Did we win in Iraq? Does Bush get credit?

[Skeptic]

This was a landmark event in Iraq's history, and it saddens me that it was so overlooked by the media, whose only message is doom and gloom.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are about Iraq. But my real issue with what you said is that you're under the misconception that the media cares, or cared, about the Iraqis.

The real issue was showing how evil Bush is. As long as Iraqi deaths could be used to help that goal, the media was full of concern and mercy for them. The moment the US government cannot be blamed -- either because things are going better or else simply because the US quits Iraq -- the media no longer cares about the human rights of Iraqis, to whom it expressed such boundless love (as long as long as Bush could be blamed.)

If tomorrow the US withdraws from Iraq and a new dictator comes to power and kills a million Iraqis, this is certain to recieve less US press than the Abu Gharib prison abuse of a few prisoners did -- unless, of course, there will be some way to spin this as a "it's all due to the US destabilizing the region" or "Dictator X once met Bush" story.

Don't believe me? Look how much the media cares about human rights countries that are killing their own people by the hundreds of thousands without being able to blame the US government.

 

[BeAChooser]

Of course, if it all goes to hell, the other side will have no problem saying that the only reason it failed was that Obama pulled out the troops when we were on the verge of victory.

There is no question, however, that had we done what Obama recommended (he submitted a bill to force withdrawal in 16 months) back in January 2007, we wouldn't even be having this discussion now. Then we would definitely know we'd lost because the surge (and all that went with it) would never have happened, so al-Qaeda and the militants in Iraq would not have been defeated but would be stronger than ever. And Iraq would be in total chaos right now.

 

[BeAChooser]

Christians lived more-or-less peacefully in Iraq before the invasion.

In 1900, Christians comprised over 20 percent of the Middle East's population. In 2000 that figure was below two percent. I don't think we're the only reason life is unsafe for Christians in the Middle East. And Iraq prior to our invasion was in the process of intense Islamification, thanks to the policies of Saddam. How long before that would have translated into suppression of the Christian minority even there?

 

[BeAChooser]

According to IBC in 2008 there were 2,881 attacks with an upper threshold of 9,229 killed, or 3.2 people per attack. Assuming IBC records only half of attacks, but that those attacks are typical, we get 5,762 attacks with an average of 3.2 people per attack.

I liked your analysis but I'm not convinced that a doubling of the number of attacks is valid. Sure, IBC may be an undercount but they rather thoroughly scour the news sources. At least I doubt that the uncounted events cause the same average number of deaths. More than likely, they are incidents involving on average fewer people which might explain why they got overlooked.

Also, 2008 statistics include many months of very fairly high casualty counts before the surge really began to show it's full effects. For example, http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx indicates that between 1/2008 and 4/2008, the number of coalition forces killed each month averaged 40. Current numbers are less than half that. Likewise, that site indicates Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths were averaging 600 per month, but are again currently running less than half that rate.

Finally, note that many of these deaths are still concentrated in smaller, still more dangerous regions of the country. Meaning that most regions are relatively free of violence. But does the mainstream media report that?

 

[BeAChooser]

In hindsight of course it looks like it was a bad idea to enter that war.

I'm not convinced of that. I think that view comes from not fully appreciating the costs had we not invaded. By now those costs could easily have been a trillion dollars (or more) and several hundred thousand innocent lives (or more) with no light at the end of the tunnel ... which we at least now have.

 

[BeAChooser]

As I said before, he brought it in several orders of magnitude over the projected budget, years past due

What a naive view of war. Wars cost what they cost and you can't depend on them to follow a schedule that you can map out in advance.

and didn't actually accomplish several stated goals

You provided us with a link but I don't quite see the goals that weren't met. Can you help me out by stating specifically what you mean?

 

[BeAChooser]

Killing people frees them.
The U.S. freed over 2 million Vietnamese during that conflict.
If we hadn't lost our will for victory, we could have freed even more.

Just curious, how many Vietnamese died after we left? And had we done what Westmoreland wanted to do back in 1968 after Tet, perhaps the war would have been over long before your claimed 2 million died. And today, South Vietnam might be another South Korea, instead of the economic basketcase that it became under the North's rule.

 

[BeAChooser]

The U.S. managed to stave off the North's Communist takeover of the South even after U.S. troops and POW's departed in 1973, until a democrat Congress cut off funds to the South Vietnamese government in 1975.

Corrected.

 

[BeAChooser]

GWB has killed more people in Iraq than Sadam.

This is totally false. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS of Iraqis. And most of those who died in Iraq after the invasion were killed by either the leftovers of Saddam's regime, party and ethnic group; or al-Qaeda terrorists who would have killed people somewhere else if not Iraq.

 

[BeAChooser]

Winning the war doesn't mean you were right, it just means that you were stronger.

No, it means we were right ... or at least Obama was completely wrong back in 2007 and until just recently.

 

[BeAChooser]

Speaking for myself, I don't think a preemptive war is something we should fight.

But this wasn't a preemptive war. It was merely the continuation of the one in 1991 with a new sense of urgency.

If the reason for the war was ostensibly because they had WMD, then I disagree that that was sufficient reason to go to war. A lot of countries have WMD and don't like the U.S., but we aren't seeking to invade them.

Leaving Pakistan out of the equation (because there has been some talk about invading them under the Obama administration), those other countries didn't applaud 9/11 and al-Qaeda like Saddam did. They weren't in communicaton with the Taliban and al-Qaeda after 9/11 like Saddam appears to have been. They didn't have al-Qaeda operating freely in their country like Saddam did (with apparently his tacit approval). They still had firm control of their WMD arsenal ... which apparently Saddam did not. And they weren't already at war with us (remember, the tapes that were captured of conversations between Saddam and his staff after the war, show that he and his staff still considered themselves to be at war). One more thing. It isn't completely established that Iraq had no role in 9/11. There are a number of coincidences that still haven't been explained.

