. If you will read the bottom of the post, you'll see that I assumed that the future would be roughly like the past were we to continue the 'occupation.' I did admit that I'm speculating, though.

[Jezz]

Civilian deaths for the withdrawal case is purely conjectural, but I believe it would not be in any case worse than now.I don’t think the refugee problem would be worse also.
It is not merely conjectural, it is skewed - pure wishful thinking. You have no real justification for this conjecture, other than that it would support the conclusion that you wish to support.

Your "budget" did not merely predict that civilian deaths and displacement wouldn't get worse, as you stated above - your budget speculated that it would be reduced to half its current value. You gave no justification for this speculation whatsoever.

And given, as has been pointed out and as you acknowledge, most Iraqi civilian deaths are caused by other Iraqi civilians, then how is it that America pulling out will magically fix this? Of course, it won't - in fact, if anything it will get worse. At the moment, the possibility exists for American troops stepping in to prevent these civilian deaths - if the US pulls out, then this possibility disappears with it.

So your prediction that Iraqi civilian deaths won't get worse (let alone that it will halve) by a US pullout is completely unfounded and wishful thinking. You are not thinking clearly, you are simply trying to justify your desire to see the US pull out of Iraq. If that is what you want, then fine, but at least try to use real, existing facts or reasoned conjecture to support your argument, rather than inventing new ones.

[jordanriver]

Jordan River, your opinion on letters of marquee and reprisal? .

I thought we were doing something like that too.
If not, then I don't know if there's any reason we can't do that in addition to the total war President GW Bush has declared on Islamic terrorists (not just al qaeda)

I don't think that if we specifically targeted al qaeda and wiped them out that that would be the end of Islamic terrorism. You may or may not think, well, al qaeda is one organization, Hamas is some other organization, and perhaps Hezbollah is yet some other organization, and on and on, but I just see them all as one entity and I call it Islamic terrorism. To single out the organization that specifically attacked us , is to me, like saying that if we sent our soldiers to attack a foreign government, and lets say, the soldiers from Ft Bragg got the mission, then the foreign government is obligated to only specifically target Ft Bragg since Camp Pendleton had nothing to do with the attack. But thats B.S. of course, since both groups are part of the bigger entity, the USA. Likewise, al qaeda, hezbollah, hamas et al are to me all part of the bigger entity, Islamic terrorism, no matter how many different names they give their various locations.

I know its the alternative (letters of marque and reprisal) to warring against a foreign state, but I don't think we're doing that now. I think we were in order to remove the terrorist-friendly government of Saddam, but that mission's been accomplished (just like the big sign said)
Now we're on to a different phase, war against Islamic terrorists who have been flocking to Iraq. I don't know if we're 'at war with Iraq' any more than saying we were at war with Belgium just because thats where we fought the German army during WWII.
Iraq just has the misfortune to be the location of the current front for the total war against Islamic terrorists (like Belgium)
If not Iraq, then, where?


JR

[SteveF]

The only source there is for this wild assertion is I think a very obscure John Hopkins study; that flies in the face of all official reports (even those done by humanitarian organizations). The study that said this (if I remember right) had virtually no funding (like $50K) and is rejected by all credible organizations who have studied this. They tried to figure out how many more people died under our occupation than would have died if we never invaded (of course relying on data from Saddam's government regarding the pre-war mortality rate, which undoutedly conveniently forgot to mention all those poor souls he gased and buried in mass graves).

I provided the links to the relevant studies in my earlier post. The Johns Hopkins study, strictly speaking, did not estimate a million deaths. They arrived at a figure of 650,000 and this is then extrapolated to a million for the present day. It is the ORB study that concluded a death toll of around a million.

The JH study wasn't "very obscure" at all. It was published in one of the world's leading medical journals, recieved replies in this journal and has been subject to a large amount of media discussion. It can be read here:

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf

They do two things - estimate the number of people who have died "as a consequence of the war". This is known as the "excess" and I think corresponds with what you mean by "under our occupation". This excess death toll is 650,000. They also estimate a figure to have died from violence (mainly gunfire), of around 600,000.

They argue that their estimate for pre-invasion mortality agrees with these sources (from the references):

CIA 2003 Factbook entry for Iraq. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2003/iz.html (accessed Oct 2, 2006).

