Submitted to a Candid World

I’d like to address the points you specifically listed with my own observations. My opinions are based on the following biases: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat; I am not a fan of either candidate, and I think either will do rather badly in office for different reasons. I also spent over 2 years in Iraq traveling to different locations around the country. I had a very unique experience there and I think that has given me a unique perspective.

There were 3 major factors used to justify to the Bush administration that it was a good idea to invade Iraq:

1. To set up permanent intelligence facilities deep within the Middle East to improve our information gathering ability.

2. To force Al Qaeda into a defensive posture making it far easier to control the battle space and to allow the US to use its extreme technological edge to create a kill to killed ratio that is staggeringly disproportionate.

3. To scare the other countries identified in the Axis of Evil into being more cooperative with Western demands, and to keep from having to invade or engage Iran and N. Korea directly in conflicts that would be far more difficult than the Iraq campaign was estimated to be.

Of these 3 factors, the first 2 were very successful, while the 3rd was a spectacular failure. This is rather unfortunate given the likelihood of having to now deal with Iran in the near future (something that I would much rather have John McCain doing than Barack Obama).

The opportunity cost of the Iraq war can be broken down into 2 categories: the financial strain on our economy, and the death rate for US military personnel. There is no question that the strain on our economy has been severe. But, this is a short term trend that is very likely to be reversed when Iraq becomes a major strategic partner. Time will tell, but I believe the return on investment will significantly outstrip the initial startup costs of setting up an American friendly nation in the Middle East. And, it may seem counter intuitive, but the rate of military casualties per year since 1980 has hardly changed regardless of whether or not the US was involved in conflict. Just look at the number of casualties during the first terms of the last 4 Presidents:

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

Or check out the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war
It’s hard to argue that the combat deaths in that context are a substantial cost.

So, in my opinion, the opportunity cost of the Iraq war, when considered in a larger strategic context, was actually very low and well worth it.

Finally, I completely agree that the execution of the war was a mistake until the Surge began. Since then, the achievements that have been made are incredible. The reduction in violence and the return of normal life in Iraq has happened at an unimaginable pace. I find it very hard to argue against staying the course in Iraq at this point. And, I did not support the war initially, or at all, during the first 3 years of its execution.

amen parallelsidewalk! Tell it like it is!

Excellent post by FCD.

As for the following two comments, clearly you are attaching an emotional component to a foreign policy and military decision. That is how wars are lost. All wars are fought based on a system of acceptable losses. I find it interesting that you suggest FCD’s completely rational assesment is flawed because he doesn’t have anyone over there and hasn’t gone himself. I assume you will use similar criteria in determining whether or not Obama is fit to make decisions on Iraq? On the other hand, McCain has visited iraq several times and had a son serve there. By your logic he must be more qualified to pass judgement on Iraq? Correct?

To Ames…clearly you favor the ‘cut and run’ approach. In the darkest days of the war, I too was close to abandoning hope. But then I listened to a special ops soldier give a speech on Iraq and it changed my view. He literally begged the audience to not let this war end in defeat. And this is from a guy who has lost a lot of friends over there. There are many more soldiers like him. Do liberals know what’s best for them? Currently we are making amazing progress, to paraphrase FCD’s comment. Now is not the time to flee. Now is the time to keep pushing. This war CAN be won but it will require a different attitude than the one Obama pretends to offer.

P.C., one soldier’s opinion doesn’t count as a strategic assessment of the theater. One of the persistent problems in this war has been misinformation; I wouldn’t trust one soldier alone, especially if selected by a particular news network at 47th & 6th Ave.

FCD, yours are the best developed reasons I’ve heard for the war yet; those three rationales are solid reasons to stay, but as Radioactive indicates, they weren’t reasons to invade Iraq any more than any other country in the Mideast. Further, they weren’t the reasons presented to the United States’ citizens. If you recall the Congressional hearings – and especially the UN speeches by Powell – the causus belli was the WMD lie, not any of your points. The American people may not have voted for the war on your justifications, and they don’t seem willing to continue it on those justifications. The current investment in Iraq is physically and politically unsustainable; the American people, having finally had a chance to vote on the real motives, don’t think highly of them.

And, to the extent that your causes were good reasons to go to war, they’re equivocal to the target – it could have easily been any other mideast country – and still do not excuse the poor planning that’s left us in Iraq this long.

Further, #2 could have more easily been accomplished by sticking more troops into Afghanistan. That we’ve neglected that nation and – by all accounts – allowed Al Qaeda to regrow is inexcusable.

On the cost of the war, check here. If this wasn’t already a ton of money – avail yourself of the “comparison tools” on the site – stacked with tax cuts (!), it’s fiscally irresponsible. The point on casualties has been addressed.

And finally, on the Surge, there’s no showing that the reduction in violence is anything other than temporary and related to the number of troops we have there. This momentary reprieve is being purchased vis armae, and not carved into the nation in any permanent manner. Pull the troops, it goes back to the way it was. The Surge is not a sustainable change.

