1

Two points:

The United States is a representative republic, not a direct democracy. The people don't get to vote up or down on the war, only on their representatives in the government.

Right now, the representative who has been chosen to make the decisions on the war is President Bush. When he says the war is lost, the war is lost. He hasn't said that yet.

Second, we've been wanting to leave within a year for three years now. A year from now, we still won't be ready to pull the plug. We'll still be wanting to leave within a year. That kind of shifting deadline could go on quite a while yet.

Buck up, private.

2

Joe, what is our will that we are trying to enforce in Iraq? Initially, the goal was to enforce UN mandates, find and destroy any WMD capabilities, and remove Saddam from power. I supported this objective. That however has morphed into creating a democratic Iraq. Although briefly supporting this, I now realize the futility of it all. It does not matter if the enemy can achieve it's will when our goal is inherently unachievable. You can't impose democracy on a people that are based on tribal/clan relationships, have no experience in self-rule, have a religion and culture non-conducive to democracy, and have serious religious divisions.

The claim that the American people are unwilling to fight a long war is wrong. I have to run for now, but hopefully will discuss this later.

3

"(4) The enemy has imposed its will on the majority of the American people."

It's hard to tell who is happier with the 2006 election--Democrats or the terrorists in Iraq. There is certainly little doubt in terrorists' minds that they have imposed their will on the American people. The stupidity and shortsightedness of the American public on this issue is maddening.

During the 2004 election I had a bumper sticker on my truck: "Terrorists Agree, Kerry-Edwards". At the time I thought it was a funny jab at Democrats. Now it's absolutely true. All the violence right before the election was designed to influence the American voter.

4

(1) The object in war is to impose your will on your enemy.
(2) The will of our enemy is that we leave Iraq as soon as possible.
(3) Sixty five percent of the American public think we should leave Iraq within a year.
(4) The enemy has imposed its will on the majority of the American people.
(5) Ergo, the anti-U.S. insurgents have won the war in Iraq.

Since you laid it out in standard argument form, you invite formal criticism. I'll oblige.

From 2 and 3, 4 does not follow. 4 says that the enemy has imposed its will on the American people, and this entails that the American people did not act freely when they formed their opinion. But nothing you said in 2 or 3 entails that their opinion was not freely formed. Indeed I suspect that it was freely formed - the war is a world away, and has little impact on the lives of most Americans. The enemy hasn't imposed anything on the American people.

Nor does 5 follow. 1 does not say that war is the only endeavor in which one attempts to impose one's will. Thus from the putative fact that the enemy's will has been imposed it does not follow that the enemy did so by war.

Grade: B-. Go fix up the broken inferences and I'll regrade. ;-)

5

Like me you’re initial reaction to that conclusion will be based on emotion. Set that aside for the moment and consider, with cool rationality, how the premises logically flow to the conclusion. It is a simple, sound argument. It is also, unfortunately, irrefutable.

Except what if you're wrong about #2?

(2) The will of our enemy is that we leave Iraq as soon as possible.

What if #2 is actually

(2) The will of our enemies in Iraq (at this point it seems clear that there are more than one and they have conflicting goals) is to kill other Iraqis because they do not belong to the same sect, klan, race or denomination as they do.

The only quibble I have with Stoker’s article is his claim that “time is running out.” Even an incorrigible optimist like me can see that the shot clock has run down and the buzzer has sounded. There is simply no foreseeable circumstance under which the American public will agree to fight long enough to defeat the insurgency. The war in Iraq has lasted almost three years. To a people that invented microwave popcorn, the soundbite, and Attention Deficit Disorder, three years is practically an eon.

Joe is projecting here, the person who is suffering from ADD is the Bush administration, not the American people. The American people were TOLD this would be the Gulf War Redux. Rumsfeld was the one who made it clear that he would not listen to generals who told him that Iraq needed a serious plan to handle the occupation after invasion. Rumsfeld was the one who foolishly thought once the Iraqis were liberated of Saddam they would greet us with flowers and then democracy will break out. Bush was the one who made that speech under the 'Mission Accomplished' banner how many years ago? Those who argued that a serious number of troops would be needed immediately after Saddams fall were told to be quiet or lose their jobs.

No Joe, this administration sold this war as the Gulf War Redux. It's the President who has failed us, not we him.

Can you imagine the reaction if Bush has said the fight would last “8 to 11 years”? The insurgents knew they would ultimately defeat us because we told them all they had to do was hang on past the first year of fighting.

Actually if Iraq had a strong, centralized government the insurgents would not win because even though US troops would leave they would be under the thumb of the Iraqi government. Joe forgets that every other country in the Middle East that does not have US troops in it does not contain victorious insurgents.

jd
It's hard to tell who is happier with the 2006 election--Democrats or the terrorists in Iraq. There is certainly little doubt in terrorists' minds that they have imposed their will on the American people. The stupidity and shortsightedness of the American public on this issue is maddening.

Terrorists in Iraq have never had it as good as when Bush Jr. came to town. The only thing that is maddening is how many Republicans here still are willing to drink the Kool-Aid on behalf of this President.

6

You never say what exactly is it that we want to impose on our enemies. From point 2, we can assume that you think our goal is to get the Iraqis to want us to stay. Is this wise?

This is not merely semantics. Rather, it exposes that the Bush administration has not clearly explained what it is that we want to achieve in Iraq. Prior to the war, Bush talked repeatedly about "regime change." If that was the goal, then yes, we have imposed our will on the enemy. Is our goal now to get Iraqis to love us? If so, then leaving may be the best way to impose our will on them.

7

Ok, who is the enemy and what is "our will" for Iraq? Bush says "victory" means a sustainable democracy in Iraq and a government that can defend itself. I don't think they want our democracy-they prefer an Islamic republic. If we want "victory" in Iraq, I suppose we would need to occupy it indefinitely. Is that a good idea Joe?

Also, our actions in Iraq kind of relate to the other post here talking about sins against future generations. Specifically, the hundreds of thousands of children who have had family members killed, injured, and imprisoned for no good reason. They could reasonable conclude that the tragic distruptions to their family were the result of a christian crusade against Islam. And you might include the future generations of americans who are going to have to pay for this trillion dollar fiasco. All this seems to be a greater sin against future generations than someone having sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

8

In my view, there is a flaw in your reasoning if not in your logic. I think Iraq has been four wars, and not one. We must remember that, according to international law, the US, as a party in a much larger international coalition, has been in a state of war with Iraq since 1991.

The first Iraqi war was a near-win, but as AQ predicted, we left the field. This was a murderous disaster for the Shiites, but that was not a public relations problem for the principals on the allied side because the press didn't care.

The second Iraqi war went on for several years under the "no-fly" rubric. We "won" that war in terms of imposing our will in Iraqi airspace, but the cost in dollars and machines was unsustainable as long as the UN, our erstwhile allies, and our own citizens continued to fund the Iraqi government via back-door bribes and financial fraud. When the son of the chief honcho in the UN is sucking on the money pipeline, you know you have a problem. Hussein starved his population and used their anguish to create a loss of political will to maintain the status quo.

The third Iraq war, the one fought to enforce UN resolutions about WMD inspections, was won and handily so. Unfortunately, every Western intelligence agency in the world was wrong, as were the vast majority of American and British politicians on both sides of the aisle, and only the intellectual expertise and the rudiments of WMD manufacturing capability were found in-country. Saddam Hussein was a good gambler with a bad hand. It happens. He misjudged when to hold 'em and fold 'em.

The fourth Iraqi war began with a myth perpetrated by the press. The fraudulent "looting" of the Iraqi museum caught the principals of the allied effort off-guard. "Something must be done! We must respect the age-old military doctrine called the Pottery Barn strategy. Pottery that is billions and billions of years old from the Cradle of Civilization is being destroyed!!". (Unfortunately, they were in a box in the attic behind that old painting of Walter Cronkite.) An effort was undertaken to police the entire country with a handful of Marines. In hindsight, the goal of this fourth effort, actually a law-enforcement effort, was handcuffed by the vision within the Western ivory-tower that wars and law enforcement have something in common. Much was made of the fact that Qusay and Uday Hussein were not Mirandized. This fourth war morphed from a law-enforcement effort into a full-blown public relations war.

