War in Iraq - 3 Years

We used to have very heated discussions about this here on the forum, but for some reason we rarely touch the subject nowadays.

I just realized that the war is almost exactly 3 years old today. I read somewhere that in the period 1961-1965 1864 American soldiers were killed in combat in Vietnam. I decided to check what the number was in Iraq and found out that 1856 American soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq since March 19th, 2003.

What are you thoughts about the future in Iraq? I am aware of that there is a very small possibility that any American government would allow the number of casualties to escalate the way it did in Vietnam after 1965, but does the similarity between the numbers of casualties in the two wars during the "initial years" worry you? What was supposed to be a walk in the park has turned into a much more lengthy operation and today we learn that the US troops has launched the most massive airstrikes since the war begun.

What are your thoughts about the war and the future? Are they optimistic?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

what interests me mostly, like you can guess if you know me, is the Kurds.
and unfortunately, Americans always acting in their petty political and economical interests doesn't give much hope:

(from a newspaper) "Washington likely will not endorse the Kurdish strategy fully. Kurdistan faces the dilemma of having its territory spread across four countries -- Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey -- each of which has a core interest in repressing their Kurdish minorities to dampen any separatist tendencies. For its part, the United States has complex relations with each of these countries, and so cannot afford to promote the existence of an independent Kurdistan in the region."

always the same discourse.

but Kurds are tough, and like Armenians, won't give up so easily. and i'll be with them.

__________________
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Well... How do you figure that USA would be able to secure stability in Iraq by favouring one ethnic group while ignoring the others? As for now the most important thing is that all the ethnic and religious groups in Iraq are being represented in the governing of the nation, and the Kurds are having more influence in that than they did before the war started. It's not the Kurds or their struggle for a unified Kurdistan that is the biggest problem right now, you must have noticed that. The Kurds aren't the ones doing the fighting. Sure, I wish the Kurds could have their own country as they desire but let's take one thing at the time. The fact that the Kurds are no longer being discriminated and being treated as 3rd grade citizens in Iraq must be worth something.

What in the world goes on nowadays with that war? I don't keep up with it. There's still a war going on?

you're right in that last thing, no doubt. nota bene though:
1) i didn't say "favor one group and ignore the others" - where did you read that? surely *not* in my post. the other groups of course must be respected.
2) i didn't say either that it's the "most important problem right now", just that it's what interests me most. and like everyone, i have a right to be more personally interested in one aspect than in the others.

As long as Bush and the Republicans control things, I'm optimistic about very little.

__________________
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

The way it stands I doubt there will be any resolution to the war anytime soon. Here in Britain just as we're getting some troops home a new lot is being sent out. At the moment we are just curculating our troops and frankly I see no end for a good while as this trend continues. War makes idiots stubborn and Bush and Blair are high up there with stupidity.

__________________

What well-reasoned arguments.

I remain cautiously optimistic in regards to Iraq. On one hand, there's still plenty of violence, and a number of hurdles to overcome. On the other hand, it's been only 3 years. America took 13 to write and ratify its own constitution, and it devolved into Civil War at one point, but here we are. And yet people talk about these same things in Iraq as if they represented unmitigated failure.

In reality, such judgements are premature; not just by a month or a year, but by a decade. The establishment of any democracy (let alone one in the Middle East) is a momentous accomplishment, and a corresponding level of difficulty should be expected. To think otherwise would be naive. And to think that the accomplishment is not worth the difficulties is, in my opinion, very short-sighted.

History is not kind to bets against individual freedom, so I'll take my chances with the optimists. I have a sneaking suspicion that the freeing of 25 million people will be looked upon favorably a few decades from now, to the point at which people will find it difficult to believe we ever had debates like the one we're having now.

Great thread, by the way, Peter.

This is a bit of a quibble, but my recollection at the start of this was Bush saying that this would be a long conflict, and that he expressed concern that the American people had the fortitude to support a long war. I don't remember it being marketed as a walk in the park.

I still think we are there under false pretenses, and that it is actually an economical interest. I disagree that US economical interests are "petty" - we're the biggest economy on the planet. That doesn't give us the right to enforce our interests at the point of a gun and the cost of lives, but it certainly isn't "petty".

That said, now that we're there, I can't imagine any smart way to wrap things up without actually accomplishing the goals (however decorative) that we've stated in going there. Until there is a democracy established, we can't just withdraw - we'd have accomplished very little if we did.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

difficulties? what difficulties? i haven't noticed any difficulties being added in my day to day life...oh...oh wait....thats because the war is in Iraq...silly me...

