Mission Accomplished?

[kenberg]

It has been suggested that it is time to end the summer recess on WC histrionics. Let me phrase the question provocatively:

 

Are 4000 and counting Americans dead, many many more maimed and traumatized, was a country ravaged by war, was our own military strength, economy, and political leadership greatly reduced, all for a mistake?

 

Are we (interpreting "we" broadly or narrowly) in any way more secure? Are the Iraqis better off? Do they have more hope for a future?

 

I see that Mr. Obama will make a speech tonight (Aug 31). After El Alamein, Churchill could say:

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

What can we say? Anything at all? "I fulfilled my promise to get the combat troops out."? Seems a little pale.

[helene_t]

Yeah.

 

The situation is not as bad as it has been.

 

And maybe not as bad as it would have been if you had been staying longer.

 

Nothing to be enthusiast over. Then again, this was a war in a difficult region. Started under a perverted US government. Don't expect too much.

[hrothgar]

What can we say? Anything at all?

How about "I'm sorry"?

 

I don't think this will ever happen, but its the right thing to do...

 

of course, what would make me most happy is

 

"We're shipping Dick Cheney off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes. You can have the Shrub if you want him"

 

I'm not holding my breath on this one either...

[PassedOut]

The Iraq war has been the disaster it always rated to be, at least since Colin Powell signalled to the UN that the US would attack Iraq despite no evidence of WMD there: little electricity, short on water, damaged infrastructure, corrupt politicians.

 

We'll still have 50,000 soldiers there now, but eventually most of them will be gone. Then the Iraqis will sort things out in their own way, as was always bound to happen.

[Aberlour10]

Are the Iraqis better off? Do they have more hope for a future?

I think these questions have never interested the Bush administration nor interesting Obama's goverment really in these days. What counts for both is geopolitical situation in the region...

Iraq as US-dominated buffer zone between Syria and Iran . Why did the USA build in Bagdad the by far largest embassy world wide? More than thousend employees... for what? For learning Iraqis democracy and to make out visa? Or for leading and controling Iraq's puppet government.

[kenberg]

As to cynical geopolitical strategy and Iraq. I have always thought that to be the explanation for the US "tilt toward Iraq" in the Iran-Iraq war. Reagan watched these guys fighting each other and said something along the lines of "Remind me again, why is this bad?".

 

The current troubles are more difficult to understand in similar geopolitical terms. Who has benefited? We all have our memorable lines from movies: In The Seventh Seal, a knight and his squire are returning from the crusades. The squire, reflecting on events, says (it's been a long time but this is how I remember it) "It was so stupid, only an idealist could have thought of it". I am not sure that this applies here, but I am also not so sure that it doesn't.

[OleBerg]

The chance that the average Amarican will die as a result of terror: 1:5.000.000

 

The chance that the average American will die as a result of a cardiac disease: 1:300

 

I do not have the figures for Europe, but I concentrate on what I eat. Maybe you should do the same.

[kenberg]

I dunno if "Make lobster salad, not war" will catch on but Brothgar could be the Guru.

[OleBerg]

Since a few people here knows me, or might get to, I must admit, that I have not celebrated any landslide victories in my "War on Cholestorol", but at at least I have my attention where it makes a difference.

[Gerben42]

The chance that the average Amarican will die as a result of terror: 1:5.000.000

 

The chance that the average American will die as a result of a cardiac disease: 1:300

 

I do not have the figures for Europe, but I concentrate on what I eat. Maybe you should do the same.

 

Both numbers are probably lower in Europe. I found it very hard to find "normal" food in the USA, most of it is either very fat or extremely diet stuff.

 

In general, people's risk awareness is completely skewed, and politicians are no exception to this. Other examples are sharks and nuclear power plants.

 

To answer the original question: Is the USA more secure now? Probably not. It was rather unthinkable that Iraq would attack the United States, as that would cause a war like we had with 100% certainty. This they learned the hard way in the Kuwait war. Now Iraq is quite a power vacuum, and we cannot hope to control what will happen next.

What the US has lost is its credibility and its image. The whole world looked down on the actions of the Bush government.

 

Since otherwise no one has won, I hope that at least the Iraqi people feel that their lives have improved. After all, the Baath party severely mismanaged the country similar to the situation in Zimbabwe, destroying a large part of the "fertile crescent".

 

I would hope there will be a lasting peace in the country, either as a 1-nation or 3-nation solution.

[mgoetze]

What can you say? Well, the USA are still world champions at pissing off other nations and this continue to be prime targets for terrorism. Terrorising the USA is of course not very hard, you just need to keep the threat level up minimally, and they will do the rest themselves via "antiterrorist measures".

 

Oh and BTW, nuclear power plants are totally dangerous! Gerben obviously can't be trusted on this issue! ;-)

[luke warm]

Are 4000 and counting Americans dead, many many more maimed and traumatized, was a country ravaged by war, was our own military strength, economy, and political leadership greatly reduced, all for a mistake?

 

Are we (interpreting "we" broadly or narrowly) in any way more secure? Are the Iraqis better off? Do they have more hope for a future?

afaic, you can add in "can a case be made that the terrorists won on 9/11 the moment 'homeland security' was created?" what a horrible piece of freedom quashing bs that is

[tgoodwinsr]

Gerben: "...I hope that at least the Iraqi people feel that their lives have improved. After all, the Baath party severely mismanaged the country similar to the situation in Zimbabwe, destroying a large part of the 'fertile crescent.'"

 

It matters what words you use. "Severe mismanagement" sounds like maybe they didn't get their budget just right, or that maybe they planted too much of one crop and not enough of another, when what really happened (in both places mentioned) is that large numbers of people were oppressed, imprisoned, and murdered, just to satisfy the appetite of the megalomaniacs who happened to be in charge. It won't do to play this down by fudging the language.

[mike777]

Gerben: "...I hope that at least the Iraqi people feel that their lives have improved. After all, the Baath party severely mismanaged the country similar to the situation in Zimbabwe, destroying a large part of the 'fertile crescent.'"

 

It matters what words you use. "Severe mismanagement" sounds like maybe they didn't get their budget just right, or that maybe they planted too much of one crop and not enough of another, when what really happened (in both places mentioned) is that large numbers of people were oppressed, imprisoned, and murdered, just to satisfy the appetite of the megalomaniacs who happened to be in charge. It won't do to play this down by fudging the language.

 

 

Quite the indictment of those who elected/ and those who bothered to do nothing and stand aside and let these guys get power; the voters/nonvoters must be held responsible.

[y66]

all for a mistake?

The Kurds are better off but otherwise yes, I think so.

[PassedOut]

It matters what words you use. "Severe mismanagement" sounds like maybe they didn't get their budget just right, or that maybe they planted too much of one crop and not enough of another, when what really happened (in both places mentioned) is that large numbers of people were oppressed, imprisoned, and murdered, just to satisfy the appetite of the megalomaniacs who happened to be in charge. It won't do to play this down by fudging the language.

Saddam Hussein was not imposed on the Iraqi people by outsiders. If the Iraqis did not like him, it was up to them to get rid of him. Better yet, they should not have let him take power in the first place. Taking power takes more than the effort of one man.

[Lobowolf]

The chance that the average Amarican will die as a result of terror: 1:5.000.000

 

The chance that the average American will die as a result of a cardiac disease: 1:300

 

I do not have the figures for Europe, but I concentrate on what I eat. Maybe you should do the same.

That's a great idea, that concentration thing.

 

But less from the numbers than the fact that one is much more within one's personal control than the other.

 

I know that I'm a lot less likely to die in a car accident than from being struck by lightning; I still make it a point not to golf in the rain.

[mike777]

The chance that the average Amarican will die as a result of terror: 1:5.000.000

 

The chance that the average American will die as a result of a cardiac disease: 1:300

 

I do not have the figures for Europe, but I concentrate on what I eat. Maybe you should do the same.

That's a great idea, that concentration thing.

 

But less from the numbers than the fact that one is much more within one's personal control than the other.

 

I know that I'm a lot less likely to die in a car accident than from being struck by lightning; I still make it a point not to golf in the rain.

?

 

I thought the post meant we should not care until 1 out of 300 are hurt.....by terror

 

then we should be more careful.

[Lobowolf]

The chance that the average Amarican will die as a result of terror: 1:5.000.000

 

The chance that the average American will die as a result of a cardiac disease: 1:300

 

I do not have the figures for Europe, but I concentrate on what I eat. Maybe you should do the same.

That's a great idea, that concentration thing.

 

But less from the numbers than the fact that one is much more within one's personal control than the other.

 

I know that I'm a lot less likely to die in a car accident than from being struck by lightning; I still make it a point not to golf in the rain.

?

 

I thought the post meant we should not care until 1 out of 300 are hurt.....by terror

 

then we should be more careful.

Maybe it was meant to show how successful the War on Terror has been. Perhaps a War on Cardiac Disease can reduce the risk to that of dying in a terrorist attack.