Given the facts on the ground (e.g., the "fake but accurate" theory of journalism) this public relations conflict is unwinnable. Things are bound to end badly because there are simply no good outcomes. If we stay and try to enforce the laws of the land under the restrictions of public relations mavens and politicians who aid and abet the enemy, US men and women die protecting murderous criminals from killing each other. If we leave, we're going to leave a killing field open to the enemy, an enemy armed and financed by hostile (and possibly insane) regimes.

As a Christian, I'd love to see a complete cessation of hostilities and our soldiers come home today. But given the Hobbesean choice ("your money or your life") with which we are faced, and people are going to die no matter what we do, better their guys die than our guys. I think we should destroy the remnants of the military infrastructure that remain in Iraq, give Maliki the funds and weaponry he wants, and skip town.

9

I think at this point the discourse should turn to constructive ways to solve the existing problems. It is old news that the Bush administration either purposefully or because of poor intelligence made the wrong decisions about Iraq.

We ARE in a war that has no definitive outcome, but as I said in my most recent post about Barack Obama we can not at this point just up and run. Mr Obama has said the same thing.

Even those who strongly oppose the current administrations Iraq policy, will agree that leaving now will destabilize the entire region.

I am a republican and a conservative, but it does not matter to me who is in the White House now or in 2008. What we need in Iraq is a sound plan for stabilization, not winning. When America preaches winning in Iraq we do nothing but strengthen the resolve of the insurgents.

I believe that Americas roll in Iraq can not just be unplugged! But I do believe that we need a time frame and specific goals on the ground that the Iraqi government understands, as we scale back our involvement.

10

The fourth Iraqi war began with a myth perpetrated by the press. The fraudulent "looting" of the Iraqi museum caught the principals of the allied effort off-guard.

Myth is a good word for it. If you think about it, a myth is something that did not happen but is true nevertheless. The looting of the Iraqi museum was real but thankfully it turned out most of the valuables were secured before that. If you turned on your TV and saw a bunch of people running in and our of your house you'd say you were being looted. If it turned out your wife had thoughtfully moved all the valuables to a storage unit that wouldn't change the fact that you were indeed still being looted.

While the looting wasn't the diaster it seemed at first it was a true indication of the lawlessness to come. Hence we get to the point where one of the highest profile acts of the Iraqi government (the execution of Saddam) is marred by petty sectionalism by the representatives of what is supposed to be a government that represents the Iraqi people.

11

Joe:
(1) The object in war is to impose your will on your enemy.
(2) The will of our enemy is that we leave Iraq as soon as possible.
(3) Sixty five percent of the American public think we should leave Iraq within a year.
(4) The enemy has imposed its will on the majority of the American people.
(5) Ergo, the anti-U.S. insurgents have won the war in Iraq.

This argument clouds the issue more than it clarifies by the use of singular "enemy." In fact, we face multiple enemies with competing interests and desires in Iraq. Since our enemies are also competing with each other, imposing our will on one enemy frequently aids another enemy.

As others have asked, what is our goal in Iraq? If it was to remove Saddam and his WMD, then we successfully imposed our will long before he dangled from the gallows. Arguably, we successfully imposed our will with Gulf War I, since it is now clear that his weapons programs never recovered. If our goal is for the Iraqis to all get along in a multiethnic democracy that luvs the USA, then we're screwed because that isn't something that can be achieved by imposing our will. It also requires the will of the Iraqis.

What he went to war with, though, was an American people that expected the invasion to be Gulf War Redux.
(snip)
Can you imagine the reaction if Bush has said the fight would last “8 to 11 years”?

If your characterization of the American people is correct, then if Bush had said clearly that the war would take 8-11 years, I suspect that we would have seen much more widespread opposition to the war. In that case, the Congress might have been emboldened to oppose the administration, and we might not be in this mess now.

It's not entirely clear what you are trying to argue here. Are you implying that Bush knew the war would take 8-11 years but told the American people what they wanted to hear, or are you saying that Bush and his advisors were as confused as the people? If the former, why blame the people rather than the president. If the latter, aren't the president and the people equally to blame?

12

Given that some overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the US out of their country - on the order of 70 to 80 percent - and that a slightly smaller majority supports attacks on our troops, the "enemy" that Joe is talking about here is the average Iraqi citizen.

So they hate us. Easy to see why.

The civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia is a separate problem, and now we hear that Saudi Arabia is contemplating sending troops to Iraq to defend the Sunnis (whereas we are backing the Shiites). Like most Americans, I'm looking at this and scratching my head trying to see what kind of "good" thing is likely to result from our troops in Iraq shooting people.

What's that, Joe? "We're shooting the bad guys"? No, all you can really say is that we're over there, in the middle of a civil war, shooting people. In that we're taking sides in the civil war, the "enemy" is beginning to look like the Sunni population.

(4) The enemy has imposed its will on the majority of the American people.

I'd prefer: "The American people are spending 51 million dollars an hour in Iraq and have finally decided that they are not getting 'good value' for their money."

You need to get over this idea of "victory" and "winning" and "losing" and start looking at the situation from a different framework. Maybe there's some Biblical passage that applies here, like, say, "Do unto others..."

13

A quibble, perhaps, but who exactly is the enemy (#4)? The change of will in the American people is attributable to the press much more than to the insurgents, al Qaeda, Shi'ites, Baathists, or anyone else. The leadership of the Democratic party also has a large hand in the victory, or defeat, depending on the particular point of view.

If #4 is true, then the enemy ain't in Iraq.

14

Boon, what would I do without you? Although I failed to realize it at the time, I hosted a family reunion a couple of years ago and my house was looted. Little did I know that my nephews and nieces were looting my home, even though my valuables were secured in an undisclosed location. They took stuff like catsup bottles, soft drink containers (full!), pool toys, and zillions of towels. I have it all on video, and Jamil Hussein saw the whole thing. My next step is to investigate the statute of limitations.

But even more importantly, I didn't realize that Hercules didn't really exist but Augean stables really are spiffy (I read that the Jews took all the "refuse" and dropped it on the pacifistic citizenry of Lebanon and they have the pictures to prove it). Now I'm going to need some time to figure that one out, but I'm working on it. I can sorta see how that peg fits into the "fake but accurate" hole, but I think we're going to need to round the corners off and a much bigger hammer.

15

(1) The object in war is to impose your will on your enemy.

Why even move on to (2)? If the American objective is to impose democracy on Iraq, it's a hopeless cause. The war can't be won. Americans don't even love freedom any more, so how can we expect a people to crave democracy and freedom when their ancient culture, history, and religion will never make them lovers of freedom?

16

FWIW, the NY Times has a review of a new book by a British General, Rupert Smith, that seems relevant to this discussion

17

Boon, what would I do without you? Although I failed to realize it at the time, I hosted a family reunion a couple of years ago and my house was looted. Little did I know that my nephews and nieces were looting my home, even though my valuables were secured in an undisclosed location. They took stuff like catsup bottles, soft drink containers (full!), pool toys, and zillions of towels. I have it all on video, and Jamil Hussein saw the whole thing. My next step is to investigate the statute of limitations.

George,

So what would happen if I did what the Iraqi looters did in say the Meuseum of Natural History in NYC? I strongly suspect the endpoint of such an exercise would be face down on the ground with a half dozen officers standing on top of me and handcuffed. In Iraq the endpoint was looking around for a wheelbarrow so you could easily get your loot home. Whether or not any real treasures were taken is not really the point. The point was that it was made clear very early on that the rule of law was suspended. So while the art treasuries appear secured we see suicide bombings, kidnappings and even a brazen daytime raid on police headquarters just about all the time.

So are you going to tell me we have the rule of law because it turned out the meuseum wasn't looted as bad as we had originally thought?

18

Even if "the Surge" is the correct way forward, its simply impossible to trust this Administrations judgment. I think the American people are at the "won't get fooled again" point with Bush. Even if the surge works, the question will be why did it take so long for the President to get a clue? The truth is that if it were Bush's successor in office making this pitch, he or she would have an easier time of it. Bush has too much of a credibility gap because of his past history of negligence and incompetence.

19

While I have a lot of reservations about the Iraq situation, one thing to consider is that, after WWII it took another, iirc, 5 years before we cleaned out all of the Nazi insurgents. Why would it be any different here? (Except for the efforts of the Left, that is.)