I have the feeling many of us would be singing a different song, if this war actually was anything like the Civil War (which you mentioned in some kind of comparision...)...but for most I am afraid, its a non-exsistent war...people forget about it because it's not in their own backyard...sure they are reminded of it from time to time but most people have more important things to worry about, it seems...I am of course, not exempt from this. I am just as bad as most.

__________________
letterboxd

Sure you do. I just found the fact that it was what you associated the most with the war in Iraq a little unusual.

You didn't say that the other groups would be ignored, but by supporting a full scale Kurdish uprising in all the countries the Kurds are living in while Iraq is on the brink of civil war would be idiocy. And it would consequently be to ignore all other groups since it would irritate not only the Shiites and the Sunnites but also lead to chaos in the entire region.

Thanks.

Well, I think the general impression was that the US Army wouldn't have any difficulties in taking control over Iraq and Bush did proclaim the war being over a couple of months after the invasion had started.

I too think that a withdrawal is not to think of and probably won't be within the next 5 years.

I think that is a very valid point. It's easy to say to the Iraqi people that the cost for freedom is high and hundreds of thousands have to pay with their lives. That's what America did in their civil war. But that was in the 19th century and this is the 21st. I sometimes wonder if it is not possible at this point to achieve goals like this without wars. And the people of Iraq is experiencing more violence than ever... I just feel horrible for them and even if many of the points made in favour of the American presence in the country are right, it angers me that it's such a politically charged issue in USA and Europe while in reality people are dying like flies in Iraq. I think I have discovered that I care less and less about the real reasons for this war which used to upset me like hell (still does really). I just wish the killing would stop.

stress on America...think about it....we didn't have people coming over from different lands fighting our war for us. Everything about the Civil War was created by Americans...suppose if it wasn't? do you think you'd still say it was worth it when you looked back and learned a lot of Americans died for their own freedom at the hands of foreigners, who didn't even really have the right to be here, since it wasn't their war?

I am just going to jump in quickly to say a few things.

As far as false pretenses go, I am sure both sides will be arguing about it for years. The arguments I hear against the war kind of go like this:
1. Bush lied about WMD's.
I think that the people participating in this thread are smart enough to realize that Bush AND most of the Senate AND various Intelligence agencies didn't lie-- they were just wrong. Although, recent documents (yet to be translated, yeah our CIA is really on top of things) that were collected at the start of the war when we infiltrated Saddam's palaces and various offices of state bring up some interesting questions. Stephen Hayes over at The Weekly Standard, which is as most should know, unabashedly conservative has covered this story for quite a while. You can access the US army office of intelligence website which has made some of the documents public at http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/pro...docex.htm#iraq

The Weekly Standard's website, where you can read Hayes numerous articles on the documents is www.weeklystandard.com

What exactly these documents contain is a big question that needs to be answered. Whether they support our pretenses for going into the war or not-- these documents are very important. I myself have only been able to glance at some of them.

more later. . .

__________________
I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
T.S Eliot, "Preludes"

I do think it is a little more complex than that, really. There are extreme tensions between the different groups of people in Iraq and there are fractions that want nothing but chaos in the region. Even if USA has a great responsibility for the security in Iraq (they did in fact eliminate the previous guarantee for security - dictator or not), they can't be blamed for all the reasons for what is looking more and more like a civil war. But, yes, the invasion can indirectly be seen as the trigger. And, yes, there are an awful lot of people dying now and it's only a natural reaction among the Iraqis to look at the foreign troops and wonder if this is what democracy is really like, and then the equally natural consequence is that some will feel that with Saddam in control of things, "we could at least go out at night".

They weren't even wrong. I think what they know now is exactly what they knew then. The WMD was a motive, an argument presented to the public in a way to make an invasion appear as absolutely necessary to secure the safety of the American people. As you perhaps remember there was a schism between the Bush administration and the UN inspectors, led by Hans Blix, before the war started. Blix basically said that there was no evidence for existing WMD:s in Iraq but that further inspections were needed before every possibility could be ruled out. This was not what the Bush administration wanted to hear because it didn't serve their official motive to go into Iraq. And they needed that motive desperately to sell the war to the American public.

