What's your limit?

[Tesserat]

For supporters of the war in Iraq:

Is there a point where the casulties in Iraq become so great that you would say "It isn't worth it"?

What would be your limit for american deaths?

For civilian deaths?

 

[Jon_in_london]

For civilian deaths?

You dont have to worry about civillian deaths. The US doesnt even record how many they kill because we all know the filthy terrotists just aint worth it.

 

[Jon_in_london]

like these ones:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3212156.stm

Only the children's mother, Anwar Jawad, and another daughter, 14-year-old Hadil, survived the onslaught, which was unleashed on the family after they drove unwittingly up to an American roadblock.

"Only God knows why they opened fire on us like that," says Anwar. "I was happy when the troops came in April and ousted Saddam Hussein, but now I think they are scum."

 

[Tesseract]

You dont have to worry about civillian deaths. The US doesnt even record how many they kill because we all know the filthy terrotists just aint worth it.

I'd agree that it's hard to get accurate numbers, but what I'd really like to see is one of the war supporters make a statement about what they think the conflict in Iraq is worth, measured in human lives.

And not as "Saddam killed x many, so therefore we're ten times as good as he was, but something like "Well, if x many Iraqi citizens get killed, but we end up with a working democracy in Iraq, then it was worth it.

And what would be the the limit for the statement "If x many US soldiers get killed, but we end up with a working democracy in Iraq, then it was worth it.

I've seen lots of debate about whether the war was/is a good thing, but not much about what are tolerable limits. I think that the Bush administration is avoiding even looking at the question.
Of course, it's not something they could announce, because if they said that their limit is 1000 US dead soldiers, their enemies would do their best to meet the quota.

But what about the people on these boards who support the action in Iraq? Have you even thought about the question? Are you of the opinion that it doesn't matter how many people are killed, it only matters that the job gets done?

Is their any point where you would look back and say "the cost was too high"

How about board members who don't support the action. Any thoughts?

 

[Thumper]

I live in a country with 225+ years of freedom. Taking the long-term view of this, the allowable number of martyrs would be extremely high. It is only if we turn tail and flee that those people would have died in vain.

 

[peptoabysmal]

For supporters of the war in Iraq:

Is there a point where the casulties in Iraq become so great that you would say "It isn't worth it"?

We are finished when there is a viable government in Iraq. To pull out before then would be a repeat of when we pulled out of Vietnam. Civilians who sided with the US would be slaughtered and the country would be plunged into a bloody civil war. Isn't preventing this tragedy that would be the US's fault "worth it"?

What would be your limit for american deaths?

See above.

For civilian deaths? [/QUOTE]
For real civilians, one is too many, but it is a fact of war. For the non-uniformed combatants (terrorists), I hope we kill as many of them as we can. Part of the deal with the terrorists in Iraq is that they want to induce as many civilian casualties as possible to give the US bad press. This is why they fire their RPG's at US troops from within crowds, to draw fire on the crowd. I give the terrorists credit for being clever and devious. Fight us with the press... never mind what atrocities the terrorists commit, everyone forgets all about that when one Iraqi civilian is killed by US fire. Remember during the war when Saddam's troops deliberately used civilians as shields? But, no, it's those gung-ho cowboy American troops' fault, the bloodthirsty bastards!

 

[Tesserat]

I live in a country with 225+ years of freedom.

It's an admirable record

Taking the long-term view of this, the allowable number of martyrs would be extremely high. It is only if we turn tail and flee that those people would have died in vain.

Martyrs? Is that the right word? Are the martyrs the Iraqui civilians, or the American soldiers? And what would you say is "extremely high?" And do you mean an extremely high number of Iraqi casualties, or American?

I'd place extremely high at about 10,000. I can't imagine the number of American casulties aproaching close to that, but if I understand you correctly, you'd support an extremely high number of deaths if it accomplished the establishment of a true democracy in Iraq.

By not saying what extremely high means to you, it sounds a bit like the Bush crowd spin masters. Talk of great sacrifice, but not what it actually means.

I think that a lot of the civilians have died in vain already, in that their deaths weren't necessary to protect the US from Saddam's
"WMD's"

 

[shuize]

What was the number the anti-UN-sanction folks were quoting for civilian deaths before the war? Wasn't it some amazing high number like 200,000 civilians per year?

If so, my number would be 200,001 civilan deaths per year.

As for American casualties, I think even one is too many to die for that ◊◊◊◊ hole. But as noted above, without a viable government in place, now is not the time to bug out.