20

It is ridiculous to assume that since Americans no longer support this war they would quail in future conflicts. Historically, Americans tend to support the NECESSARY wars as long as necessary. This one was not only unnecessary, it was stupid. Speaking of stupid, did anyone read Kathryn Lopez's column today? She asserts that "we can't wish away a war we didn't start." We didn't start the war in Iraq!

I agree we can't wish it away; we can only wish the neocon-poops hadn't started it. Surely those who support the president's escalation are starting to feel a little Sancho Panzaesque.

21

Patrick,

Bush has too much of a credibility gap because of his past history of negligence and incompetence.

What is President Bush's history of negligence and imcompetence?

Rob Ryan,

This one was not only unnecessary, it was stupid.

How is the war stupid?

... did anyone read Kathryn Lopez's column today? She asserts that "we can't wish away a war we didn't start." We didn't start the war in Iraq!

I looked the column up, but couldn't find it. Do you have a web address or a title for it?

Not knowing the context of what she wrote, I would guess she is referring to the war on Islamist terror, and not just the liberation/reconstruction of Iraq.

But technically speaking, she is correct to say Saddam provoked the invasion of March 2003, inasmuch as he violated the terms of our cease-fire agreement with him from 1991. Saddam fired upon the coalition's planes in the no-fly zones, among other things.

By the way, when you say Ms. Lopez's column is stupid, do you really mean that? Or do you mean you find it impossible to understand how someone could have such a different analysis of the war from your own?

22

I've never heard of the post-WWII "Nazi insurgents." Could you please enlighten me, Collin? How many civilians died as a result of their insurgency?

23

Boonton (who else?) wrote:

"Terrorists in Iraq have never had it as good as when Bush Jr. came to town."

Except that they're dead. What an absolutely incredibly stupid thing to say.

No, wait. I forgot. It's not the terrorists who are dead. It's those 600,000 innocent Iraqis. We've managed to miss all the terrorists and have instead killed 150,000 innocents per year.

Perhaps you true, reality-based patriots would like to explain how you can support the troops while believing them criminally incompetent.

The incredible stupidity of liberals on parade.

24

Joe,
your post bothers me. Not for the form of arguement or the point of the lostness of the cause. I am afraid you are wrong in emphasis. We the American people signed on to the war with large poll numbers and re-elected President Bush even though WMD's were not found. The polls only dropped after it dragged on.

Just over 3000 soldiers dead and we cry uncle Mohammad? All it cost the average American was the opening 5 minutes of the evening news. The men and women who are paying the cost are re-upping at high rates. They are voting with their lives while we vote on the whim. I am ashamed of my country. You should not evaluate a military action after it is happening. We re=elected Bush!

This is the vietnam self fullfilling prophecy without communism, weed or the civil rights movement. This is not the 60's and Iraq is not Vietnam. The peacenicks see everything in that lens to all of our detriment. I agree that President Bush has not lead on this. He is the leader we deserve!

Listen to Solzhenitsyn at Harvard:
may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

And this:
However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear? The American Intelligentsia lost its [nerve] and as a consequence thereof danger has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of this. Your shortsighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold Vietnam now looms over you. That small Vietnam had been a warning and an occasion to mobilize the nation's courage. But if a full-fledged America suffered a real defeat from a small communist half-country, how can the West hope to stand firm in the future?

25

One must really consider the possibility that in the case of Iraq, "winning" really does amount to getting out as soon as possible, cutting losses from an engagement that was illconceived in the first place, and which had a problematic rationale.

The sooner we get out the sooner we win.

26

I've never heard of the post-WWII "Nazi insurgents." Could you please enlighten me, Collin? How many civilians died as a result of their insurgency?

There was no Nazi insurgency. There were a few incidents of sniping, and some vandalism (cutting telephone lines, messing with rail lines, stuff like that), but they didn't last long, and there were no known U.S. casualties as a result of them. I don't know about civilian casualties, but since the post-war resistance was scattered and short lived (a few weeks, at most), it's not likely there were many, if any. Germany was a starving, shattered country with the largest army in the world on one side (the Soviet military, in 1945, had almost as many men as the American, British, and French militaries combined), and several large and powerful armies on the other. They didn't have the energy or the ability to fight a real insurgency, even if, after 6 years of war during which they'd more than 10% of their population, they'd wanted to.

If there was an insurgency in Germany, it was the anti-Nazi "partisans" within Germany (and Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, and pretty much every other occupied country) who caused trouble for the Nazis throughout the war, and became increasingly active as Soviet troops neared and entered Prussia (nothing like 11 million men fighting on their side to embolden a few partisans). That insurgency ended when the Nazi party's rule ended, of course.

27

"But technically speaking, she is correct to say Saddam provoked the invasion of March 2003, inasmuch as he violated the terms of our cease-fire agreement with him from 1991. Saddam fired upon the coalition's planes in the no-fly zones, among other things."

I m afraid sir that this claims bears little resemblance with the truth. the no fly zone in Iraq was devoid of any AA weaponry. occasionaly,some of the planes would be tracked by radars and in military lingo,that was termed "being engaged" even though the radars we re not attached to any weapon systems...and then that was exagerated to being a daily occurence and "engaged" became "shot at" in the political discourse.

28

some of the planes would be tracked by radars and in military lingo,that was termed "being engaged" even though the radars we re not attached to any weapon systems

Locking an air defense radar onto a tactical aircraft is a lot like pointing an unloaded gun at a cop. The cop doesn't know the weapon is unloaded and really can't afford to the take the chance. That is why it is considered a hostile act.

29

"Locking an air defense radar onto a tactical aircraft is a lot like pointing an unloaded gun at a cop. The cop doesn't know the weapon is unloaded and really can't afford to the take the chance. That is why it is considered a hostile act."

A much more correctg analogy would be to say that someone was LOOKING intensly at the cop...an action that does indeed call for some additional scrutiny of the individual by the law enforcement officer...but if the police in its report later translated "stared at" into "shot at",wouldnt you call that a gross mischaracterisation of the truth?

tracking an aircraft with a radar does not amount to a violation of a cease fire agreement.

30

Actually tracking very well might have been a violation of the cease fire agreement (do you have a copy? It might have specifically prohibited such activity).

Anyway you don't get to make up history as you go along. The reasons cited for going to war against Iraq were specifically uncertainity about the status of its WMDs, it's unwillingness to cooporate with WMD inspections and 9/11 making it clear that a rogue state with WMD's posed a greater risk than first calculated.

31

"As Donald Stoker, professor of strategy and policy for the U.S. Naval War College, writes in Foreign Policy, “[H]istory shows that insurgents rarely win, and Iraq should be no different.” After noting President Bush’s colossal blunders, Stoker says that if the Pentagon learns from its mistakes the strategy of “surging” troops could prove successful:"

I'd like to know who the prof considers the insurgents are in Iraq? The Maliki government we are now supporting and who needs the Mahdi army's support has close ties with Iran and is not really happy with Bush. The professor is silly.

32

A much more correctg analogy would be to say that someone was LOOKING intensly at the cop...

Lud--The radar is the targeting portion of air defense systems, like the gun is the targeting portion of a firearm, both are relatively useless without ammunition, but their is no way for a pilot or a cop to know whether or not the weapon pointed at him is loaded. If you were to ask an F/A-18 or F-16 pilot what their procedures are for reacting to a radar lock you might understand the analogy better.

Anyway you don't get to make up history as you go along. The reasons cited for going to war against Iraq were specifically uncertainity about the status of its WMDs, it's unwillingness to cooporate with WMD inspections and 9/11 making it clear that a rogue state with WMD's posed a greater risk than first calculated.

Boon--Those weren't the only reasons cited, though they clearly were the main ones. I am pretty sure Iraqi targetting of our aicraft patroling the no-fly zone was also cited as a reason.

33

Then it would have been a pretty questionable reason. The no-fly-zone was not established by any UN resolution but was a unilateral decision by the US, UK and France. It was probably the right call to protect Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north it's a bit of a stretch to call it an act of war because a country tries to stop you from making their own airspace a 'no-fly zone'.

Besides, by the time we get to the decision to invade Iraq's ability to even make a show of firing on US aircraft had been greatly diminished by surgerical strikes.