I think it is a very big mistake to blame the Bush administration of lying. Instead they should be respected for their magnificent skills in strategic media tactics. Not that I think they are incapable of lying, but that, when you think of it, no "evidence" presented by them was ever presented as a fact, and can therefore neither be regarded as a lie. More like deliberate misinformation that could be analyzed in various ways, including the way that Bush et al choose to analyze it and with, for them, desirable results.

The WMD debate is totally absent in War in Iraq discussions of today. It's completely irrelevant. The fact that those who said all the time that they weren't going to find any WMD:s were right makes absolutely no difference. And I think that the Bush administration knew very well that it would not make a difference when the invasion really had become reality. It was a way to get things moving and it worked.

This way of manipulating the public is of course nothing that is typical for the Bush administration, on the contrary. I think in modern democracies this is how all governments make the people think the way the government wants them to think. I guess that the difference between any other issue and the War in Iraq is that we are in fact talking about a war which makes it more serious in the minds of many people.

I didn't know a 500 word essay was a requirement.

First, on the matter of entering the war under false pretenses. This is how I see the invasion...Bush wanted to invade Iraq and remove or kill Saddam Hussein. But he needed a reason he could sell to Congress and the American people. The "He's a bad guy reason" wasn't sufficient. And that would make it hard to explain why we sat on our asses in the 80s, during the Reagan Administration while Saddam was actually using chemical weapons (that we helped supply) against Iran and his own people. But by Fall of 2002, we were outraged at a leader who would do such a thing. It was a carefully timed outrage.

But as many have said, the reasons for invasion, disingenuous or not, don't matter much now. We're in the hornets' nest, now we need to find a repellant.

Then there's something I'll call "the moderate Islam factor." Prior to our invasion of Iraq, I believe the extreme animosity for the US was relegated to a relatively small number of radical Muslims. And I don't think going to Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban and chasing down bin Laden did anything to change that. We were entitled to pursue those actions. But the invasion of Iraq was a whole different story. That was seen by much of the Muslim world (and much of the rest of the world) as an act of arrogant imperialism. The danger of spreading the extreme animosity from radicals to moderates became very real. I'd rather deal with 1000 terrorists than 10,000 or 100,000. The goal after 911 should have been to reduce the number of terrorists, both by killing existing ones and preventing the creation of new ones through improved relations with Muslim countries. A preemptive attack on a Muslim country that had nothing to do with 911 is not the way to improve relations. It is however, a way to convince moderate Muslims that the US is a dangerous and arrogant aggressor who can't be trusted.

Bringing democracy to Iraq...ya know, I don't ever recall hearing that until the WMD proved nonexistent. I don't recall hearing it until it became obvious we weren't leaving and would remain as occupiers. If that was part of the initial plan back in the Fall of 02 and Spring of 03, George didn't share it with us. The only thing he shared was WMD, ties with al Qaeda and nuclear danger. The sales pitch for invasion was "imminent threat of WMD" not "Democracy for Iraq." George and Company seem to be moving the goal posts.

In the case of Iraq's potential democracy, does the end justify the means? Will a democracy achieved by an invading foreign force be anything like a home grown democracy? Will the invading force be seen as liberators or as unwanted interlopers? And will democracy lead to something we want? Or will it lead to an Iran-like theocracy or a government hostile to the US? My guess is we won't allow either one of those options. So, Iraq is free to have a democracy as long as it's a democracy we approve.

I thought lessons about the folly of imperialism had been learned in the 19th and 20th centuries. Maybe not.

i agree with Yoda on one thing, it's a great thread you created!, whether you think i'm full of idiocy or not.

I don't think you're full of idiocy at all. And thank you!

ver saa god!

You make a very good point. There is no sacrifice for this war. The only ones sacrficing are those unlucky enough to be in the military while Bush is President.

I'm certainly not in favor of a draft but an all volunteer military gives the Administration the power to do what it wants without complaint from a non-sacrificing public. If there was a draft, I suspect the streets would be flooded with protestors and the climate would be similar to the Vietnam era. But...no pain, no worry.

It was necessary for the pain to hit home in the form of a natural disaster to shake the public out of its' complacency and recognize the incompetency and lack of compassion in this Administration.

Yeah I know, I am so glad that this diaster happened, I mean all of us complacent Bush lovers would still be buying our SUVs and watching Fox. I just installed a DVD player in my Geo so I can watch CNN reruns whilst I save gas.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton