We Invaded the Wrong Country!

[Lurker]

It seems to me that Lurker is saying (and this is pending his review and comments) that for a trillion dollars (my paper today notes that the president will ask Congress for another $120 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq to fund us through the rest of the fiscal year and into FY07) and over 2,200 deaths, deposing a brutal and ruthless dictator with no WMD or effective military forces while one Axis of Evil member develops nukes and the other is rushing to do the same--the allocation of resources doesn't seem to have done all that much for overall US (and world) security as one would hope from that expenditure of blood and treasure. And in that I think Lurker makes a valid point.

Yes, that was kind of where I was coming from. It is clear we will spend over a trillion dollars on this when all is said and done. And what exactly have we accomplished that suits American interests? Was this the optimal way to spend all that money?

Lurker

 

[Cain]

Yes, that was kind of where I was coming from. It is clear we will spend over a trillion dollars on this when all is said and done. And what exactly have we accomplished that suits American interests? Was this the optimal way to spend all that money?

Yes indeed. This is the rather profound and universally applicable logic of what economists call "opportunity costs." In Pentagon-speak, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has had a "pain to glory" ratio that is far from ideal.

 

[BPSCG]

Hmmm, this sounds like a failed attempt to read my mind. Where did I imply that we should have "made nice to Saddam"?

Here:

I wonder if our invasion of Iraq intensified Iran's thirst for a nuke in order to stave off attacks?

Mind you, I consider anything short of the overthrow of Saddam to be "making nice" to him.

I would not have lifted sanctions - heck I would have strengthened inspections.

That's "making nice." Inspections had been going on for ten years; what would you have done to "strengthen" them? And how would that have made the slightest difference to Saddam?

It was not that long ago that people were talking about a possible thawing of relations with Iran. That some of the more moderate people in Iran might start to attain power. I wonder what happened to steer Iran towards a more conservative and anti-American leader?

Um, I'm going to guess maybe it was the mullahs' fear of falling from power? Their "elections" were about as legitimate as Soviet elections: anyone not pre-approved by the ruling mullahs were bounced off the ballot, if they were lucky, bounced off the ballot and jailed if they were unlucky. Are you suggesting that the mullahs were in fact democrats (with a small "d") who love free elections and free press and free religion, but were frightened into intransigence by the hawkish US?

Don't get me wrong, BP, I am not saying that dealing with Iran would have been easy. But had we simply bribed them with a tenth of what we are spending in Iraq right now I bet that would buy us a whole lot of good will at the very least.

The same goodwill we get throughout the middle east with all the bribes we pay.

I respectfully disagree with your interpertation of Lurker's comments. It was not a matter of 'playing nice' with Saddam (although there is ample evidence that previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, had 'played nice' with him),

Picking up where I left off above, howcome with all the bribes we paid Saddam in the 1970s, we didn't get "a whole lot of good will" from him?

I think one can make an argument that it has slowed their program down--I will have to do some research on the IAEA information to confirm this, but if somebody has the data at hand I would be interested.

Since the estimates are all over the place regarding how far away Iran is from having their new playtoy, I think such an exercise would be pointless. In any case, what difference does it make if they're five months away or five years away? Point is, they are not going to be negotiated out of getting them.

It seems I also remember reading a noted War Hawk and highly praised leader of his country in wartime having been quoted as saying "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." I'm quite sure you know the quoter.

Yeah. He eventually did go to war-war, IIRC. The world paid a terrible price for all those years of "jaw-jaw."

 

[Upchurch]

Here:Mind you, I consider anything short of the overthrow of Saddam to be "making nice" to him.

You don't find that a bit black and white?

That's "making nice." Inspections had been going on for ten years; what would you have done to "strengthen" them? And how would that have made the slightest difference to Saddam?

What exactly do you think the purpose of inspections were? To determine Iraq's capabilities, or to punish Saddam?

 

[Lurker]

Here:Mind you, I consider anything short of the overthrow of Saddam to be "making nice" to him.

Well, at least that explains your comments then. I see a whole lot in between war and "making nice" but that is just my perspective.

That's "making nice." Inspections had been going on for ten years; what would you have done to "strengthen" them? And how would that have made the slightest difference to Saddam?