34

Premise one is so useless, seriously, you can't draw any logic off something like that. It's bound to attract a million different definitions of "will" and also people arguing about what you define as a "war." Even "enemy" is ambiguous.

Maybe the object of war is to "accomplish your goals." Now it doesn't matter whether the enemy loses or not.

You know what, though, I've already lost this argument, since
1) The purpose of an argument is to make your opponent agree with you.
2) You said that 15 percent of Americans think the insurgents are winning, and I agree with that.
3) I have lost this argument.

It's irrefutable.

35

did anyone read Kathryn Lopez's column today? She asserts that "we can't wish away a war we didn't start." We didn't start the war in Iraq!

I looked the column up, but couldn't find it. Do you have a web address or a title for it?

Matthew, just Google Kathryn Lopez "We can't wish away a war we didn't start" and you'll have it. Easy.

36

"How is the war stupid?"

I will respond, but only briefly. I'm almost as tired of talking about the war as I am of the war and the Bush Administration in general.

The war is stupid because it fails the cost/benefit analysis test. The cost in lives has been light compared to most wars of similar duration, but it's still 3000 too many. And that's just our guys. The cost has been astronomical in terms of money. That money could almost certainly have been better spent elsewhere...or not at all. It would be nice to get the deficit down again. I thought republicans were all about fiscal restraint. The cost has been huge, but what about the benefit? Hmmm...hard to say. Saddam is dead. That's nice, I suppose, especially if you are a Kurd or a Shiite. The fact makes little impact in my world or that of most Americans. We could have waited. Castro will be just as dead as Saddam soon. Did we stop a future threat? I doubt it, but we certainly empowered a much bigger one. Iran is feeling pretty bold these days, and what are we going to do about it? Will anyone support action against Iran after this debacle? Not to mention North Korea...oops, just did. Will we have a new ally in the Middle East? A shiny new Islamic democracy? I wouldn't count too much on that. I don't see the Kurds and Sunnis and Shiites suddenly embracing like brothers. I'm not even sure how long they are going to be as civil and cooperative as they are now.

I think the war is a huge waste, a stupendous blunder that can only be ameliorated to some paltry extent, not corrected. The current lack of support for the war was quite foreseeable, so don't blame a "lack of will" for the failure. The failure is the fault of those who overestimated the chance for success and/or underestimated the fickleness of American public opinion. We Americans like results, especially in this post-Vietnam world, and we have little patience with lengthy, expensive entanglements with little prospect of proportionate gain or lasting results.

Be honest, Matthew; if you had known it would go like this, would you have been in favor of it?

"Not knowing the context of what she wrote, I would guess she is referring to the war on Islamist terror, and not just the liberation/reconstruction of Iraq."

I'm sure that's what she means...and I'm not buying it.

"By the way, when you say Ms. Lopez's column is stupid, do you really mean that?"

Not literally. I don't think her I.Q. is low enough to qualify her as stupid in the normal distribution scheme of things. I think she is stupid in the same way I think Bush is stupid, stupid in the sense that she is consistently, stubbornly, and self-righteously wrong, wrong, wrong.

37

I read Ms. Lopez' National Review editorial.

I see Ms. Lopez believes the "long war" approach to dealing with terrorists is the right path for America. In other words she apparently believes in a never ending epic war that shouldn't end until the Holy American Empire rules all of the middle east...on with the 21st Century Crusades...

If anyone who read the editorial is interested-George McGovern has a new book out that offers democratic alternatives to the Iraq policies of President Bush.

38

JohnW wrote:

"If anyone who read the editorial is interested-George McGovern has a new book out that offers democratic alternatives to the Iraq policies of President Bush."

Let's see. I voted for George McGovern back in 1972 when I was young and stupid and stoned. I've come a long way since then. I'm older. I don't get stoned anymore. I'm still kind of stupid sometimes. But I'm not THAT stupid anymore.

Jeez, JohnW!! George McGovern? Couldn't you have at least found someone younger? Like maybe Teddy Kennedy? I'm sure he has some great democrat alternatives to winning the war in Iraq.

Are you sure you actually voted for George Bush once? You are beginning to resemble Arianna Huffington, a formerly passionate conservative, now a passionate liberal. Wierd.

39

JD,

Nice to hear from you-good job on the insults! I'll be good and not make any pothead jokes.

If it makes you feel any better, I might vote for a republican presidential candidate in 2008-only if it's Chuck Hagel though. I've been watching some of the recent senate hearings on CSPAN, like the one about the Bush "surge" plan, it was encouraging to see some of the republicans finally starting to take a stand against Bush's failed Iraq policy.

McGovern's book is pretty good, maybe you could browse through it in the bookstore, no one would have to know.

40

"it was encouraging to see some of the republicans finally starting to take a stand against Bush's failed Iraq policy."

That's what's so difficult to stomach from you guys. You write as if you know how it's all going to turn out in Iraq. You don't. In fact, you don't even know what is true NOW in Iraq. You are one of those who believe that 600,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed.

The book is not written on George Bush and Iraq yet. This thing is far from over. It is "Bush's failed Iraq policy" only in the minds of all those who believe the constant din of Democrats and the media.

And before you start spouting numbers at me, before you start asking me to take McGovern seriously, remember these numbers: at least one million slaughtered in the killing fields of Cambodia as a result of George McGovern and his supporters.

And, BTW, Chuck Hagel is actually a senator from France.

41

Hmmm, jd seems to have taken that old adage about the broken clock being right twice a day and turned it into a full blown theory of foreign policy. Sooner or later things have to be better in Iraq so just wait there until that happens and then declare Bush's policy a success.

42

No, JD, Chuck Hagel is a senator from the heartland of america and a real man who actually knows what it's like to fight for his country in a war. He has integrity, unlike our "war-time" president, a member of the privileged elite, who never served in the military. And what's wrong with the French, besides the fact they smell bad and are rude?

In a way, I kind of admire your loyalty, JD, but I don't understand how you could continue to support President Bush. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: If you could accept the fact that approximately 600,000 innocent Iraqis have needlessly lost their lives as a result of Bush's Iraq policy and we are sending 20,000 more American troops into the middle of a civil war, would you still stick with Bush?

43

JohnW:

I'm tempted not to respond because your posts are simply the "conventional wisdom"--which is so easy and lazy. But here goes.

It's not as much a question of supporting him, as realizing that we are there and we cannot do what the left is suggesting: just leave. That is all they're suggesting. That is the only concrete thing they've suggested. Everything else they say is some variation on "whatever Bush suggests is wrong." The hatred for the man is pervasive and unwarranted.

The behavior of the "loyal opposition" in this war has been absolutely horrible and unprecedented. I don't believe Americans have so trashed one of their own presidents--in a time of war--since Abraham Lincoln. It happened then, too. Everyone thought he was a failure as well. So much for public opinion.

No, it's not so much that I support the man; it's more that he has done something that no one else has had the courage to do--not even Reagan--simply because he was President when we were attacked on our own shores. He was president at an awful time. He has tried to do something about it. He has not tried to gain the approval of people like you by bringing the troops home, leaving the Iraqis to die as his poll numbers go up. Imagine that graphic: for every American that approves of Bush one Iraqi is murdered by another.

Chuck Hagel is a weasel running for President.

"If you could accept the fact that approximately 600,000 innocent Iraqis have needlessly lost their lives as a result of Bush's Iraq policy"

Don't ever use that 600,000 number in a post directed at me. It's stupid.

44

The behavior of the "loyal opposition" in this war has been absolutely horrible and unprecedented. I don't believe Americans have so trashed one of their own presidents--in a time of war--since Abraham Lincoln. It happened then, too. Everyone thought he was a failure as well. So much for public opinion.
___
I don't recall an American making up so many lies to get a our country in a war, and then bungling said war so immensely.

45

Rob,

Be honest, Matthew; if you had known it would go like this, would you have been in favor of it?

You know that I am scupulously honest -- or at least you know that I try to be.

Here is my honest, unvarnished opinion:

The war in Iraq has gone much better than I hoped it would go back in January and February of 2003.

It hasn't gone as well as I hoped it would in April 2003.

I would have been a much more enthusiastic supporter of the war in February 2003 if I had known how well it was going to go up to this point.

46

"I would have been a much more enthusiastic supporter of the war in February 2003 if I had known how well it was going to go up to this point."