That said, my girlfriend thinks we should stay, and she’s smarter than me on these (and most) things :-). Ask Marie :-)

clearly you favor the ‘cut and run’ approach.

No one with a shred of intellectual honesty uses that phrase.

P.C., one soldier’s opinion doesn’t count as a strategic assessment of the theater. One of the persistent problems in this war has been misinformation; I wouldn’t trust one soldier alone, especially if selected by a particular news network at 47th & 6th Ave.

The soldier in question, Marcus Luttrell, can be found all over the web. Judge his opinion for yourself. Maybe I’m naive but I tend to listen to Navy Seals.

And this isn’t just one soldier’s opinion. I’ve read probably hundreds of soldier’s blogs since the war began. Without actually counting, I would say close to 80% favor finishing the job. The surge is buying time to get a lot of other things done and the general consensus seems to be that the momentum has changed and permanent progress is slowly being made.

Let’s also keep in mind that the same people claiming the surge is just a temporary reprieve are the same ones that said it would be a complete failure from the start. Maybe it is their ‘stragic assesment’ that is a bit suspect.

Dude, did you see this report from an Obama fundraiser? I don’t know what half these food items are. You’d think such an image-conscious campaign (get that hejab away from me!) would be more sensitive to the “detached elitist” perception. This and that mock presidential seal lead me to question whether they really feel like they need to care.

“Donors sipped wine and bottled water. Waiters wearing black vests, white shirts and black ties served hors d’oeuvres: endive spears of brie, toasted almonds and truffle oil; tuna tartare with passion fruit ponzu and macadamia nut on wonton crisp; beef short rib skewers with Asian flavors.”

Everybody has expensive dinners. The food varies and I’m sure W at least at some point had BBQ at such events. If the food selection in this case were unremarkable in the eyes of people who know about such fundraising events, I’m not sure Real Clear Politics would have wasted a front-page link on it.

So I saw the article and brought it up because Ames has been interested in the “elitist” label as it’s been discussed in the popular press. He’s discussed it as it affects Obama’s education and his tastes and his upbringing and his campaign. The article’s title was “At Least It’s Not Arugula!” So the press connected the selection of food to other “elitist” news items in Obama’s past.

Obama’s campaign has been attentive and careful in crafting his image and if murmurs about elitism continue to get louder, they’re going to have to take steps to present him in an egalitarian light in months to come.

Sorry it’s not related to Iraq, but I figured a comment on a month-old on-topic post wouldn’t have been read.

I shall stay silent on this matter, as I have never worn a tuxedo. : )

“Parallelsidewalk: Wow, so easy to say from behind a keyboard. What makes me think you have nobody over there, and haven’t gone yourself?”

Parallelsidewalk: As I stated in my original post, I was in Iraq for over 2 years. I returned to the US from my last stint on July 6, 2007. And, my younger brother is currently there in his own capacity. So, I find your suggestion a little insulting because I’m betting you have never been there and probably know very few people who were. In addition, you have not contributed anything meaningful to this discussion; instead you chose to attempt to slander me.

“Oneiroi:
#2 Couldn’t have been accomplished before the Bush administration….because Al Quaeda didn’t exist in Iraq until we invaded. So that leaves 1 as being a reason to invade.”

I didn’t claim Al Qaeda existed in Iraq prior to the invasion. I said the administration was trying to force Al Qaeda into a defensive posture. At the time, the area from Northern Africa, through the Middle East, and extending up into the Russian satellite nations was referred to as the Islamic Crescent. Iraq was located directly in the middle of that area. It made strategic sense to open up another front, to divide resources and attention, and to split the entire crescent in half. Iraq’s central location was a great spot to disrupt the movement of money, fighters, and weapons through the entire Middle Eastern region.

“Ames:
but as Radioactive indicates, they weren’t reasons to invade Iraq any more than any other country in the Mideast. Further, they weren’t the reasons presented to the United States’ citizens. If you recall the Congressional hearings – and especially the UN speeches by Powell – the causus belli was the WMD lie, not any of your points.”

Ames, I agree with that. But, I never said these were the reasons used to justify it to the public. I stated “There were 3 major factors used to justify to the Bush administration that it was a good idea to invade Iraq”. These were the internal reasons. It wouldn’t do us any good to publicly announce that one of our chief goals for invading Iraq was to spy on her neighbors. And to address you other point, if you want to know why Iraq was such a good choice, simply look at the map. While other Middle Eastern countries might do, none are as strategically located to keep tabs on the primary antagonists in the region.

FCD’s wikipedia cite refutes his ridiculous claims about “casualties” (by which the typical right-wing warmongering liar means stubbed toes) during various administrations. It does not, at all, in any fashion whatsoever, support it.

The FCDs of the world are the reason it has endless imperialist wars. If only we could make sure they were the only casualties, but all of them at once, we’d have a far more peaceful world.