And inspections were working very well. Saddam had been contained and had no WMD program. As to what I would have done to strenghten them, I would have placed some more inspectors on the ground and ensured that they had access to any site at any time. Repercussions would be bombing of Saddam's palaces.

Um, I'm going to guess maybe it was the mullahs' fear of falling from power? Their "elections" were about as legitimate as Soviet elections: anyone not pre-approved by the ruling mullahs were bounced off the ballot, if they were lucky, bounced off the ballot and jailed if they were unlucky. Are you suggesting that the mullahs were in fact democrats (with a small "d") who love free elections and free press and free religion, but were frightened into intransigence by the hawkish US?

Not syaing that at all. I am not syaing the "elections" would have resulted in much different. (And note I agree with your appraisal so I put the quotes around elections) But at this point it seems the moderates in Iran have pretty much disappeared. I think alot of their voice has been silenced by our actions. I am not syaing they would have come to power, but perhaps have gained a larger voice and thus a larger audience within Iran.

The same goodwill we get throughout the middle east with all the bribes we pay.

I am not aware of any bribes in the billions of dollars but I could be wrong.

Picking up where I left off above, howcome with all the bribes we paid Saddam in the 1970s, we didn't get "a whole lot of good will" from him?

I am not aware of any bribes in the billions of dollars but I could be wrong.

Lurker

 

[BPSCG]

You don't find that a bit black and white?

Yeah. Is that bad?

What exactly do you think the purpose of inspections were?

I have no idea. Give Saddam breathing room? That seems to be about the only thing they accomplished.

Inspections are an awful flop.
We like them.
They don't stop what they're meant to stop.
We like them.

They're a bigger mess than UN-SCAM,
They get a laugh from old Saddam,
They don't deter him worth a dam.

We like them.

 

[Upchurch]

Yeah. Is that bad?

In a world filled with shades of grey, it's downright dangerous.

I have no idea. Give Saddam breathing room? That seems to be about the only thing they accomplished.

Breathing room to do what? He doesn't appear that he had any capability to develop WMD's. He didn't invade any other countries.

I'll grant you that he was a right bastard to his own people, but lots of countries do that much.

 

[BPSCG]

Saddam had been contained and had no WMD program.

No WMD program? Then what did he gas 10,000 Kurds with? What did he gas half a million Iranian soldiers with?

He had WMDs. The only question is, what did he do with them? Ten years of inspections never answered that question. In fact, ten years of inspections weren't supposed to answer that question. Saddam was supposed to answer that question, according to the terms of the truce after the 1991 war; he was supposed to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs. He never did that. If he had done that, there would have been little need for more than cursory inspections. The fact that you insist you'd have toughened the inspections is just evidence of what a bad faith negotiator Saddam was.

But at this point it seems the moderates in Iran have pretty much disappeared. I think alot of their voice has been silenced by our actions.

I see. The mulllahs jail or execute their political opponents and it's our fault.

 

[Hutch]

Yeah. He eventually did go to war-war, IIRC. The world paid a terrible price for all those years of "jaw-jaw."

Just for your reference, the Quote was made in 1954.

 

[Upchurch]

No WMD program? Then what did he gas 10,000 Kurds with? What did he gas half a million Iranian soldiers with?

Was that before, during, or after the inspections?

He had WMDs. The only question is, what did he do with them?

And how do you answer a question like that?

Ten years of inspections never answered that question. In fact, ten years of inspections weren't supposed to answer that question. Saddam was supposed to answer that question, according to the terms of the truce after the 1991 war; he was supposed to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs. He never did that. If he had done that, there would have been little need for more than cursory inspections. The fact that you insist you'd have toughened the inspections is just evidence of what a bad faith negotiator Saddam was.

Do you see that, by itself, as reason to re-start war efforts while another, and my opinion, more important effort (i.e. the War On Terror^TM/Afghanistan) is already underway?

 

[Lurker]

No WMD program? Then what did he gas 10,000 Kurds with? What did he gas half a million Iranian soldiers with?

Hmm, perhaps you need to create a timeline. Put gassing of the Kurds on it. Then put gassing of Iranian soldiers on it. And then put the First Iraq War and then put inspections on it. I wonder what that timeline might look like?