That statement is surprising and disappointing. I have to wonder what you see in the results of the war that makes it worthy of your support.

47

I suspect that had the American people known how it was going to go, the support for it would have been practically nil.

48

Russell wrote:
I don't recall an American making up so many lies to get a our country in a war, and then bungling said war so immensely.

That reminds of one more thing about this Bush hatred. I firmly believe that the ease with which so many accuse Bush of lying is a result of the prior President. Clinton was a proven liar, an "unusually good liar" according to Senator Bob Kerrey. We took heat for calling Clinton a liar, even when the evidence was overwhelming. It's serious to call a sitting President a liar even when it's obvious. I know it was difficult for Clinton supporters to face the kind of man Bill Clinton was. He might have been an OK president. I don't happen to think so and history will tell. But I firmly believe he was the worst man to have ever been President. Bill Clinton was a bad man.

However, the Bush accusers should understand what they are accusing Bush of doing. They are accusing him of not just lying. They are accusing him of lying to get us into a war, of being responsible for the death of thousands, based on lies. And for what? For Halliburton, or the Carlyle Group, or to avenge his Daddy's assassination attempt, or to cover up his complicity in 9/11 (you fill in the blank with whatever KOOK thing you want.) If Bill Clinton is a bad man, then George Bush is the devil himself. Just so we're clear on what you Bush haters are accusing him of.

I believe this Bush hatred is largely payback for the treatment Clinton received. The whole Clinton debacle broke the ice. If only he had the decency to resign, I'm sure that politics today would not be quite as ugly.

49

Jd,
I personally never cared for Clinton that much and to call the president a liar isn't something I do easily or happily. I've noticed that the issue of global warming is met with cynicism and a critical eye with many evangelicals, and that's fine with me, but I wish they would apply the same hard discerning eye upon what the Cheney/Bush administration is up to. Why, as Larher asks Bush, doesn't all America pay some sort of price for the war and it supposed fight against global Islamo-fascisim? Instead, corporation are reporting record profits. Has a war ever seen such shameless profiteering?

50

Yes, it's all Clinton's fault. At what point in time will Republicans stop blaming every one of their failures on Clinton?

51

"Bush's Own Church Has Called For The Withdrawal Of Troops From Iraq"

That should be the end of the debate.

52

However, the Bush accusers should understand what they are accusing Bush of doing. They are accusing him of not just lying. They are accusing him of lying to get us into a war, of being responsible for the death of thousands, based on lies. And for what? For Halliburton, or the Carlyle Group, or to avenge his Daddy's assassination attempt,...

Which makes him all the more pathetic. His lies have appeared to have served no productive purpose at all. They haven't helped his country, his party or even himself. Heck, they didn't even get him laid.

I believe this Bush hatred is largely payback for the treatment Clinton received. The whole Clinton debacle broke the ice. If only he had the decency to resign, I'm sure that politics today would not be quite as ugly.

Ohhh man, jd, you just love the Kool-aid don't you? You just keep drinking it down. Even the smarter ones in Bush's party and the conservative movement have seen the iceberg and have made for the lifeboat.

That reminds of one more thing about this Bush hatred. I firmly believe that the ease with which so many accuse Bush of lying is a result of the prior President. Clinton was a proven liar, an "unusually good liar" according to Senator Bob Kerrey. We took heat for calling Clinton a liar, even when the evidence was overwhelming....

Actually Clinton was an exceptionally bad liar. One sign of being a bad liar is, well, lots of people saying you're a proven liar or an 'unusually good liar'. Bush is a good liar because he makes himself look more like a goofball. People are more inclined to believe he just neglected to do his homework rather than he has embarked on a purposeful attempt to deceive.

53

Rob,

I have to wonder what you see in the results of the war that makes it worthy of your support.

Results:

1) Saddam's evil, bitterly anti-American regime gone.

2) Democratic regime now in place. It's on life-support, but it's there, and it might work out yet.

3) Fear of Allah instilled in the hearts of oppressive dictators (and their supporters) everywhere. Push the U.S. too far, and you too could end up in the dock for capital crimes (or at least on the run in a spider-hole). See Khadaffi in Libya.

What do you think was going through the minds of every anti-American demagogue who is guilty of crimes against humanity when Zarqawi bit the big one? Probably something along the lines of, "Sweet Jeez Louise, I hope that doesn't happen to me!" Our laser-guided missiles can hit pretty much any broom closet anywhere in the world -- it's nice to remind the bad guys of that.

4) Iraq is now our ally in the war on terror, a very important ally. It may not remain one, especially if we pull out, but for now it is.

5) We've killed several thousand terrorists in Iraq over the past three years.

6) Our liberation and reconstruction efforts in Iraq may have made Afghanistan go along better, and may have helped keep the "homeland" free of major terror attacks since 2001.

7) Our willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure on behalf of our democratic allies in Iraq sends a message to like-minded folks all over the world: Hang in there, we'll do the best we can to help you.

8) Our troops have gotten first-rate training in both counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency tactics for three years now. And the cost in casualties has actually been less the average cost in some of the peacetime years of the late 70's, early 80's.

There are probably some other things that I am grateful for in all this, but that's what I come up with now off the top of my head.

Peace,
Matthew

54

Boonton,

Even the smarter ones in Bush's party and the conservative movement have seen the iceberg and have made for the lifeboat.

I guess that makes me one of the dumber ones, since I am just as big a supporter of President Bush as I have ever been.

I hope the archives of the Evangelical Outpost will be around ten years from now, because history will be treating President Bush a lot better than you are. Once the conventional wisdom starts to fade into the misty past, we'll need to have the record handy to remind you of how critical you've been to him.

55

Jd,

I agree with your comment 48. President Clinton was a shameless liar, and President Bush is paying something of a price for that.

I particularly agree with your appraisal of President Clinton: perhaps an OK president (although not in my opinion), but definitely the worst man to be president. I would only qualify that by noting that my judgement of his character is only a historical judgement, not a personal one. I wouldn't presume to judge President Clinton personally, since none of us is in a position to judge anyone else personally.

56

JD,

I'll use that 600,000 number again and again because it accurately reflects the human costs of our actions in Iraq-painful as it might be to accept it. The methodology is good. The study does not say 600,000 Iraqis were shot or bombed by American soldiers, rather it reflects how the mortality rates in Iraq increased since March 2003. In other words, it shows the number of people who would most likely still be alive had we not invaded and occupied Iraq.

I know it's would be hard to accept these numbers. After all Saddam has been accused of killing hundreds of thousands during his reign and we have only been there 4 years and even more people have lost there lives as a result of our country's actions under the leadership of George W. Bush.

Also, it's not really hatred of Bush you might be seeing when people are expressing their disagreement with his policies, it might just be plain old disgust with the needless loss of life and wasted resources.

I am pleased to hear you say that what I've been saying about the Iraq war is now the "conventional wisdom". That means there is hope for our country!

57

"1) Saddam's evil, bitterly anti-American regime gone."

What a crock....Saddam's regime was a US client up until the invasion of Kuweit and even afterwards,no overt or covert actions was ever taken by Iraq against the America...unless of course you consider shooting back at american soldiers who invade your country a form of anti-americanism...with the way you ve been going lately,it wouldnt come as such a surprise. as for being evil,thats a relative term isen't it...dont you consider the Kuweit emirs who keep sex slaves in chattel houses to be evil? none of these slaves have been liberated as of yet...where the "coalition of the willing" to help them?

"2) Democratic regime now in place. It's on life-support, but it's there, and it might work out yet."

Iraq had a fully functionning democratic system in the late 50's...3 guesses as to who helped the bhath party topple them...i ll give you a hint...starts with a C,ends with an A and there s an I in the middle.

"3) Fear of Allah instilled in the hearts of oppressive dictators (and their supporters) everywhere. Push the U.S. too far, and you too could end up in the dock for capital crimes (or at least on the run in a spider-hole). See Khadaffi in Libya."

You mean lybia with its non existant WMD program they agreed to renounce? And i can name you 12 dictators that will go on oppressing without any fear of the US "liberators" simply because theres no monney to be made invading their country.

"What do you think was going through the minds of every anti-American demagogue who is guilty of crimes against humanity when Zarqawi bit the big one? Probably something along the lines of, "Sweet Jeez Louise, I hope that doesn't happen to me!" Our laser-guided missiles can hit pretty much any broom closet anywhere in the world -- it's nice to remind the bad guys of that."