[helene_t]

Nah, but maybe a war on cardiac disease could reduce the number of CI deaths by an amount similar to the number of Americans killed by terrorists.

[y66]

The war on drugs increased the threat of terrorism. If the war on cardiac disease became a war for drugs, maybe that would work.

 

I don't mind golfing in the rain. But I'm not for golfing when there is evidence of approaching lightening or for eating eggs with butter every day, even if the eggs don't come from Iowa. I definitely agree with the notion that we should respond to threats in proportion to their probabilities. I don't get the control based distinction that was made earlier at all.

[hrothgar]

After all, the Baath party severely mismanaged the country similar to the situation in Zimbabwe, destroying a large part of the 'fertile crescent.'"

The fertile crescent hasn't been that fertile since the day that Hulagu and his boys wandered through in the mid 13th century...

 

There's debate about whether soil salinity or the destruction of the irrigation system is the real culprit. However, either way most of the agricultural land was devastated long before the Baath Party.

[Wackojack]

Saddam Hussein was not imposed on the Iraqi people by outsiders. If the Iraqis did not like him, it was up to them to get rid of him. Better yet, they should not have let him take power in the first place. Taking power takes more than the effort of one man.

Saddam Hussein was in fact imposed on the Iraqi people by outsiders. Saddam was a CIA agent in his 20's and then In 1959, Saddam Hussein took part in an attempt to assasinate Abdul-Kharim Qassim who was one of the most popular rulers of Iraq. That attempt failed and Hussein escaped. However, orchestrated by the CIA on 8th of February 1963 officers of the Baath Party overthrew his government and killed Qassim after a phony trial.

 

The CIA did not like Qassim because like Hugo Chavez today, he promised the oil revenue would have to be returned to the Iraqi people.

[Hanoi5]

The CIA did not like Qassim because like Hugo Chavez today, he promised the oil revenue would have to be returned to the Iraqi people.

I have no idea about Qassim, but Chavez is not returning the revenue to the Venezuelans very... fairly.

 

More people die in Venezuela from the insecurity than soldiers and civilians in Iraq's war.

 

For example, a couple of days ago a woman went into a butchery with his son and a guy with a knife wanted to rob her Blackberry; apparently she said no and he just cut her neck, and she died then and there (not much use trying to take her to a hospital, they're in worse shape than the security).

 

So, I wouldn't compare Chavez to any other people's benefactor, he's just a poser.

[Zelandakh]

Saddam Hussein was not imposed on the Iraqi people by outsiders. If the Iraqis did not like him, it was up to them to get rid of him. Better yet, they should not have let him take power in the first place. Taking power takes more than the effort of one man.

Hitler's rise in Germany was as a direct result of the votes of the German people. When he invaded Poland it was just a private quarrel between Germany and Poland about land rights and sea access. You can always make this sort of argument but it simply does not hold water. It holds even less water now in a global economy than it did in the 1930s.

 

I believe whole-heartedly that Tony Blair had a deep conviction that he was doing the right thing in Iraq. I would like to believe the same of GWB but there simply is not enough information in the public domain to reach any reasonable conclusion. There is more than a hint of "unfinished business" from his father's time in the White House about it along with a feel of someone having to pay.

 

But I do not think that regime change as a primary objective can be right. Not only is it open to the question of legality but it also sets some dangerous precedents. There have been countries with worse human rights records than Iraq over the years. If you invade one then why not the other? What about if China decided to ethnically cleanse all Tibetans? Would we consider a war with China? or how about Russia? Surely unthinkable!

 

If this is really the reality of how the US will make foreign policy then it is no surprise at all that Iran and PR Korea should want nuclear weapons. Treating all rogue countries as if they could pose a military threat (even if they can't) without ignoring the issues going on in the world is surely a sounder basis for intervention policy - neither burying head in the sane nor simply trampling all over the weak.

 

And finally, the most important factors in cardiac disease are all things that we can do nothing about, most notably hereditary factors and maleness. If you were to usefully compare risk factors between terrorism and diet you would have to factor out all of the non-dietary factors involved in your 1:300 figure. You might also have to adjust the terror ratio depending on your job, locale, holiday habits, etc. There is also an argument that the terror number is only so low because of all the money spent on counter-terrorism activities so if you are also suggesting a change of budget you would need to factor that into your comparison. Perhaps most importantly of all, if you had lost a son or daughter to such action you might feel differently about the relative importance of a (largely) natural death compared with a violent one from a religious war.