I see. The mulllahs jail or execute their political opponents and it's our fault.

Where did I say it was our fault? Dude, you really like those strawmen arguments don't you? Try to stay on point here. All I said was that by attacking Iran, we bolstered the strength and weakened the opposition of the mullahs in Iran. It does not make us complicit in any mullah activity.

Lurker

 

[Mark]

No WMD program? Then what did he gas 10,000 Kurds with? What did he gas half a million Iranian soldiers with?

Churchill and England gassed the Kurds in the 1920s. When do we invade England?

 

[Garrette]

When Churchill is back in power.

 

[Mark]

When Churchill is back in power.

We invaded Iraq only to get one man? We got him. Why are we still there?

 

[Garrette]

Mark, my reply was mostly a joke (sorry for not putting a smiley in, but I rarely use them).

But I feel I need to comment anyway. Are you suggesting it would have been morally supportable to invade, remove Saddam's regime, and as soon as he was captured, leave Iraq to its fate?

Separate from whether you (or I) believe our efforts are actually helping rebuild, is the attempt itself a mistake?

 

[BPSCG]

Where did I say it was our fault?

Here:

I think alot of their voice has been silenced by our actions.

Dude, you really like those strawmen arguments don't you? Try to stay on point here. All I said was that by attacking Iran, we bolstered the strength and weakened the opposition of the mullahs in Iran.

No, you said, "I think alot of their voice has been silenced by our actions." Look at that sentence again. There is a subject ("our actions") and an object ("their voice"). The subject of a sentence is the noun that is doing the action. The object of a sentence is the noun upon which the action is being performed.

I don't see any other subjects in that sentence. Therefore I conclude that when you say, "I think alot of their voice has been silenced by our actions," you mean it's our fault (wittingly or unwittingly, as you like) that their voices have been silenced.

Plus, the entire sentence is in passive voice, which makes it Evil Incarnate.

 

[Mark]

Mark, my reply was mostly a joke (sorry for not putting a smiley in, but I rarely use them).

But I feel I need to comment anyway. Are you suggesting it would have been morally supportable to invade, remove Saddam's regime, and as soon as he was captured, leave Iraq to its fate?

Separate from whether you (or I) believe our efforts are actually helping rebuild, is the attempt itself a mistake?

Sorry (seriously) that I didn't realize you were joking.

I am suggesting that if Saddam himself were the only reason to invade, there would have been a better ways to "get him." In any case, I don't think there was any justification for the invasion. None.

Was Hussein evil? Definitely. Was he worse than some we call allies? Definitely not.

Did he have WMDs? Not after the first Gulf War.

Do I think we should just leave Iraq to its fate? No...but I think we should accept that we blew it big time and try as first priority to bring in real international help. If that means Bush and company have to eat crow, so be it; they deserve it for being so ignorant of history.

 

[Upchurch]

Separate from whether you (or I) believe our efforts are actually helping rebuild, is the attempt itself a mistake?

I have to agree that helping to rebuild is not a mistake. We made a mistake invading Iraq, but as Powell said, "you brake it, you own it."

 

[BPSCG]

I have to agree that helping to rebuild is not a mistake. We made a mistake invading Iraq, but as Powell said, "you brake it, you own it."

Does that mean we should send the bill to al Qaeda in Iraq (mostly foreigners) for rebuilding the mosques, oil pipelines, police stations, etc., etc., etc. that they've blown up since the day Saddam's armies ceased resistance?

 

[Lurker]

Here:
"I think a lot of their voice has been silenced by our actions." Look at that sentence again. There is a subject ("our actions") and an object ("their voice"). The subject of a sentence is the noun that is doing the action. The object of a sentence is the noun upon which the action is being performed.

Ah, you misinterpreted what I said. My bad. I meant that by our actions, some of the more temperate voices in Iran may, of their own volition, be moved to a more anti-US position. I did not mean to imply that such action was done by force, but either through the will of the individual in Iran or through the pressure of a more anti-American environment there. Not necessarily through coercion.

So again you have assumed much. But thanks for giving me a chance to clear it up for you.

Lurker