Our precision laser guided bomb kill about 10 000 innocents for every "Zarqawi" we get...a little expensive to kill some dude that was probably replaced an hour later,dont you think?

"4) Iraq is now our ally in the war on terror, a very important ally. It may not remain one, especially if we pull out, but for now it is."

Iraq is not an ally ...its a PUPPET regime...an elected puppet regime that is true but given that every candidate had to be aproved by washington AND most Iraqi never even knew WHO they were voting for,than a puppet regime it remains.

"5) We've killed several thousand terrorists in Iraq over the past three years."

We murdered several hundred thousands innocents alongside in the last 3 years. unlike you,i happen to believe that an iraqi life is worth just as much as an american one.

"6) Our liberation and reconstruction efforts in Iraq may have made Afghanistan go along better, and may have helped keep the "homeland" free of major terror attacks since 2001."

ROTFLMAO...the non existant reconstruction of Iraq is one of the biggest corporate welfare scam of all times and none of the 911 terrorists had to go through either Kabul or Badgad to get here.

"7) Our willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure on behalf of our democratic allies in Iraq sends a message to like-minded folks all over the world: Hang in there, we'll do the best we can to help you."

Our willingness to sacrifice the blood and treasures of others to enrich our corporate fat cats even further sends a very clear message across the world; theres no situation we wont exploit to make a buck.

"8) Our troops have gotten first-rate training in both counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency tactics for three years now. And the cost in casualties has actually been less the average cost in some of the peacetime years of the late 70's, early 80's."

That one is actually true...1 out of 8...not bad...but do keep practicing,sport.

58

"1) Saddam's evil, bitterly anti-American regime gone."

That's nice. Just one of many, though. I wasn't too worried about that, myself.

"2) Democratic regime now in place."

That too would be nice, but I wasn't too worried about it. The whole world doesn't have to be democratic.

"3) Fear of Allah instilled in the hearts of oppressive dictators (and their supporters) everywhere."

Bwahahahaha! Everywhere except where it counts, you mean. Iran and North Korea emboldened, not chastened. You cite Gaddafi (like he's a threat): who else?

"4) Iraq is now our ally in the war on terror, a very important ally."

It is now a hotbed of terror, one we created!

"5) We've killed several thousand terrorists in Iraq over the past three years."

If only we could kill them at the rate we inspire new ones.

"6) Our liberation and reconstruction efforts in Iraq may have made Afghanistan go along better, and may have helped keep the "homeland" free of major terror attacks since 2001."

a. I don't think so; perhaps the opposite. b. Maybe, maybe not.

"7) Our willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure on behalf of our democratic allies in Iraq sends a message to like-minded folks all over the world.."

That, if it has any significance, has significance only as long as the willingness holds out. Quite predictably and understandably, it is not. What message does that send? See response to #3 above.

"8) Our troops have gotten first-rate training in both counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency tactics for three years now. And the cost in casualties has actually been less the average cost in some of the peacetime years of the late 70's, early 80's."

a. That's mighty expensive training which we wouldn't have such need of if we conducted foreign policy more wisely. b. I don't think so. I don't recall losing 800 men per year during peacetime.

You should really demand more bang for your buck. Your kids and mine will be paying for this debacle a long time, and better results could have been had at a fraction of the cost.

59

"8) Our troops have gotten first-rate training in both counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency tactics for three years now. And the cost in casualties has actually been less the average cost in some of the peacetime years of the late 70's, early 80's
______
This one is partially true. With the great advances in emergency care far fewer soldiers die than in other wars, BUT these facts always leave out that more wounded survive now but come home missing one or more limbs.

60

I agree with your comment 48. President Clinton was a shameless liar, and President Bush is paying something of a price for that.

A really strange concept. Clinton was a shameless liar but Bush is paying for it? You are aware that Bush is a Republican and Clinton a Democrat. Usually when one does something bad it benefits the other party. If Clinton was so horrible it should be all the easier for Bush to shine in comparison.

Yet you're theory is that Bush looks bad because Clinton was bad? Especially six years into Bush regime? All in the sudden people are suddenly so confused that they can't figure out if that President they don't like is Bush or Clinton?

61

Let's go through the countdown:

"1) Saddam's evil, bitterly anti-American regime gone."

Actually as far as anti-American regimes go Saddam's was once hot and had become quite mild. Anti-Americanism, though, has since risen among many friendly countries and countries that have a history of serious anti-Americanism (Iran, North Korea) have gotten worse.

I'll grant you our relationship with China has appeared to have gotten better over the last six years. Especially since the Bush administration began with a nasty incident where China had one of our military planes and crew after it was forced down by a Chinese MIG that collided with it.

"2) Democratic regime now in place. It's on life-support, but it's there, and it might work out yet."

Yea ok I'll give you that. We did get something for a half-trillion dollars and the lives of several thousand troops plus numerous injured.

"3) Fear of Allah instilled in the hearts of oppressive dictators (and their supporters) everywhere. Push the U.S. too far, and you too could end up in the dock for capital crimes (or at least on the run in a spider-hole). See Khadaffi in Libya."

Libya had been in the process of mellowing for quite some time. While a regime change did not happen Khadaffi, partly through the influence of his son, had decided that he wanted legitimacy for his country and began a real process of changing...especially to grab the carrot of removing the sanctions imposed on him after the Pan Am bombing in Scotland. The Wall Street Journal had a series of in depth articles about the behind the scenes changes in Libya, unfortunately I'm sure they are now locked behind their $$$ wall. I'm sure we could find useful summaries if you want to explore this area, though.

"4) Iraq is now our ally in the war on terror, a very important ally. It may not remain one, especially if we pull out, but for now it is."

I'm not sure what this means especially since Iraq seems unable to put a lid on massive domestic terrorism let alone do much of anything about terrorism outside is borders. Pakistan, on the other hand, probably is housing bin Laden in the north, does not allow our troops to have a free hand there in capturing him and has developed nuclear weapons AND had a key scientist be an Al Qaeda sympathizer and be accused of passing secrets to them.

"5) We've killed several thousand terrorists in Iraq over the past three years."

POssible although it appears more and more like we have found ourselves taking part not in a war on terrorism but a civil war where both sides are willing to use terrorist tactics. The shabby execution of Saddam Hussein indicates that this regime leaves quite a bit to be desired.

"6) Our liberation and reconstruction efforts in Iraq may have made Afghanistan go along better, and may have helped keep the "homeland" free of major terror attacks since 2001."

May? Do you have any actual evidence that Afghanistan was doing poorly before we invaded Iraq and improved after that or is this just rampant speculation? As for the homeland being free of terror attacks since 2001, guess what, the homeland had been free of terror attacks for six years prior to 2001 as well (I'm excluding purely domestic terror attacks here like Tim McVeigh. The first WTC bombing happened in 1993).

If you want to measure how much the invasion contributed to the US from being free of terror attacks on home soil you have to first consider that we were remarkably free for years before 9/11 and also factor out the contribution made by the massive increase in domestic security since 9/11.

The above point probably is based on nothing more than blind loyalty to the Bush administration. But if it's based on any realistic evaluation of the causes of terrorism it suffers from pre-9/11 thinking. The lesson of 9/11 was that states are not necessarily our biggest security problem. The largest state supporter of terrorism has been and probably is Iran. Yet the terrorists of 9/11 and Al Qaeda are no friends of the Iranians. Before 9/11 probably the biggest enemy the Taliban had was not the US but Iran, especially after the Taliban killed several Iranian diplomats.

"8) Our troops have gotten first-rate training in both counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency tactics for three years now. And the cost in casualties has actually been less the average cost in some of the peacetime years of the late 70's, early 80's."

Actually our troops have gotten first-rate training in being hunkered down in a city filled with people who are trying to blow them up. While its important to know how to drive around in an amored vehicle and then hunker down in a well guarded fortress I'm somewhat skeptical that we are getting great experience overthere infilitrating terroirst cells, learning about them etc. I haven't seen convincing evidence that even if we are learning such things over there that those skills would translate to combating the 9/11 types of cells whose targets are in non-Muslim countries.