 

[Tesserat]

We are finished when there is a viable government in Iraq. To pull out before then would be a repeat of when we pulled out of Vietnam. Civilians who sided with the US would be slaughtered and the country would be plunged into a bloody civil war. Isn't preventing this tragedy that would be the US's fault "worth it"?

Worth what? That's my question. I agree that viable government in Iraq should be the goal. But are you saying that there is no point where you'd say "it isn't worth it"? That no matter how many American or Iraqi citizens die, you'd never say "maybe it would be better if we left".

For real civilians, one is too many, but it is a fact of war.

That seem to me to be another way of saying "whatever it takes"

For the non-uniformed combatants (terrorists), I hope we kill as many of them as we can. Part of the deal with the terrorists in Iraq is that they want to induce as many civilian casualties as possible to give the US bad press. This is why they fire their RPG's at US troops from within crowds, to draw fire on the crowd. I give the terrorists credit for being clever and devious. Fight us with the press... never mind what atrocities the terrorists commit, everyone forgets all about that when one Iraqi civilian is killed by US fire. Remember during the war when Saddam's troops deliberately used civilians as shields? But, no, it's those gung-ho cowboy American troops' fault, the bloodthirsty bastards!

I detest either side killing civilians, but the terrorists using civilians as shields is a particularly revolting kind of murder.

I don't think of the Americans as gung-ho cowboys, (just please don't kill any more Canadians), but neither do I think that they were prepared for the urban fighting that's going on.

On the subject of numbers, to pick some ridiculous ones, if this ends with a viable government in Iraq, at a cost of 50,000 US troops, and half the Iraqi civilian population, wolud it be worth it?

What if the alternative was another dictatorship, but someone who didn't kill off his subjects?

 

[Tesserat]

What was the number the anti-UN-sanction folks were quoting for civilian deaths before the war? Wasn't it some amazing high number like 200,000 civilians per year?

If so, my number would be 200,001 civilan deaths per year.

As for American casualties, I think even one is too many to die for that ◊◊◊◊ hole. But as noted above, without a viable government in place, now is not the time to bug out.

I've been looking for stats on civilian deaths befor the war, but right now, the ones I can find are all very biased, on way or the other.

Such as Tony Blair is talking about 400,000 infant deaths because of Saddam withholding oil money from going to hospital programs.
But on another site, we have:

Denis Halliday was UN Assistant Secretary General and head of the oil-for-food program, before resigning his career in protest over sanctions. He says: "For anyone to imply that the men and women of the Baghdad government, Ministry of Health in particular, deliberately withhold basic medicines from children in great need, is monstrous and says more about the unhealthy mind of the accusers than anything else." Press release on "Changing the Spin on Iraq" by Denis J. Halliday, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq

Hans Sponeck was the next of the UN oil-for-food program. Responding to claims (such as in a US State Department report) that the Iraqi government deliberately withholds medicines, he says: "It is not --- I repeat, it is not, and you can check this with my colleagues --- a premeditated act of withholding medicines from those who should have it”

From transcript of meeting with Hans von Sponeck and members of a Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility delegation, on April 5, 1999, in Baghdad. It is available at www.scn.org/ccpi, and a report of the delegation back to WPSR and the parent medical organization IPPNW is at www.wpsr.org/mideast.

from link


No matter which is correct, I'll agree Saddam is bad.



And i'm not asking if now is the time to bug out, I'm asking if there is a point when you say "let's stop letting americans die in Iraq".

 

[Garrette]

Seem to be two issues; I'll start with the secondary one first:

I have no hard data on medicines withheld, but the Halliday quotations are interesting:

"For anyone to imply that the men and women of the Baghdad government, Ministry of Health in particular, deliberately withhold basic medicines from children in great need, is monstrous and says more about the unhealthy mind of the accusers than anything else."

"It is not --- I repeat, it is not, and you can check this with my colleagues --- a premeditated act of withholding medicines from those who should have it”

Notice first that Halliday does not say it didn't happen.

Notice second that Halliday suggests that pointing out the wrongdoing of another is worse than the wrongdoing. Saddam is the monster of Halubja and the destroyer of 4500 Kurdish villages. I would use "monstrous" more for those actions than for an accusation.

I have been to hospitals in the Kurdish provinces and three hospitals in Baghdad. The hospitals in the Kurdish provinces had penicillin. The three in Baghdad did not. The staff indicated that while they did have some drugs prior to the war, they had not have penicillin for many years.

