Iraq War, with what you know now

[RandFan]

I supported the invasion. I had wanted the administration to do something about Saddam for 12 years. That said and hindsight being 20/20 I would not have supported it.

 

[D'rok]

It would seem to me that anything would have been possible. You and others are assiging subjective probabilities using your own priors. How else can you prove that a posited hypothetical alternative outcome would have been "highly probable"?

Cripes. You've convinced me. Anything is possible and no course of action has rationally predictable consequences - especially not war. Not bombing cities and not shooting people seems just as likely to cause death and destruction as actually doing those things.

In fact, I'm beginning to doubt my decision to order ale last night. How can I be sure that lager wouldn't have been more satisfying? My own priors said "drinking that tall 20oz of Erdinger Dunkel will be the best thing you've done all week." But anything is possible, right? I probably just destroyed a universe somewhere by negating that lager timeline.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So, I heard this discussion on the radio and the question was asked:

If you knew then what we know now, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003?


It didn't make any sense to me then, so my answer hasn't changed.

With what I know now, I'd have not sold IBM in 1984, I'd have not invested in a real estate partnership in 1983, I'd have bought a lot more Cisco and Lucent in 1980's, as well as more Intel and MS stock.

But I didn't.

I'd have majored in something else in college, married that red head with the rich dad, and quit smoking a lot sooner. I'd not have gone running that one morning that ended up in me breaking my leg. I'd have not punched the wall that got back at me by breaking my hand.

I'd have backed up the hard drive more often on my PC, two PC's ago, and not lost a few thousand pages of drafts, fiction and non fiction. I'd have spent more time formally studying Italian, to get the grammar and vocabulary up to speed, I'd have taken Spanish III in High School rather than get that after school job, and I'd have not thrown that rock that broke Mrs Montague's windshield.

Time moves in one direction, as far as we know, and you can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

DR

 

[Solitaire]

Makes me proud to have a President that talks to invisible men

I'll take that claim over this claim any day.

 

[Harpoon]

DR, Oh, but such frivolity is fun, if not productive.

Where would we be today in Afghanistan if we had never invaded Iraq? Do you think we would have caught Usama and totally pacified the Taliban? Or would Saddam be up to mischief with our Afghani policy were he still in power?

What would things be like in Iraq if we had never invaded? How would Saddam respond to Iran's nuclear program? Or do you think the Iranians wouldn't be dabbling if we were only on one of their borders? If the Iranians were still developing nukes, how long before Saddam would have to reinstitute his program.

How about the Kurds? The Turks have had about enough of the PKK. And the Kurds in Iran and Syria are starting to exhibit more nationalism, causing more destabilzation in the region. Southern Kurdistan was protected as a no-fly zone before the invasion. With Saddam still in power (but checked from intervening by U.S. air power) do you think the situation there wouldn't be dangerous and threaten regional stability?

If we hadn't invaded, do you think Hamas and Hezbollah would have made peace with Israel, or do you think Saddam would be stirring that pot too?

And the oil-for-food money would still be flowing, with Saddam using it to build hospitals, universities, libraries, etc., without a single cent going weapons systems or, yes, those WMDs.

Bush blundering into Baghdad was kind of like the cops busting a meth lab. They busted the Big Dealer and a bunch of his cronies. They shut the lab down. They found some supplies, equipment and meth residue, but all the drugs were gone. Oh well, mission accomplished... no more meth lab.

But it wasn't a meth bust, of course, it was an invasion. Things might indeed be worse if we hadn't invaded. But things are pretty bad because we did.

Sun Tsu said about 2,500 years back that, "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."

Bush and friends screwed up. You wave the flag, yell "Follow me," you really ought to be going somewhere. Things certainly may have been better if the country fully backed him. But it didn't and that's a real element of where we are now, and one he failed to perceive correctly.

I'd say get out yesterday, but I'm pretty sure we will suffered for it if we do. Forget for a moment what will happen in Iraq itself. Who knows our absence may benefit the situation. The Sunnis, Shia and Kurds may get a group hug thing going with us gone.

But Usama, or whoever the fuehrer-de-jour, will say, "You see how easy it is? You need not be strong enough to win, only strong enough to kill Americans."

One feat of might-have-been prognostication I will venture. Had Bush not invaded Iraq, he would be criticized today for not taking military action to remove Saddam four years ago. I suspect many such complaints would come from people who today condemn the invasion.