As with anything benefits have to be weighed next to opportunity costs. A half trillion dollars spent 'training' in Iraq could have been spent on domestic security, covert foreign operations, overt aid to friendly groups and regimes, and so on. Iraq has stretched our capacity to operate in other places such as Iran, Syria, Pakistan and so on. It has also harmed our relations with developed countries whose intelligence agencies could probably be very useful to us.

I think if you made an objective attempt to measure the Iraq war you'd find it very questionable whether it was a good investment at all. On the other hand Bush defenders don't make objective measurements. Their arguments are based more on spin so yes it is a good thing that since the Iraq War no one has blown up the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower.

62

Let's go through the countdown:

"1) Saddam's evil, bitterly anti-American regime gone."

Actually as far as anti-American regimes go Saddam's was once hot and had become quite mild. Anti-Americanism, though, has since risen among many friendly countries and countries that have a history of serious anti-Americanism (Iran, North Korea) have gotten worse.

I'll grant you our relationship with China has appeared to have gotten better over the last six years. Especially since the Bush administration began with a nasty incident where China had one of our military planes and crew after it was forced down by a Chinese MIG that collided with it.

"2) Democratic regime now in place. It's on life-support, but it's there, and it might work out yet."

Yea ok I'll give you that. We did get something for a half-trillion dollars and the lives of several thousand troops plus numerous injured.

"3) Fear of Allah instilled in the hearts of oppressive dictators (and their supporters) everywhere. Push the U.S. too far, and you too could end up in the dock for capital crimes (or at least on the run in a spider-hole). See Khadaffi in Libya."

Libya had been in the process of mellowing for quite some time. While a regime change did not happen Khadaffi, partly through the influence of his son, had decided that he wanted legitimacy for his country and began a real process of changing...especially to grab the carrot of removing the sanctions imposed on him after the Pan Am bombing in Scotland. The Wall Street Journal had a series of in depth articles about the behind the scenes changes in Libya, unfortunately I'm sure they are now locked behind their $$$ wall. I'm sure we could find useful summaries if you want to explore this area, though.

"4) Iraq is now our ally in the war on terror, a very important ally. It may not remain one, especially if we pull out, but for now it is."

I'm not sure what this means especially since Iraq seems unable to put a lid on massive domestic terrorism let alone do much of anything about terrorism outside is borders. Pakistan, on the other hand, probably is housing bin Laden in the north, does not allow our troops to have a free hand there in capturing him and has developed nuclear weapons AND had a key scientist be an Al Qaeda sympathizer and be accused of passing secrets to them.

"5) We've killed several thousand terrorists in Iraq over the past three years."

POssible although it appears more and more like we have found ourselves taking part not in a war on terrorism but a civil war where both sides are willing to use terrorist tactics. The shabby execution of Saddam Hussein indicates that this regime leaves quite a bit to be desired.

"6) Our liberation and reconstruction efforts in Iraq may have made Afghanistan go along better, and may have helped keep the "homeland" free of major terror attacks since 2001."

May? Do you have any actual evidence that Afghanistan was doing poorly before we invaded Iraq and improved after that or is this just rampant speculation? As for the homeland being free of terror attacks since 2001, guess what, the homeland had been free of terror attacks for six years prior to 2001 as well (I'm excluding purely domestic terror attacks here like Tim McVeigh. The first WTC bombing happened in 1993).

If you want to measure how much the invasion contributed to the US from being free of terror attacks on home soil you have to first consider that we were remarkably free for years before 9/11 and also factor out the contribution made by the massive increase in domestic security since 9/11.

The above point probably is based on nothing more than blind loyalty to the Bush administration. But if it's based on any realistic evaluation of the causes of terrorism it suffers from pre-9/11 thinking. The lesson of 9/11 was that states are not necessarily our biggest security problem. The largest state supporter of terrorism has been and probably is Iran. Yet the terrorists of 9/11 and Al Qaeda are no friends of the Iranians. Before 9/11 probably the biggest enemy the Taliban had was not the US but Iran, especially after the Taliban killed several Iranian diplomats.

"8) Our troops have gotten first-rate training in both counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency tactics for three years now. And the cost in casualties has actually been less the average cost in some of the peacetime years of the late 70's, early 80's."

Actually our troops have gotten first-rate training in being hunkered down in a city filled with people who are trying to blow them up. While its important to know how to drive around in an amored vehicle and then hunker down in a well guarded fortress I'm somewhat skeptical that we are getting great experience overthere infilitrating terroirst cells, learning about them etc. I haven't seen convincing evidence that even if we are learning such things over there that those skills would translate to combating the 9/11 types of cells whose targets are in non-Muslim countries.

As with anything benefits have to be weighed next to opportunity costs. A half trillion dollars spent 'training' in Iraq could have been spent on domestic security, covert foreign operations, overt aid to friendly groups and regimes, and so on. Iraq has stretched our capacity to operate in other places such as Iran, Syria, Pakistan and so on. It has also harmed our relations with developed countries whose intelligence agencies could probably be very useful to us.

I think if you made an objective attempt to measure the Iraq war you'd find it very questionable whether it was a good investment at all. On the other hand Bush defenders don't make objective measurements. Their arguments are based more on spin so yes it is a good thing that since the Iraq War no one has blown up the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower.

63

If Clinton was so horrible it should be all the easier for Bush to shine in comparison.

The problem with Clinton was not his lying, but the feckless way he dealt with Islamic terrorism. There were several major terror attacks during Clinton's administration during which his response was, to be kind, tepid. His response to the attacks along with his retreat in Mogidishu gave terror groups like Al Queda the belief that the US was a paper tiger and would pull out of the Islamic lands given the proper incentive. The result was 9/11. It is arguable that talk from the Left and Right about pulling out of Iraq is giving the terror groups and their nation-state supporters (Iran and Syria among them) the belief that the US will not tolerate a long fight or even a relatively small number of casualties (small compared to previous US conflicts).

64

Ucfengr,

The problem with Clinton was not his lying, but the feckless way he dealt with Islamic terrorism.

I think this statement is the second recent data point recently which might be part of a pattern indicating a serious moral blind spot on your part regarding presidential dishonesty.

Clinton's biggest problem was his chronic lying. Liars have a tough time even telling the truth to themselves, so it's little wonder his foreign policy had major holes in it.

Was his feckless response to Islamic terrorism his biggest foreign policy failing? Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe it was his quid-pro-quo of sophisticated computer technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions. Maybe it was something else. Historians will have a lot to investigate in response to the biggest-failing question.

65

Rob Ryan and LudVanB,

Thank you for the responses.

I read them carefully, there is much merit in what you say. I would agree with at least the factual basis of many/most of your points. I think we'll just have to just agree to disagree on how to weigh the importance of the countervailing claims.

Boonton,

A really strange concept. Clinton was a shameless liar but Bush is paying for it? You are aware that Bush is a Republican and Clinton a Democrat. Usually when one does something bad it benefits the other party. If Clinton was so horrible it should be all the easier for Bush to shine in comparison.

Yet you're theory is that Bush looks bad because Clinton was bad? Especially six years into Bush regime? All in the sudden people are suddenly so confused that they can't figure out if that President they don't like is Bush or Clinton?

It's not the same group of people accusing President Bush and President Clinton of being liars, for the most part.

Many of the Democrats who are the most fervent accusers of President Bush were among those who were the most annoyed with Republican accusations against President Clinton.

A lot of the alleged frustration with President Bush's "dishonesty" is the result of a broad cynicism engendered by President Clinton's dishonesty which has been stoked by Democratic politicians in an unscrupulous game of tit-for-tat.

Let's go through the countdown ...

Boonton, you are, perhaps, the sharpest critic who likes to hang out at the Evangelical Outpost.

I strongly encourage you to read through your own countdown, in comment 61, and pretend it was written by someone else. Direct your critical faculties to what you have written and analyze your own arguments. You will pick apart all the weaknesses (or at least all the biggest ones) just as effectively as I can, and you will probably take your own criticisms to heart more than you would take mine.

Thank you very much for the responses, though. They were a little sloppy, and horribly one-sided, but thought-provoking as always.

The main reason I can't agree with your cost-benefit analysis of the war in Iraq is because I see the long-term consequences of a stable, democratic regime in Iraq as being much more important than you seem to believe. I also think that the chances of a democratic regime surviving in Iraq are much higher than you seem to think they are.

