Was it worth it, or not?

[jeff]

So, your position is that deciding whether a decision was good or bad has nothing to do with the outcome? My, what an interesting thought process that is....

You're new on this board - look around on this board, there's plenty of material on where criticism was before and during the war (which hasn't ended yet, you might have noticed), as well as discussion on why people might have voted for the war. Like, for instance, believing the hyped up claims of WMD that turned out to have been exaggerated and selective.

[lochinvar]

But he does raise some interesting questions, Jeff. Plenty of ammunition for starting a few new threads...

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by jeff

So, your position is that deciding whether a decision was good or bad has nothing to do with the outcome? My, what an interesting thought process that is....

You're new on this board - look around on this board, there's plenty of material on where criticism was before and during the war (which hasn't ended yet, you might have noticed), as well as discussion on why people might have voted for the war. Like, for instance, believing the hyped up claims of WMD that turned out to have been exaggerated and selective.

What I am saying is that the people making the decision, the President and Congress, made the decision with the best information they had at the time. They had to make the decision without knowing the outcome. Bush, Kerry and Clinton all knew Iraq had WMD and then gave Sadam the opportunity to disclose that he no longer had them and avoid war.

I am the first to admit though that I thought that everyone in the world would want their freedom or some type of self government if given the chance. I never imagined that there were people actually content with being led by a tyrannical dictator. I do know first hand that most of the Iraqi people are grateful. What you see on the news is the radical minority, just like in this country and everywhere else in the world.

[scrapinpeg]

Good points, Bum.

But I think the question posed in this thread is, with 20/20 hindsight, was it ultimately good for us and the Iraqis that we went in and did what we did? Not whether it was a good decision at the time.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

What I am saying is that the people making the decision, the President and Congress, made the decision with the best information they had at the time. They had to make the decision without knowing the outcome. Bush, Kerry and Clinton all knew Iraq had WMD and then gave Sadam the opportunity to disclose that he no longer had them and avoid war.

And, at the time, I disagreed with their decision. That a politician changes their mind as the political winds shift is not a thing anyone with any sense would deny. In fact, it's essentially what we want when we elect representitives. They could, and should, have accurately projected what the likely outcomes were with the information they had and then figured out if the projected costs were worth the projected gains (not just material gains, but also moral and political ones). My contention at the time was that even if Saddam had WMD, it was of negligable threat to the US. That he turned out not to have them (or have hidden them well enough that it's next to impossible to find) is irrelevent to the discussion at the time and my thought that invading Iraq was stupid. I think it was stupid because the costs are still much higher then the projected gains.

I am the first to admit though that I thought that everyone in the world would want their freedom or some type of self government if given the chance. I never imagined that there were people actually content with being led by a tyrannical dictator. I do know first hand that most of the Iraqi people are grateful. What you see on the news is the radical minority, just like in this country and everywhere else in the world.

Nobody wants their freedom. People want to be protected and allowed to prosper. Free to rape, free to murder, free from the constraints of laws and the requirement to work for benefit are freedoms we give up for security and peace. What we want is to be free enough and if the government of the day provides us that benefit, then we are grateful for that. For many Iraqis, the US invasion has taken away the freedom to act they had under Saddam, so of course they want him back.

To many cultures, freedom means that you are forced tyrannically to believe what someone else tells you to believe. That the press can and should say what they want. That only democracy is free. That a woman should be encouraged to walk around in a bikini and have promiscuous sex. That a woman is not a woman if she's not out earning a wage and being sucessful. That a man is only as valuable as his pocketbook. That a man needs to be tough and drive a cool car. That violence is wrong but cool. That buying stuff is right and not buying stuff is wrong. That the purpose of working is to be able to buy stuff. That the news is the truth. That a man and woman should be allowed to be divorced. That God is Jesus and everyone else is a backward heathen.

I'm not saying that it is right or wrong, but this is how many people feel. Given that, is it any wonder that they are willing to launch mortars and bombs at the people who are taking away their freedom?

James.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

But he does raise some interesting questions, Jeff. Plenty of ammunition for starting a few new threads...

Well, that's always a good thing...in particular with the hypothetical new wars we could get into (though it's worth considering that our activity in Iraq has stretched us and reduced our ability to do those other conflicts - which might be more important).