 

[Harpoon]

Yes indeed.
Makes me proud to have a President that talks to invisible men

Doesn't bother me to have a president who speaks to God.

It bother me to have a president who thinks God speaks to him.

 

[Harpoon]

I guess I didn't answer the initial question, however.

If what I know now about Saddam Hussein I knew then, I would hope all nations would have joined us in toppling the monster, bringing him to justice and liberating the Iraqi people even if he was only deceiving the world about his WMDs.

 

[Upchurch]

Time moves in one direction, as far as we know, and you can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” -- George Santayana

If we don't spend the time to reflect on our decisions and the resulting events, how do judge whether or not we have done the right thing? Are we, as a nation, now as likely to blindly follow a president into war? Should we be as likely?

On the last two, my answers are "probably" and "no", which is why we must spend time reflecting on this, imho.

 

[Darth Rotor]

On the last two, my answers are "probably" and "no", which is why we must spend time reflecting on this, imho.

My analysis is far different, and almost like John Kerry's line about "I'd do it better."

The professionals had a plan, and a plan of action, that took into account post conflict risks, but even those plans were rife with unknowns at the political level. The US spent 12 years, 1991-2003, establishing the logistic capability in various Arab lands to enable CENTCOM to go to war in the Persian Gulf: be it with Iraq or Iran. Fighting there was probably a matter of when not if, even if W hadn't fired the starter's gun.

The problem is, in my analysis, whether or not "go big or go home, and don't disenfranchise the Sunni technorcrats" would have worked either.

The Middle East is built on patronage networks, politically, to a far greater extent than the West, which has its share of them. Saddam's network kept his power structure more or less intact, though a lot of people still ended up on the short end of the stick. Breaking that was going to create a requirement for nation building, which exercise the US had just had ample experience with in Bosnia, on a smaller scale.

If the intent was to reshape the Middle East by going into Iraq, then the self delusion of being able to do it quick and cheap, see Bosnia again, in a far more doable framework, had to be sold and resourced.

It was not, and that failure was the single most profound political and strategic failure of the whole deal: as Colin Powell used to say, in support of the Weinberger Doctrine, go big or don't go at all.

So, given impatience in the White House, and the unwillingness to take the time, and cut the deals necessary, to build far more substantial national and international support for doing it right -- the long haul approach of nation rebuilding -- the undertaking was a political gamble, not a risk, from day one. Risking the blood and treasure of America is one thing, gambling it like a drunk in Vegas another.

Reflect? Nope. Energize. Ask America: who do you want in charge, and why, when you vote? And if you don't vote, what the hell is wrong with you?

That's the lesson learned.

DR

 

[Zep]

Hmmm. I would have rather focused all of our efforts on Afghanistan to be honest. But I can't help thinking that Suddam would have been a threat to us or Israel later on...A man like that is never up to any good and we would have probably had to deal with him sooner or later. Just my .02

My POV, more or less. "Policing" Afghanistan is still legitimate, in my view, if that is where OBL hangs out. Has anyone spotted him recently, btw? He asked, innocently...

As for Saddam, sure he was a particularly nasty and untrustworthy bandit, but it didn't need a full-scale invasion tasked solely to whack him. A quiet word in Mossad's ear behind the scenes would probably have accomplished the same result far more quietly and cheaply in time, money, effort, and political brownie points.

ETA: Did research. This is me speaking on 14-Mar-2003. I got one point wrong.

But what's the expected result? A population currently indifferent for the most part with the US will have their worst nightmares realised and become a pain in the ass for the occupation forces. The US will have to continue to commit forces and resources to the arena to even maintain the status quo of "peace". The neighbours will not like the new tenants next door either - they already don't like the sound of them before they arrived. And finally, just like Bin Laden, there is no guarantee the "bad guy" will be caught or even have his wings clipped - he's a cunning and ruthless robber-baron who has outwitted much more crafty attempts on his life than this one.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=70128&postcount=41

 

[Kerberos]

As for Saddam, sure he was a particularly nasty and untrustworthy bandit, but it didn't need a full-scale invasion tasked solely to whack him. A quiet word in Mossad's ear behind the scenes would probably have accomplished the same result far more quietly and cheaply in time, money, effort, and political brownie points.

Take it for what you will, but I recall having heard that Mossad considered that and decided it wasn't realistic.

 

[Upchurch]

Reflect? Nope. Energize. Ask America: who do you want in charge, and why, when you vote? And if you don't vote, what the hell is wrong with you?

That's the lesson learned.