But I disagree with many of your specific points as well. I really would encourage you to re-read what you have written with as objective an eye as you can muster.

Best to all,
Matthew

66

I think this statement is the second recent data point recently which might be part of a pattern indicating a serious moral blind spot on your part regarding presidential dishonesty.

Matthew--My comment was specific to Clinton's responsibility for our current WRT Islamic terrorism. While his serial lying may have contributed to it, it was his response to acts of terror against the US that had more impact. Of course the problem didn't start with Clinton, it could be argrued that our response to terrorism since Carter has been pretty feckless.

Regarding Clinton's biggest foreign policy failure, China was right up there. I also think you have to include the spectacle of Madeline Albright dancing in North Korea.

67

And now a word from the Iraqis themselves:

Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?

Better today 5%

Better before 90%

Not sure 5%

Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

68

When Clinton made a move against terrorism he was usually met with derision by republicans like Spector and Hatch. What's amazing is the complete inattention and bungling of the new Bush administration the first 8 months of office. Terrorism was not in their agenda. A very good book to read by the way about Iraq is Imperial life in the Emerald City. Read the reviews at Amazon. I'm listening to it by audiopape via itunes.

69

Let's go through the countdown:

"1) Saddam's evil, bitterly anti-American regime gone."

Actually as far as anti-American regimes go Saddam's was once hot and had become quite mild. Anti-Americanism, though, has since risen among many friendly countries and countries that have a history of serious anti-Americanism (Iran, North Korea) have gotten worse.

I'll grant you our relationship with China has appeared to have gotten better over the last six years. Especially since the Bush administration began with a nasty incident where China had one of our military planes and crew after it was forced down by a Chinese MIG that collided with it.

"2) Democratic regime now in place. It's on life-support, but it's there, and it might work out yet."

Yea ok I'll give you that. We did get something for a half-trillion dollars and the lives of several thousand troops plus numerous injured.

"3) Fear of Allah instilled in the hearts of oppressive dictators (and their supporters) everywhere. Push the U.S. too far, and you too could end up in the dock for capital crimes (or at least on the run in a spider-hole). See Khadaffi in Libya."

Libya had been in the process of mellowing for quite some time. While a regime change did not happen Khadaffi, partly through the influence of his son, had decided that he wanted legitimacy for his country and began a real process of changing...especially to grab the carrot of removing the sanctions imposed on him after the Pan Am bombing in Scotland. The Wall Street Journal had a series of in depth articles about the behind the scenes changes in Libya, unfortunately I'm sure they are now locked behind their $$$ wall. I'm sure we could find useful summaries if you want to explore this area, though.

"4) Iraq is now our ally in the war on terror, a very important ally. It may not remain one, especially if we pull out, but for now it is."

I'm not sure what this means especially since Iraq seems unable to put a lid on massive domestic terrorism let alone do much of anything about terrorism outside is borders. Pakistan, on the other hand, probably is housing bin Laden in the north, does not allow our troops to have a free hand there in capturing him and has developed nuclear weapons AND had a key scientist be an Al Qaeda sympathizer and be accused of passing secrets to them.

"5) We've killed several thousand terrorists in Iraq over the past three years."

POssible although it appears more and more like we have found ourselves taking part not in a war on terrorism but a civil war where both sides are willing to use terrorist tactics. The shabby execution of Saddam Hussein indicates that this regime leaves quite a bit to be desired.

"6) Our liberation and reconstruction efforts in Iraq may have made Afghanistan go along better, and may have helped keep the "homeland" free of major terror attacks since 2001."

May? Do you have any actual evidence that Afghanistan was doing poorly before we invaded Iraq and improved after that or is this just rampant speculation? As for the homeland being free of terror attacks since 2001, guess what, the homeland had been free of terror attacks for six years prior to 2001 as well (I'm excluding purely domestic terror attacks here like Tim McVeigh. The first WTC bombing happened in 1993).

If you want to measure how much the invasion contributed to the US from being free of terror attacks on home soil you have to first consider that we were remarkably free for years before 9/11 and also factor out the contribution made by the massive increase in domestic security since 9/11.

The above point probably is based on nothing more than blind loyalty to the Bush administration. But if it's based on any realistic evaluation of the causes of terrorism it suffers from pre-9/11 thinking. The lesson of 9/11 was that states are not necessarily our biggest security problem. The largest state supporter of terrorism has been and probably is Iran. Yet the terrorists of 9/11 and Al Qaeda are no friends of the Iranians. Before 9/11 probably the biggest enemy the Taliban had was not the US but Iran, especially after the Taliban killed several Iranian diplomats.

"8) Our troops have gotten first-rate training in both counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency tactics for three years now. And the cost in casualties has actually been less the average cost in some of the peacetime years of the late 70's, early 80's."

Actually our troops have gotten first-rate training in being hunkered down in a city filled with people who are trying to blow them up. While its important to know how to drive around in an amored vehicle and then hunker down in a well guarded fortress I'm somewhat skeptical that we are getting great experience overthere infilitrating terroirst cells, learning about them etc. I haven't seen convincing evidence that even if we are learning such things over there that those skills would translate to combating the 9/11 types of cells whose targets are in non-Muslim countries.

As with anything benefits have to be weighed next to opportunity costs. A half trillion dollars spent 'training' in Iraq could have been spent on domestic security, covert foreign operations, overt aid to friendly groups and regimes, and so on. Iraq has stretched our capacity to operate in other places such as Iran, Syria, Pakistan and so on. It has also harmed our relations with developed countries whose intelligence agencies could probably be very useful to us.

I think if you made an objective attempt to measure the Iraq war you'd find it very questionable whether it was a good investment at all. On the other hand Bush defenders don't make objective measurements. Their arguments are based more on spin so yes it is a good thing that since the Iraq War no one has blown up the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower.

70

Given what we know now, should we have invaded Iraq?

If you are an imbecile, you say "yes." The overwhelming majority of Americans say "no." So the question is now should we stay in Iraq or should we leave.

How about a full trillion for Iraq? How about 5 trillion? How about we take all of our GDP and plunge it into Iraq? And then Iran.

This really doesn't seem like good foreign policy. It's expensive and we should be doing the diplomacy thing. That's what we hire these people to do. Work this crap out and set up whatever agreements they need to do, but basically, if our diplomatic corps is up to snuff, we aren't parking aircraft carriers off close to other countries' shores.

I fault the Bush administration for turning to the military option first. It is supposed to be the last. Rockefeller was right: The man doesn't read; it's obvious even though he claims to have digested a "Camus and two Shakespeares."

71

Ex-preacher,

And now a word from the Iraqis themselves ...

How many in the "random" survey were Kurds?

Two and five tenths percent (from page 25).

How many in the survey were Christian?

Two and eight tenths percent (from page 27).

Ergo, there must be more Christians than Kurds in Iraq :)

More seriously, there are other large imbalances in the survey samples that make it rather hard to extrapolate the polling results to Iraq as a whole.

For example, 90.9% of the respondents hail from the two most dangerous provinces in Iraq: 9.0% from Anbar, 81.9% from Baghdad (see page 4). Only about 28% of Iraqis live in those two provinces, however.

Those who responded were overwhelmingly (89.4%, see page 6) in favor of the proposition that Iraq today is politically worse off (as opposed to security-wise or economically) than it was under Saddam. This forces me to discount the entire exercise as hopelessly skewed in its sampling towards folks who are profoundly anti-democratic and/or clueless.

If I am wrong to analyze the poll this way, please explain to me why.

For all those interested in hearing some voices from Iraq that are neither anti-democratic nor clueless, I recommend reading a few posts from bloggers Omar and Mohammed at their blog, "Iraq the Model".

Mohammed's latest post, published Friday, is entitled "A last chance or a new beginning?" The post is a lengthy and nuanced analysis of what is at stake with the coalition's plans for a troop surge.

Good night all,
Matthew

72

Given what we know now, should we have invaded Iraq?

Given that we can't go back in time and change it, what's the point of the question? Answering yes or no doesn't change the fact that we are there and that Al Queda is there and that Iran and Syria are supporting Al Queda (among others), nor does it really impact what we should do in the future. Playing "what if" is a game for children and imbeciles, adults don't have the luxury.