Reflections on the Iraq War

[FriendlyFire]

Your perception is far from reality. They are averaging something like 150 deaths a month from all reported violent causes. I personally feel they are probably missing things like honor killing and the like, but ever Middle East country for the most part suffers from that.

Here is July 2011 for an example

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/IraqiDeaths.aspx

There murder rate is better than some European countries.

Your right there is a spike in violence every year, the death toll for IEDS, CAR BOMBS, SUICIDE BOMBINGS, KILLING POLICE is around 5000 dead per year. Can you as a Republican imagine if 5000 US civilians and police were killed every year ? We had what 4 dead in Benghazi and Republicans went total bat[censored] calling for Obamas impeachment.

Taking into account the state of the middle east, I would have to agree that things like corruption, killings arent so bad. Of course this being the middle east it could well explode (pun intended) at any moment.

Tuesday 19 March: 79 killed.

Baghdad: 51 by car bombs.
Hilla: 8 by car bomb.
Iskandariya: 2 by suicide bomber.
Mosul: 9 in separate incidents.
Tikrit: 1 policeman by IED.
Tuz Khurmato: 2 by gunfire, IED.
Khalidiya: 1 stabbed.
Mussayab: 2 by car bomb.
Baiji: 1 policeman by car bomb.
Tilkafe: 1 policeman by IED.
Baquba: 1 by IED.

March casualties so far: 296 civilians killed.
Monday 18 March: 15 killed

Balad Ruz: 5 by suicide car bomber.
Abu Ghraib: 4 by IEDs.
Mosul: 1 policeman by gunfire.
Kirkuk: 3 by IED, 1 by gunfire.
Al Hijal: 1 by IED.

March casualties so far: 217 civilians killed.
Sunday 17 March: 12 killed

Garmat Ali: 10 by car bomb.
Qayarah: 2 by gunfire.

March casualties so far: 202 civilians killed.

Saturday 16 March: 14 killed

Kirkuk: 10 by IEDs.
Hawija: 1 by gunfire.
Falluja: 1 by gunfire.
Mosul: 1 policeman by IED.
Karma: 1 Sahwa member by IED.

March casualties so far: 190 civilians killed.
Friday 15 March: 12 killed

Wajihiya: 4 by gunfire.
Abu Ghraib: 3 by mortar fire.
Bani Saad: 1 by IED.
Tal Afar: 2 policemen by gunfire.
Tikrit: 1 child by IED.
Baiji: 1 policeman by gunfire.

March casualties so far: 176 civilians killed.
Thursday 14 March: 35 killed

Baghdad: 30 by car bombs, suicide bomber.
Mosul: 1 by gunfire, 1 body.
Areesh: 1 candidate for council, by gunfire.
Falluja: 1 by gunfire.
Samarra: 1 driver of candidate for council by AED.

March casualties so far: 164 civilians killed.
Wednesday 13 March: 2 killed

Baaj: 1 policeman by IED.
Mosul: 1 child by IED.

March casualties so far: 129 civilians killed

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2012/

 

[NickyJ]

Yeah, it's not as if ruining your international reputation has any lasting effect.

Like, the last time you did it, which is now ten years ago apparently and still not forgotten.

So you're saying it's better to get our international reputation hurt later rather than sooner?

The UNSC resolution we were operating under was limited to restoring the legitimate Kuwaiti government. The UNSC resolution was pretty essential to make it look like a part of Bush I's 'New World Order' and not 'America invades someone because their oil is threatened'. (After all, we assisted Iraq the last time they invaded a neighbor so saying we were taking the enforcement of international law upon ourselves would have rung a bit hollow.)

The fact of the matter is that we really did involve ourselves because of the oil. I would expect most people already know that. If it had been any random jungle country in Africa, we would never have gotten involved.

So the existence of more threats to Iranian security would not have induced the Iranian government to pursue the development of nuclear weapons? How does that work?

They'd be too busy beating each other over the heads to be able to make any real progress. Even if they did, they'd be too busy fighting each other to devote any attention to other countries step in, like Israel with its Operation Opera.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't know man, it's seems like the nation building that was going on ended up in plenty of chaos. It's no Syria, but it's no Pennsylvania either.

Warpus, no one had a realistic expectation that Iraq was going to be like Pennsylvania in any appreciable amount of time. But to label it as 'chaos and anarchy' isnt any more accurate either fully realizing that there are nations that are indeed like that and Iraq isnt currently one of them.

It's almost as if there was no clear plan for rebuilding the country after the war... "Shoot first, ask questions later", etc. Not really a good way to go about it.

Well, there was a plan, but as in all things of this nature, not all the parts of that plan were good ideas. For example, the remaining dismissal of the military was thought to be a good idea at first, but all it actually did was force a lot of angry and militant young men onto the street fueling the manpower of local militias - which defeated the entire original premise.

We'll see how the situation in the country unfolds over the next decade.

Or even the next 2 decades.

 

[Ajidica]

We did exclude them, Sadam sold them for money to build palaces and and buy not so black market munitions and military gear from Russia and China and others.

Unfortunately, the former Oil for Food program admintrator for Iraq disagrees with you.

Nine years of United Nations economic sanctions against Iraq have created genocidal conditions and should be eliminated, Denis Halliday, a former UN official, told a Cornell audience last week.

"We are now in there responsible for killing people, destroying their families, their children, allowing their older parents to die for lack of basic medicines," Halliday said during a lecture titled "Sanctions Against Iraq: Consequences and Alternatives," Sept. 24, in Goldwin Smith Hall's Hollis E. Cornell Auditorium. "We're in there allowing children to die who were not born yet when Saddam Hussein made the mistake of invading Kuwait."

Halliday, now visiting Lang Professor at Swarthmore College, is a former U.N. assistant secretary-general and, from September 1997 to September 1998, was the U.N. humanitarian coordinator of the Oil-for-Food program, which allows Iraq to sell several billion dollars of oil each year in exchange for essential humanitarian supplies. But after 34 years with U.N. development and humanitarian-assistance programs, Halliday resigned so that he could speak out against the Iraqi economic sanctions.

Between 1 million and 1.5 million Iraqis have died from malnutrition or inadequate health care resulting from economic sanctions, said Halliday. The U.N. Security Council imposed economic and military sanctions against Iraq during the Gulf War to prevent that country from rebuilding "weapons of mass destruction," including nuclear and biological warfare.

"For me what is tragic, in addition to the tragedy of Iraq itself, is the fact that the United Nations Security Council member states ... are maintaining a program of economic sanctions deliberately, knowingly killing thousands of Iraqis each month. And that definition fits genocide," Halliday said.

Most of Iraq's obvious problems result from years of bombing, during the Gulf War and since, which has destroyed much of the country's infrastructure, involving sewage, electrical power, health care and agriculture. Sanctions have largely prevented this infrastructure from being rebuilt, according to Halliday.

Less obvious, but no less real, is the social damage, he said. "Because of unemployment, the sense of hopelessness and depression, we have a deadbeat dad phenomenon in Iraq which was never there before," Halliday said. "Families have been abandoned. Single families are now very common. Children are being taken out of school to go out into the streets to beg, to get into petty crime."

Crime in general has gone up, Halliday said, including violent crimes and prostitution, and he called for the immediate lifting of economic sanctions.

"We've got to allow this country, with all of its technical skills and excellent people, many of whom are now overseas, to go back and have the opportunity to rebuild their community -- to get people back to work, get the children back to school, to rebuild the houses, to restore the dignity and the rights of the Iraqi people," he said.

Halliday does recommend maintaining military sanctions, however, to prevent the manufacture and sale of weapons to Iraq.

"There are more educated and technically competent people in the Middle East than you find in many other parts of the world," Halliday said. "They know, I'm sure, what is right and what is for them. We don't know. It's not our place and we don't have the expertise. Let the Arab world begin to address its own issues and concerns."

Halliday's lecture was sponsored by the Ithaca Coalition for Peace and the Cornell Peace Studies Program. He gave a similar talk earlier in the day in Uris Hall.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/99/9.30.99/Halliday_talk.html
Also, if you care to read some excerpts of Robert Fisk's (British journalist, lived 30 years in Middle East) where he covers the sanctions you can find them here:
http://s313150456.onlinehome.us/other/Pages702-711TheGreatWarForCivilizationByFisk.htm

There was literally nothing we could do for those people besides lifting the sanctions entirely or what we did do which was invade and distribute that medicine/fix the swear system/whatever else ourselves.

What was preventing us from keeping the sanctions limited to weaponry and other weapons-related tech, but allowing in electrical and medical tech? Sure, Saddam might not have spent the money on it (Fisk addresses this in the excerpt above based off his time in Iraq) but it would at least have allowed the UN and other NGO's operating in Iraq to bring the equipment in.

 

[emzie]

Even if the idea was on solid footing, the execution was woeful. I have a feeling that in an alternate universe, the war was handled competently and is considered, a decade later, to have been a rousing success.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Or even the next 2 decades.

By which time the American Public would not even be bothered to remember it save those who fought, bleed and died. The 10th anniversary barely even rated a mention. You can probably safely add Afghanistan to the list.

Odd are Mobboss that given the history of the Middle East, (Isreal being the bloodiest battle ground of the world) that history of war and violence will repeat itself.

 

[Old Hippy]

the Iraq war certainly stuffed up any good chance of finishing the Afghani war...

 

[MobBoss]

By which time the American Public would not even be bothered to remember it save those who fought, bleed and died.

Well, if conflicts like Vietnam are an example, then your premise will be wrong.

But my point isnt whether it will be remembered or not; its that we may not see the actual results for that long of a period.

I mean how many years did it take for Germany and Japan to turn around after WWII?

This is only the anniversary from the beginning of the war; not the end. It's still far too early to really render effective judgement on whether the Iraq war was really 'worth it' or not.