You're not wrong, but you're putting the cart before the horse. You're talking about mistakes made by the administration. I'm talking about public support for the administration's decisions and where we went wrong, why we went wrong, or if we went wrong.

 

[Mephisto]

So, I heard this discussion on the radio and the question was asked:

If you knew then what we know now, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003?


It didn't make any sense to me then, so my answer hasn't changed.

I'm with you. It was a stupid idea then, and it's a stupider idea now! I just can't believe our illustrious leader still believes that the "surge" is going to work.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm with you. It was a stupid idea then, and it's a stupider idea now! I just can't believe our illustrious leader still believes that the "surge" is going to work.

Meph:

I don't think he does. I think he is doing the surge as a purely political move that is a stepping stone to either withdrawing by mid 2008, or to set up a poison pill for his successor.

GWB may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I don't think he's stupid enough to think the "surge" will make a significant difference in events on the ground. IT was embarked upon in order to make a change of some sort, and to send a particular political signal. The political aim is to use such change as is made (General Dave, yer doin' a heckuva a job!) as a springboard into other political moves, both in the region, in Iraq, and for domestic consumption.

DR

 

[FarmallMTA]

So, I heard this discussion on the radio and the question was asked:

If you knew then what we know now, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003?


It didn't make any sense to me then, so my answer hasn't changed.

The war was and remains fully justified. Yes.

 

[davefoc]

Meph:

I don't think he does. I think he is doing the surge as a purely political move that is a stepping stone to either withdrawing by mid 2008, or to set up a poison pill for his successor.

GWB may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I don't think he's stupid enough to think the "surge" will make a significant difference in events on the ground. IT was embarked upon in order to make a change of some sort, and to send a particular political signal. The political aim is to use such change as is made (General Dave, yer doin' a heckuva a job!) as a springboard into other political moves, both in the region, in Iraq, and for domestic consumption.

DR

This is roughly what I think also, but it is such a cynical view that I have a hard time believing that an American president is doing something like this. How would you feel about your son or daughter put is harm's way to promote Bush's political agenda?

I think it is probable that Bushco had intended a very long stay for the US in Iraq from the beginning of this thing and they (meaning Cheney mostly) still haven't given up on that idea. So at least some of the violent resistance the US is facing today is from people who are working very hard to convince the US that it shouldn't stick around and Bushco is so committed to sticking around that they don't want to put leaving on the table as one of the bargaining chips for ending the war or reducing the level of violence.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Didn't really support it back then, but probably only because of my radical 'Bush iz bad' line of thought.

I'd like to see a day when we can distance the mistake of the Bush Administration from the current problem now, a message that was not helped with Hillary Clinton's 'This is George Bush's war' the other day.

I don't think Bush is an evil guy, I believe he really thought what he did was right, for peace and security around the world. But I cannot understand why...

Can we not stop blaming Bush and Blair and just understand it was a terrible mistake, and realise the current murder rate is far more important then blame?

But when I look at image after image of dead civilians, I worry that I feel a feeling of blame that I wish to lay on the Bush Administration, and I dont think anyone can deny that is what those in the middle-east are feeling.

I also do not want to be watching the news and seeing dead Iraqi's and bombed marketplaces and thinking, "Gee, they are all just dirty arabs with no redeeming features". Can we not guarantee that is what is being thought by the vast majority now? The problem is, you cannot show the redeeming features of Iraq without also been seen as supporting the Invasion, so you're buggered.

 

[Upchurch]

The war was and remains fully justified. Yes.

Pardon me for saying so, but I find this position a little hard to believe. What makes you say that the invasion of Iraq is "fully justified"?

 

[Tricky]

Pardon me for saying so, but I find this position a little hard to believe. What makes you say that the invasion of Iraq is "fully justified"?

Do you really expect to see anything you haven't seen before?

1. Saddam was bad.
2. Saddam was dangerous.
3. Saddam was corrupt.
4. Saddam wasn't doing what the UN told him to do.
5. Saddam liked terrorists.
6. Saddam gassed the Kurds
7. Saddam was executing his opposition.
8. Saddam wanted WMDs even if he didn't have them.
9. The Iraqis deserve freedom
10. Even if it kills them.

 

[Upchurch]

Do you really expect to see anything you haven't seen before?

Hey, I believe in giving a wo/man a chance to back up her/his claims. As the ten things you listed together do not fully justify the war, I can only assume s/he has something else in mind.




....or maybe not. We'll see