But the Kurdish provinces were under the same sanctions and used as their budget the same Oil for Food monies as the rest of Iraq; in fact, the Kurdish OFF money came through Baghdad.

Why would it be different?

I think because their Ministries are different. Not their hospital staff, for the most part. The staff I met, including Hospital Administrators, were intent on serving their patients as best they could. But officials in the Ministry of Health at the national level were not health care professionals first, they were Saddam loyalists first. They were greedy bastards who were allowed to steal money that Saddam had not stolen first. This didn't happen in the Kurdish areas which had/has its own Ministry of Health but which showed no signs of stealing money.

--------
--------

Finally, regarding the OP. I know there is a limit to what the US could and should sustain before pulling out without success or victory in whatever terms you choose to define it. I do not agree that it is quantifiable before the fact. Nor do I agree that number of casualties is the sole arbiter of success.

Which wars can we retroactively apply this to?

Before the US Civil War, should Lincoln have put a limit on acceptable casualties? He did not, but as the war progressed, many in the north felt that the limit, undefined as it was, had been exceeded and wanted peace before victory.

What about WWI? Should England have placed a limit prior to hostilities? (Actually, this is one instance in which a limit may have served a purpose...).

What about the US? US casualties were comparatively slight, but I doubt few in the US wanted many at all.

WWII? What should the limit have been there? What should it have been made without the luxury of hindsight?

Of course there is a limit to what can and should be endured, lost, or sustained for any endeavor, whether warlike or not. But to suggest that a set number can or should be placed on some of them, especially when that number regards casualties, is short-sighted and simplistic.

 

[Garrette]

What about the question in reverse?

What, in the minds of those against the war and/or the occupation, would be sufficient to justify either or both?

 

[Chaos]

I don´t think a finite number should appply.

However, leaders should determine which ratio of casualties (casualties over time or per enemy casualty) they are willing to sustain. If that is exceeded, they should either drastically change their plans or try to end the war.

Edited for typos, and to add:
Also, I guess any military operation has a goal. If that is not being achieved, ANY losses are too much.

 

[a_unique_person]

I live in a country with 225+ years of freedom. Taking the long-term view of this, the allowable number of martyrs would be extremely high. It is only if we turn tail and flee that those people would have died in vain.

And the people of Chile and Vietnam sing your praises every day.

 

[Tesserat]

I think because their Ministries are different. Not their hospital staff, for the most part. The staff I met, including Hospital Administrators, were intent on serving their patients as best they could. But officials in the Ministry of Health at the national level were not health care professionals first, they were Saddam loyalists first. They were greedy bastards who were allowed to steal money that Saddam had not stolen first. This didn't happen in the Kurdish areas which had/has its own Ministry of Health but which showed no signs of stealing money.

Thanks for the insight



[

Finally, regarding the OP. I know there is a limit to what the US could and should sustain before pulling out without success or victory in whatever terms you choose to define it. I do not agree that it is quantifiable before the fact.


This sounds contradictory to me. If I understand you, a better way to say this might be "we can only say what a limit should have been, not what it should be". If this isn't what you mean, then I don't get it.



Which wars can we retroactively apply this to?

Before the US Civil War, should Lincoln have put a limit on acceptable casualties? He did not, but as the war progressed, many in the north felt that the limit, undefined as it was, had been exceeded and wanted peace before victory.


And would that have been an undesirable result, peace before victory?



What about WWI? Should England have placed a limit prior to hostilities? (Actually, this is one instance in which a limit may have served a purpose...).

What about the US? US casualties were comparatively slight, but I doubt few in the US wanted many at all.

WWII? What should the limit have been there? What should it have been made without the luxury of hindsight?


In WWI and II, the allies were fighting for their freedom, in which case it doesn't make sense to stop. In Iraq, the Americans are fighting for the Iraqi's freedom, so if they leave, the biggest damage to the states is political.

I don't think the US got into WWI or II for altruistic reasons.


Of course there is a limit to what can and should be endured, lost, or sustained for any endeavor, whether warlike or not. But to suggest that a set number can or should be placed on some of them, especially when that number regards casualties, is short-sighted and simplistic.

It sounds like you're saying that limits should never be set for any endevour. You surely can't be making such a broad statement, because counter examples are easy to find. Such as "I'll drive 10 more miles, then I'll have to turn around, because I don't know how far it is to the last gas station. Corporations, Governments, ect, set limits all the time, in order to minimize risk. To suggest that this isn't sometimes necessary is simplistic.

In a case such as Iraq, if it got to a point where casulties were continuing to mount, and there was no change in the political situation, or in the stability of the country, would you say that there shouldn't be a limit to how long the US stays in Iraq?