If the purpose of the war was to promote democracy, as our government tried to claim after the WMD justification fell apart

Not true. Bush said in his State of the Union Address before the invasion that freeing the Iraqi people was part of the goal.

Democracy does not come at the point of a gun, it comes from within.

A trite statement generally made by those who don't already have guns pointed at them by their own government.

 

[Upchurch]

What a naive view of war. Wars cost what they cost and you can't depend on them to follow a schedule that you can map out in advance.

I agree. It is a very naive view of war.

And, yet, Rumsfeld, et al. did just that. He thought it could last six days, six weeks. He doubted it would last six months. I can't even find the quote where they claimed the Iraqi people would pay for their own reconstruction with oil money.

Oops.

You provided us with a link but I don't quite see the goals that weren't met. Can you help me out by stating specifically what you mean?

Well, the big one was "to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region". Further, as Iraq was neither an ongoing nor eminent threat to the US, it couldn't hardly defend against that threat. Related to that, of course, was the finding and disposing of those WMDs and weapons labs that didn't exist.

 

[Meadmaker]

If the reason for the war was ostensibly because they had WMD, then I disagree that that was sufficient reason to go to war.

I believed that was phony at the time. I don't know whether Bush believed that they had the WMDs. That was an excuse for going to war, not a reason.

 

[Upchurch]

I believed that was phony at the time. I don't know whether Bush believed that they had the WMDs. That was an excuse for going to war, not a reason.

...so would the reason for going to war the eminent threat posed to the US by those WMDs?

 

[gumboot]

Fair enough, but why? Does your opinion come from pacifist beliefs, that no war should ever be started? Or does it come from selfish beliefs, that no matter how good things go, we don't get anything from it, so we shouldn't have done it? Is it because you think the outcome (a free democracy in Iraq) could have been achieved through other, less destructive means? Is it some other reason?

Two related reasons;

1) Armed force should only be used in self defense or as a measure of last resort in the face of a serious threat. Saddam was well contained, and posed no threat to anyone. There were ample forces in position to prevent him flexing his muscles.

2) Maintaining the credibility of the UN as a forum for international cooperation is vital to maintaining global peace and security. When major members of the UN act unilaterally, without the backing of the UN, it causes significant damage to the UN's credibility and weakens its effectiveness in forcing rogue states to adhere to the will of the international community.

 

[Allen773]

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are about Iraq. But my real issue with what you said is that you're under the misconception that the media cares, or cared, about the Iraqis.

The real issue was showing how evil Bush is. As long as Iraqi deaths could be used to help that goal, the media was full of concern and mercy for them. The moment the US government cannot be blamed -- either because things are going better or else simply because the US quits Iraq -- the media no longer cares about the human rights of Iraqis, to whom it expressed such boundless love (as long as long as Bush could be blamed.)

If tomorrow the US withdraws from Iraq and a new dictator comes to power and kills a million Iraqis, this is certain to recieve less US press than the Abu Gharib prison abuse of a few prisoners did -- unless, of course, there will be some way to spin this as a "it's all due to the US destabilizing the region" or "Dictator X once met Bush" story.

Don't believe me? Look how much the media cares about human rights countries that are killing their own people by the hundreds of thousands without being able to blame the US government.

There are so many discredited talking points in this post it's hard to know where to start.

 

[gumboot]

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are about Iraq. But my real issue with what you said is that you're under the misconception that the media cares, or cared, about the Iraqis.

Believe me I do not think for even a nanosecond that the western media has the most remote concern for the fate of Iraqis.

The real issue was showing how evil Bush is. As long as Iraqi deaths could be used to help that goal, the media was full of concern and mercy for them. The moment the US government cannot be blamed -- either because things are going better or else simply because the US quits Iraq -- the media no longer cares about the human rights of Iraqis, to whom it expressed such boundless love (as long as long as Bush could be blamed.)

If tomorrow the US withdraws from Iraq and a new dictator comes to power and kills a million Iraqis, this is certain to recieve less US press than the Abu Gharib prison abuse of a few prisoners did -- unless, of course, there will be some way to spin this as a "it's all due to the US destabilizing the region" or "Dictator X once met Bush" story.

Yes, that's actually kind of my point. It benefits the media's sales to paint Iraq in the worst possible light. In doing so they're ignoring very real progress and success stories, and thus giving the average westerner a distorted view of how things are in Iraq.

That saddens me, as it should any intelligent compassionate human.

 

[JihadJane]

believe me i do not think for even a nanosecond that the western media has the most remote concern for the fate of iraqis.





Yes, that's actually kind of my point. It benefits the media's sales to paint iraq in the worst possible light. In doing so they're ignoring very real progress and success stories, and thus giving the average westerner a distorted view of how things are in iraq.

That saddens me, as it should any intelligent compassionate human.

 

[gumboot]

I liked your analysis but I'm not convinced that a doubling of the number of attacks is valid. Sure, IBC may be an undercount but they rather thoroughly scour the news sources. At least I doubt that the uncounted events cause the same average number of deaths. More than likely, they are incidents involving on average fewer people which might explain why they got overlooked.

It's a pretty standard practise, when analysing data to demonstrate the fallacy of a claim, to hedge unknown factors in favour of the claim. Thus in regards unknown factors I made reasonable assumptions in favour of the claim being correct, yet even with this the case, the claim turned out to be wrong.

I actually suspect history will show IBCs figures to be far more accurate than most people are currently willing to accept.

 

[gumboot]

One more thing. It isn't completely established that Iraq had no role in 9/11. There are a number of coincidences that still haven't been explained.

What would these coincidences be?