 

[Dachs]

They'd be too busy beating each other over the heads to be able to make any real progress. Even if they did, they'd be too busy fighting each other to devote any attention to other countries step in, like Israel with its Operation Opera.

That doesn't make any sense. If Iran and Iraq were not in a state of war - and there is no reason to believe that they would be - heightened tensions between the two countries would be a very strong impetus to develop nuclear arms as a deterrent. If the danger of war is such that Iraq constitutes a potential and permanent threat to Iranian security but there is also no immediate threat of war, nuclear arms become arguably the most vital thing Iran could want to possess.

 

[classical_hero]

Why should I care if Saddam left Iraq or not?

So you don't care about the welfare of other people?

 

[r16]

ıraq has been a win for US , in that they neutralized a "growing threat" to Israel , defence of which forms a cornerstone of US policies for the area , current and future , cleared a way for Saudi led extremism to get a grip around to be useful as required , co-opted Iran for possible gains and neutralized Turkey's so called Patriots to establish a new nation-state . Human costs of such glory is surely immaterial , eh ?

especially of those who can't fire back DU .

 

[FriendlyFire]

Well, if conflicts like Vietnam are an example, then your premise will be wrong.

But my point isnt whether it will be remembered or not; its that we may not see the actual results for that long of a period.

I mean how many years did it take for Germany and Japan to turn around after WWII?

This is only the anniversary from the beginning of the war; not the end. It's still far too early to really render effective judgement on whether the Iraq war was really 'worth it' or not.

G.W.Bush struggled to remember the Country he was in, I doubt the first thing on hes mind was the false pretense, the tragic mistakes, sacrifices, the shattered and broken young men. I am sure it was "romantic" for some.

The same mistakes, the same senseless deaths, same call for sacrifice.

Japan and Germany lost millions of dead, countless wounded in a war so great. We called it a World War. A war which raged across half the globe, in which country drew its entire civilian force. It took a long time to rebuild. Ironic the US were greeted as "liberators" in both Japan and Germany.

I am willing to wait out another decade for the results of the war, It took Germany 20 years to rebuild itself and then plunge the world into a second world war. Who knows what the long term effects will be of the Iraq war will be. And how much are we willing to proscribe success or failure to the war, 20-30 year after ?

Anyway I agree unintended consequences.

 

[Azale]

Even if the idea was on solid footing, the execution was woeful. I have a feeling that in an alternate universe, the war was handled competently and is considered, a decade later, to have been a rousing success.

How was the idea good at all? I don't think you can separate the outcome with the idea itself. The idea was to invade Iraq to begin cementing American hegemony, with various other "national security" goals in consideration as well. Is it a surprise at all that the people involved would overestimate America's ability to successfully occupy Iraq just as they overestimated America's power in general?

I mean, remember that the plan was that Iraq would fling open its doors for its liberators, would be a thriving democracy menacing Iran, and pumping oil into the hands of American multinationals.

 

[downtown]

So you don't care about the welfare of other people?

I have empathy for other people, but having empathy and wanting to send my friends to die, and paralyzing my country's budget for decades are two very different things.

 

[NickyJ]

That doesn't make any sense. If Iran and Iraq were not in a state of war - and there is no reason to believe that they would be - heightened tensions between the two countries would be a very strong impetus to develop nuclear arms as a deterrent. If the danger of war is such that Iraq constitutes a potential and permanent threat to Iranian security but there is also no immediate threat of war, nuclear arms become arguably the most vital thing Iran could want to possess.

I believe they would be at war. Saddam and Iran hated each other. And with all their resources being pooled into the war effort, they wouldn't be able to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[JollyRoger]

It is unknowable how long it will be before the neoclowns can put a credible positive spin on the conflict. It could be six years, six decades. I doubt six centuries.

 

[Azale]

It is unknowable how long it will be before the neoclowns can put a credible positive spin on the conflict. It could be six years, six decades. I doubt six centuries.

It's not stopping them from trying. The useful idiots who should know better by now (Ezra Klein for instance) fall over themselves in explaining how much sense the Iraq War made, just not the war W. Bush created. It's pretty sickening.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Even if the idea was on solid footing, the execution was woeful. I have a feeling that in an alternate universe, the war was handled competently and is considered, a decade later, to have been a rousing success.

Indeed.

The road to the war was an excruciatingly toecurling diplomatic experience.
The war itself was expertly handled.
The aftermath was a complete shambles.

 

[JollyRoger]

If the French judge had not docked us so much on the artistic impression score, we would have at least gotten a Bronze medal.

 

[Leoreth]

So you're saying it's better to get our international reputation hurt later rather than sooner?

Well, it's preferable to not ruin your reputation at all, which despite all efforts of the Bush administration to demonstrate otherwise, is actually possible.

Or ignore what others think of you, in which case you can freely ignore the UN of course. But don't scoff at the international community and then expect it to cheer you on while you go waging wars.

I mean how many years did it take for Germany and Japan to turn around after WWII?

I don't remember violent uprisings against Allied occupation forces in West Germany but maybe I slept during that history lesson.