Sareth wrote:War, disgustingly, makes a LOT of sense... if you aren't the one actually fighting it. If it didn't make sense and have reason behind it, no one would risk it.
Actually, I was relating to my past friends in Simi Valley, CA. The "Booyaa" boys, aka the Weasles Motorcycle club. None of which had ever actually seen combat. They were all for Bush's War. In the case of Iraq, both the US and Iraq would have been better off without the invasion. Saddam wasn't threatening anybody. He had nothing to threaten with. He was contained. Everyone else, including Shroeder and Chirac, told him that, while Blair was busy fabricating the intelligence reports about Iraq's WMDs. The insane one there was Bush.
I'm not against war, in general, I support the effort in Afghanistan. But, don't tell me that it's rational. One side or both is usually not playing with a full deck. I agree that you don't usually have a good alternative. That does not make it rational.[/quote]
Saddam hailed 9/11, as the only nation in the world (The Taliban, if I remember correctly, were silent despite sheltering Al Qaeda). Whether he really didn't have anything going aside, it was proven that he'd had WMDs in the past and that he has functioning programs that were on the freezer sans money. The anti-war crowd is also the anti-sanctions crowd. Saddam was not in his box, only temporarily contained, the sanctions towards him were under increasing pressure. Furthermore the UN had passed 'grave consequences' over a decade ago if he did not comply, which he did not. The US was the only one to, with Britain, to go forth and enforce these 'vague consequences'. The UN also set forth a mandate for US occupation after the successful invasion, perhaps because it felt forced to, but regardless it lends some international legitimacy.
I'd also like to point out the depravity of the Saddam police state and that a period of chaos, its length dependant on the competence and strength of the occupier and new regime, is expected from a newly formed state/regime. Since 2003 Iraqi civil rights, with the exception of areas under insurgent or criminal control, have been greatly expanded, and since 2004 the economy has been booming.
'The man with the Deadly Lens'? Ever see that movie? Terrorists use the media. I'm not saying the media does not often bring actual and factual truths to the public, but it's scope is sadly limited.
Despite the incompetencies of Rumsfeld and the Media (whom I'd dub wrong and wronger quoting the book 'How to Make War' last edition: 2003) the security situation, while worsening, had it's foundation renewed and expanded during the years of 2003-2006. The year of 2007 was the tipping point, while in 2008 it became very obvious for those in the know that the insurgency had been well and truly defeated. Diplomatic gains were solidified in January and are likely to reach a tipping point late in the year with the demolition of religious parties in the upcoming national elections.
These gains will be much harder to find in Afghanistan due to it's fragmented nature, geograpy, distance to the US and proximity to Pakistan, where the Taliban originated.
The Iraqi war has been resoundingly won... I refer to the longwarjournal.org for accurate strategic and battlefield information and grand strategy.
Does victory excuse improper means? As I would say, 'improper means' is hugely debatable. But I would venture to say that when sacrificing lives, the bulk of responsibility lies in the results (i.e. some of the worst things in the world have been perpetrated by those with the best intentions).
Iraq is a better place, it no longer can or will threaten the world. It has civil rights, increasing prosperity and a much brighter future by any austere scientific measurement. The cost will be roughly one trillion dollars in upfront US taxdollars with another trillion in benefits (but this will come back to benefit the economy like the rise of the post-WWII middle class ex-soldiers), four thousand lives (at a casualty rate of 30% of the Vietnam war per soldier per tour) and a unknown single-digit hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and foreign insurgents, criminals (forming the support element) and civilians.
I personally was not afraid of Iraq before the war and I saw that more trouble than necessary was coming when they botched the occupation. I supported the war because Iraq for it's own sake sorely needed a regime change. This is not to say that Iraq was not hostile to Israel, the West and the US specifically and supported terrorists not linked to Al Qaeda... but fear is such a spoony reason for war.
I remember how the public would bemoan Iraq and hail past wars such as the Korean or enjoy it's conquests of land in America and Australia at the expense of the natives or take land from Germany after the world wars or colonize South Africa (which btw. was largely empty due to it's topography before the Brits and Boers settled there (one could even go so far as to argue it was desolate and that the whites of South Africa are aborigines, not that this excuses apartheid but it gives food for thought, especially in view of the racism against white and non-blacks by the ANC).
Iraq is a better place now and it cost a lot. People these days are not willing to pay the cost unless it's completely black and white, which a situation where local insurgents kill innocents and blame it on the occupiers (this happens a LOT in Afghanistan, as well as misreporting or fake claims for compensation or bribes are used to cancel raids) in the face of the most collateral-friendly fire systems and doctrines in the history of man... yes, one can blame the flaws in its execution and the casus belli in the first place: If one desires a perfect world, or one pretty close it.
But I know man is evil. And if good men require 100% of themselves rather than 99% or 95% than great evil will prevail, or at least survive in corners of the world.
And as for the casus belli... it is very arguable that the British and American intelligence agencies at the time were NOT fabricating evidence, and indeed believed in most or all of their claims as the truth or close to the truth. I will agree that they manipulated potential evidence, perhaps on orders, in the belief that they were correct and would be proven right, thus enabling them not to sweat the details.
Yes, the war was clearly started for ulterior motives (that was so obvious), but I do not believe they were knowingly lying. Rather they were incompetently and erronously using what they thought was the truth for an excuse.
I do not like it, nor am I willing to accept it, but I will not crucify something as good as the invasion and occupation over moderate selfishness and severe incompetence mixed with altruistic motives resulting in enormous human suffering.
Because already now Iraq is a better place for most and the inhabitants realize this (despite the ingratitude of some, though I suppose they are somewhat justified), and in a decade or two their children will praise the past.
I haven't been in the military but I would like to serve as a contractor or US military in any theatre of operations/war. Sadly this path remains blocked to me for now (I want to retire after 20 years!). Respect for your tours. I mean no disrepect by disagreeing with any of you, personally or intellectually.