 

[Tesserat]

What about the question in reverse?

What, in the minds of those against the war and/or the occupation, would be sufficient to justify either or both?

The agreement of most of the world that it's a necessary thing to do.

The reason that GWB and Tony Blair were giving as the reason that it was neccesary to invade imediately, was that Saddam had the temperment, desire, and the resources to post an immediate danger to the western world.

Most of the world disagreed with this, and as it happened, they were right.

If there was evidence that Iraq had WMD, the misiles to deploy them, and they were making aggresive moves towards another country, I'd say that was enough reason.

 

[Garrette]

All quotations by Tesserat:

This sounds contradictory to me. If I understand you, a better way to say this might be "we can only say what a limit should have been, not what it should be". If this isn't what you mean, then I don't get it.

I suppose I am saying this for some cases. More accurately, I'm saying that I don't personally have the wisdom to set a limit beforehand for some things. Fallible Garrette, that's me.

And would that have been an undesirable result, peace before victory?

A meaningless question without context. Neither peace nor victory serves as a desirable absolute. Do I think we would have been better served with a negotiated peace for the USCW? No.

In WWI and II, the allies were fighting for their freedom, in which case it doesn't make sense to stop. In Iraq, the Americans are fighting for the Iraqi's freedom, so if they leave, the biggest damage to the states is political.

So we should be stingier when acting altruistically?

I don't think the US got into WWI or II for altruistic reasons.

I won't disagree, on assumption that you realize your statement is a simplification for purposes of brevity.

 

[Tesserat]

I don´t think a finite number should appply.

However, leaders should determine which ratio of casualties (casualties over time or per enemy casualty) they are willing to sustain. If that is exceeded, they should either drastically change their plans or try to end the war.

Edited for typos, and to add:
Also, I guess any military operation has a goal. If that is not being achieved, ANY losses are too much.

If by casulties over time, you mean x many casulties by some set date, isn't that the same thing as a limit?


Maybe a very blunt way to state the question would be,
"What are you willing to pay, in the blood of Americans, for the freedom of Iraq?"

 

[Garrette]

It sounds like you're saying that limits should never be set for any endevour. You surely can't be making such a broad statement, because counter examples are easy to find. Such as "I'll drive 10 more miles, then I'll have to turn around, because I don't know how far it is to the last gas station. Corporations, Governments, ect, set limits all the time, in order to minimize risk. To suggest that this isn't sometimes necessary is simplistic.

Agreed. If I implied otherwise, then my bad. I am saying that limits cannot usefully be made on simplistic terms such as an exact number of casualties.

In a case such as Iraq, if it got to a point where casulties were continuing to mount, and there was no change in the political situation, or in the stability of the country, would you say that there shouldn't be a limit to how long the US stays in Iraq?

This is more properly a rhetorical question since it answers itself. You're asking if we should continue to put resources into a lost cause, yes?

The answer is no.

The difficulty is determining when the cause is lost. Some might say the difficulty is also in determining the cause.

The agreement of most of the world that it's a necessary thing to do.

The reason that GWB and Tony Blair were giving as the reason that it was neccesary to invade imediately, was that Saddam had the temperment, desire, and the resources to post an immediate danger to the western world.

Most of the world disagreed with this, and as it happened, they were right.

If there was evidence that Iraq had WMD, the misiles to deploy them, and they were making aggresive moves towards another country, I'd say that was enough reason.

I don't agree with the first one at all. I never much cared for popularity as a basis for decision-making.

Can't argue with the second sentence.

The third sure seems correct to me.

The fourth is where a problem arises. There was evidence. Just turns out that the evidence was apparently wrong. Whether Bush/Blair knew it was wrong prior to the war is another matter, but the evidence existed. Proof did not exist, but evidence did.

In addition, the fourth does not indicate a requirement for world agreement.

As long as we're doing hypotheticals, assume that Bush and Blair had been right and we found craploads of WMDs when we rolled into Iraq. Given that the majority of the world would still have disagreed, would Bush/Blair still have been wrong?

 

[Tesserat]

So we should be stingier when acting altruistically?


Well, the US didn't go into Iraq for altruistic reasons. They went in to keep the US safe from weapons of mass destruction. When they didn't find WMD, they said that they were there to free Iraq. Now they're staying to repair the damage. That's PR, not altruism.



I won't disagree, on assumption that you realize your statement is a simplification for purposes of brevity.

Yep, agreed, it was a complex situation.