I just didn't want to try to recap everything that's already been said on the subject, in the face of an implication that "nobody complained about it before the war". And to point out that results do matter

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I think it was stupid because the costs are still much higher then the projected gains.

How can one possibly make such a calculus? How can one even pretend to "project the gains" from the possible stabilization of the Middle East? A real, peaceful, long-term solution to the Israel/Palestinian war? The diminution of autocracy and repression? How can one put a dollar figure to that?

Nobody wants their freedom. People want to be protected and allowed to prosper.

True. The vast majority desire security, not liberty....

[jeff]

If that becomes the long-term result of the Iraq war, then it indeed will be priceless.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

How can one possibly make such a calculus? How can one even pretend to "project the gains" from the possible stabilization of the Middle East? A real, peaceful, long-term solution to the Israel/Palestinian war? The diminution of autocracy and repression? How can one put a dollar figure to that?

Ah yes. The Economists' view: every cost has a dollar amount.

My comment was that there is a range of possible outcomes and a narrower range of probable ones. Are the probable outcomes worth the probable costs? Does the risk/reward make sense or are we playing a high risk, low reward game?

From that it follows whether the endeavour was worthwhile or not.

Just out of curiosity, how do you foresee the action in Iraq creating a long-term peaceful solution to Israel/Palestine?

James.

[Inquartata]

I'm not sure I do. I'm not sure anything short of one side extirpating the other will do so. But previous policies of trying to nibble at the edges of the staus quo were going nowhere. Sometimes upsetting the applecart can be productive. Sometimes it's the ONLY thing that can be productive.

If we look only at correlation, then Iraq seems already to have had a salutory effect on the Palestinian conflict. And on Lebanon. And Syria. And Egypt. And Libya. And even on Saudi Arabia. Would all of the movement ( however slight ) toward more liberality in these places have occurred had we kept on with the tactics of the last 20 years? Perhaps. But how can we tell? And is that a viable international strategy? Hope that somehow continuing to plug away at policies that have failed and failed again will suddenly become successful? Isn't that one definition of insanity---trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

[Bayou Bum]

We have seen positive results due to the war in Iraq. Even if it is due Iran and other countries willing to talk because they know Bush will use force. Maybe sometimes a madman with a big stick is the best diplomacy. Would Iran be willing to negotiate but for the fear that Bush might actually start another war?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

We have seen positive results due to the war in Iraq. Even if it is due Iran and other countries willing to talk because they know Bush will use force. Maybe sometimes a madman with a big stick is the best diplomacy. Would Iran be willing to negotiate but for the fear that Bush might actually start another war?

Well, there have also been downsides.

Let's not forget China and Taiwan, North Korea or Iran's nuclear program, as well as more ammunition and resources for terrorists operating in the area. I seriously doubt that Iran is doing anything other then buying time to get a couple of nuclear devices tested and ready for use. They know that the US simply hasn't the resources to invade and so any threats the US makes are mere noise. Italy is pulling out and bit by bit, only Australia, Britain and the US are going to be left. There are still few NGOs operating in Iraq and the US is bearing the brunt of the costs without much material benefit. Syria and Lebannon looks to me at least to be a case of a targetted assassination by another foreign power. Syria had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by killing the guy, and the rapidity with which the western powers capitalised on it is suspect (in my view). The Palestinian opportunity is more about Arafat dying then anything the US has done. And it's quickly spinning out of control yet again.

Elections in Iraq are at a precarious stage right now as pretty much the whole purpose of democracy is to dillute the ability of the government to effect the citizenry, and the citizenry in Iraq need correct decisive action. No democracy ever arose as a means to end conflict. It always arose after the conflict was resolved as a means to ensure the peace. I think that the Iraqi people are going to get disillusioned with their democracy awefully quick and as soon as the US leaves, someone's going to take over.

I certainly don't think the situation is dire, nor do I think that pulling out is a workable strategy. I just don't think it's all rosy either. Regardless, I still think that the whole enterprise was a mistake.

James.

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I'm not sure I do. I'm not sure anything short of one side extirpating the other will do so. But previous policies of trying to nibble at the edges of the staus quo were going nowhere. Sometimes upsetting the applecart can be productive. Sometimes it's the ONLY thing that can be productive.