US Agency for International Health and US Census Bureau. Global population profile: 2002. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, 2004.

Wiki has an interesting discussion of the various criticisms and responses to the Lancet article. It's worth a read and contains a lot of useful links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

[Yankee_Doodle]

The JH study was not well funded. That being said it doesn't mean it was wrong. However, Iraqi government data puts the number lower (and most reports put the number at around 100,000). This is not to say they're right. However, when all other reports say the one thing and one report is so far out of line ..... it is certainly fair to question that report? On the other hand, again, it also gives rise to questioning the official reports??? More research than the average Joe has the resources to conduct .... so the only thing we can do is look for other non government reports (like maybe the Red Cross, if they did a study)?

AW

[SteveF]

The JH study was not well funded. That being said it doesn't mean it was wrong. However, Iraqi government data puts the number lower (and most reports put the number at around 100,000). This is not to say they're right. However, when all other reports say the one thing and one report is so far out of line ..... it is certainly fair to question that report? On the other hand, again, it also gives rise to questioning the official reports??? More research than the average Joe has the resources to conduct .... so the only thing we can do is look for other non government reports (like maybe the Red Cross, if they did a study)?

AW

Oh yes, it's fair to criticise it and in the wiki you'll find some very interesting discussion of the research. However, it isn't so far out of line; as I mentioned, the ORB survey estimates a million deaths. Also, if you extrapolate the Iraqi Health Ministry survey you get some pretty large figures - 700,000 excess deaths, of which 280,000 are violent.

Other studies do estimate lower casualties, but there aren't that many more (if any) at the lower end than the higher. Iraq Body Count is up to 90,000 at present. There was a UN report that suggested nearly 35,000, but that was just for one year (2006). I think that's pretty much it. I may have missed some, but if not, we are left with the following:

2 reports close to a million
1 report well into the hundreds of thousands
1 report near 100,000

Then there are the refugees...........

[Yankee_Doodle]

Oh yes, it's fair to criticise it and in the wiki you'll find some very interesting discussion of the research. However, it isn't so far out of line; as I mentioned, the ORB survey estimates a million deaths. Also, if you extrapolate the Iraqi Health Ministry survey you get some pretty large figures - 700,000 excess deaths, of which 280,000 are violent.

Other studies do estimate lower casualties, but there aren't that many more (if any) at the lower end than the higher. Iraq Body Count is up to 90,000 at present. There was a UN report that suggested nearly 35,000, but that was just for one year (2006). I think that's pretty much it. I may have missed some, but if not, we are left with the following:

2 reports close to a million
1 report well into the hundreds of thousands
1 report near 100,000

Then there are the refugees...........

whatever the body count its still one too many .... which is why I was never a fan of this thing from its inception. However, now I rest in the minority who think it would be immoral to just up and leave.

When we first went into this all Americans jumped on the bandwagon, out of blood lust because our thirst wasn't quenched with Afghanistan. Then even after the lies were exposed we kept Bush in office. Now we want to up and leave just when we might actually be able to create a semi normal country because its now inconvenient and uncomfortable .... basically Americans really stink on this one.


We're not only gutless but immoral to boot. From the moment we cheered Bush on we incurred an obligation to Iraq. Then when we reelected the guy we bought Iraq for better or worse.


AW

[Augustine2004]

AW, it's been explained to you before, and here it is going to be explained again. The lower estimates are for DOCUMENTED deaths. The higher estimates include deaths that are NOT documented. These deaths are estimates formed from surveying bereaved families.

I've asked you and I ask you again. What can we accomplish by keeping our troops doing the same old stuff over and over year after year?

[Augustine2004]

Sadr City and other areas in Baghdad are being walled in, like the Gaza Strip, Tom Chartier points out (yep, the Rotters’ lead guitar). He asks, “Do we really want to lock in the people who live in the sub-prime communities and thus shut out any opportunity to ever get out… all in the name of 'security?'" He answers, “I can’t think of a better formula for creating hatred, violence and the need for more security.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/chartier/chartier106.html

Do we wall in people for the crime of being poor folks who happen to live in certain poor places? O, how so very Christian of Cheney and Bush.