If we look only at correlation, then Iraq seems already to have had a salutory effect on the Palestinian conflict. And on Lebanon. And Syria. And Egypt. And Libya. And even on Saudi Arabia. Would all of the movement ( however slight ) toward more liberality in these places have occurred had we kept on with the tactics of the last 20 years? Perhaps. But how can we tell? And is that a viable international strategy? Hope that somehow continuing to plug away at policies that have failed and failed again will suddenly become successful? Isn't that one definition of insanity---trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Oh yes great foreign policy, the whole rest of the world's stepping aside because they are scared to death that we're going to come in and completely destroy their countries too... Sorta like how everyone gets out of the way, ducks under tables and runs screaming down hallways when the bully lunatics come in their automatic weapons and shoot up the school cafeteria!

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by CutLass

Oh yes great foreign policy, the whole rest of the world's stepping aside because they are scared to death that we're going to come in and completely destroy their countries too... Sorta like how everyone gets out of the way, ducks under tables and runs screaming down hallways when the bully lunatics come in their automatic weapons and shoot up the school cafeteria!

Um... except they aren't stepping aside, scared, as you say. Korea, Iran, China, African dictatorships... I don't think they've toned down at all. Much complaining about the US continues to be heard around the world, which doesn't sound like hiding and running away to me.

The burgeoning move for democracy in the Middle East is coming, not from the US forcing it down everyone's throats, but from the people themselves. The "arab street" (which I no longer hear about in the press) has seen the free Iraqi elections and wants the same for themselves. The arab press has taken to reporting the Iraqi elections as their version of the Berlin Wall coming down. Elections can happen, they have seen. Arabs can govern themselves with voting rights for all. Even the govt-controlled Saudi press has been making noises in favor of women's right to vote, a country where a year ago even suggesting any Saudi could vote for anything would have been unthinkable and suppressed.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

If we look only at correlation,

As you have stated multiple times before, correlation does not prove causation.

then Iraq seems already to have had a salutory effect on the Palestinian conflict.

It has? How so? There seems to have been greater agreement as Israel reduces its troop deployments, agrees to certain concessions and starts giving certain land back. How has the Invasion of Iraq effected the Israel-Palestine conflict?

And on Lebanon. And Syria.

And Canada, and France, and Ireland...

Are you going to associate every event that happened since the invasion of Iraq with the invasion of Iraq? Syria withdrew its troops because of increasing Anti-Syrian sentiment after the assasination of the Lebanese Prime Minister.

And Egypt.

Must of missed that one. What happened in Egypt that could be remotely attributed to the invasion of Iraq?

And Libya.

Quadaffi has been trying to jump on the Western bandwagon for over a decade. He just took the first opportunity that raised itself in earnest.

And even on Saudi Arabia.

OK, municipal elections for powerless council seat. Women still can't participate. And? Saudi Arabia was/is never under a threat of invasion from the U.S. Sooo, what's their true motive?

Would all of the movement ( however slight ) toward more liberality in these places have occurred had we kept on with the tactics of the last 20 years? Perhaps. But how can we tell? And is that a viable international strategy? Hope that somehow continuing to plug away at policies that have failed and failed again will suddenly become successful?

Funny, the tactics of the last 20 years have included several military excursions. Seems like more of the same thing to me. And if the Iraqis go ahead and vote an Islamic government into power? May not happen elections tightly controlled by the U.S. how about next year? 2 years, 5 years? We replace a secular gov with a Highly non-Christian Religious gov. How does this help us?

Isn't that one definition of insanity---trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Same could be applied to selective tax cuts. Still no positive mentionable effects. Perhaps if we make them bigger....

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

We have seen positive results due to the war in Iraq. Even if it is due Iran and other countries willing to talk because they know Bush will use force.

Let's see, Iran continued to develop it's nuclear program. The Europeans have been instrumental in continuuing the talks with Iran. We step in and the Iranians step their program up a notch and threaten to withdrawal from talks.

Maybe sometimes a madman with a big stick is the best diplomacy. Would Iran be willing to negotiate but for the fear that Bush might actually start another war?

They have been negotiating with the Europeans for years. Oh yeah, and Halliburton's subsidiaries...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

If we look only at correlation, then Iraq seems already to have had a salutory effect on the Palestinian conflict. And on Lebanon. And Syria. And Egypt. And Libya. And even on Saudi Arabia.

For Palestine, I think it's due to Arafat's death (in the 9th year of his 5 year presidency - such a democratic state!) opening up a way forward. For the other countries, maybe there is some effect due to Iraq.