If this guy makes a positive contribution to the stabilization of Iraq, then he is increasing the chances that this particular "elective" war will have achieved something good, or will at least not have proven a catastrophic humiliation for the aggressor.
Then, next time someone contemplates military action (against, say, that other country that sounds a lot like, "Iraq," only different), he (or she) will have as a recent example a hard won success, rather than a humiliating disaster to guide his (or her) decision-making.
its great what he is doing, but you're pretty vague about who you refer to in contrast to him. Specifically, you seem to assume that everyone opposed to Iraq and who desires withdrawal believes "faux-concern as a political tool to force the departure of U.S. troops on the basis that war = bad and discrediting the evil warmongering Bushitler is more important than the fate of Iraqis anyway"
Understand you point, but there has already been enough tragedy in the Iraq War for someone to successfully frame an argument that another is not worth doing.
What one person claims as a hard-fought victory another will quite easily see as a tragedy. Iraq is and will be a Rashomon of wars.
Just that this particular anti-war guy just might me working to reduce the likelihood of circumstances that will reduce the likelihood of American going to war in the near future.
Success in Iraq would make the military option much more viable in the future.
that everyone opposed to Iraq and who desires withdrawal believes "faux-concern as a political tool to force the departure of U.S. troops on the basis that war = bad and discrediting the evil warmongering Bushitler is more important than the fate of Iraqis anyway"
I didn't say "everyone" believed that, but...
If one opposes the U.S. troop presence in Iraq on the basis of supposed concern for Iraqis, one either thinks U.S. troops are bad for Iraq (i.e. a simpleminded "war = bad") or one does not care whether millions of Iraqis suffer but is cynically and dishonestly citing that concern anyway (i.e. the evil warmongering Bushitler and his wasteful debacle must be stopped at all costs!).
Also, one could say that this guy is just trying to limit the damage Bush's blunder has caused the Iraqis.
I'm sure he sees it that way.
What I applaud is his willingness to do so despite the fact that making Iraqis' lives better may increase the possibility of a course of action he would oppose.
I would just like to make a plea for an end to the "Only an idiot would disagree with me" tone that (ahem, cough!) some people take here.
You simply cannot take the line that Iraq was OBVIOUSLY the right choice (oh look at me, now I'm taking that tone, darnitall). That's a discussion killer, or a flame starter, but not a discussion advancer.
I contend that a phrase like "Bush's blunder" is a great example -- indeed, the first example in this thread -- of the "Only an idiot would disagree with me" tone.
I contend that a phrase like "Bush's blunder" is a great example -- indeed, the first example in this thread -- of the "Only an idiot would disagree with me" tone.
Martin,
I was paraphrasing what I thought might be the motivation of the anti-War anthropoligist who is now assisting the war effort.
I don't see it as Bush's blunder necessarily. I don't think anyone was going to extricate us from this conflict without either a war or a capitulation on our committment that Hussein would never aquire WMD.
Some will question whether it was worth 40 - 150,000 Iraqi lives and the horrors of sectarian bloodshed.
True, but this is a flawed argument as it ignores the opportunity cost: how many Iraqis would have died 2003-2008 had we not invaded? Based on the 84,000/year average annual body count of the regime, one can argue the opportunity cost was higher than the actual cost.
It's not like sectarian bloodshed was unknown pre-invasion; Iraq has two major civil wars in the 1980s and 1990s.
Compare the Iraq War to other wars (Chechnya, anyone?) and the Iraq War looks really good.
Well, World War II looks good (for America) compared to the Civil War.
Iraq has been painful enough for the Iraqis so that for definitely one year during the conflict and possibly the yearly average, more have died than the yearly average under Saddam Hussein, dpending on which estimate is correct.
If Iraq stabilizes and the present form of government flourishes, I'd say this painful genesis was worth it. Others, captivated by the horror (especially of 2006) will not agree.
Either way, the experience has been pretty traumatic for Iraq.
Whatever the average number of people killed by Hussein, I suspect it had gone down after its apogee.
In other words, we need to compare the number of deaths that would not have occurred if we had not invaded Iraq to the Hussein-caused deaths that would have occurred had we not invaded.
Not easy of course, but an estimate taking these qualifications into considerations should be possible.
If I don't get my a## back to work, I'll soon have enough time on my hands to calculate that number.
the number I've always seen as a yearly average is ~36,000.
Yes, that's the number of deaths attributable to the internal security forces; those 36,000 were the grease to keep the machine running.
I think it's fair to also include those killed in the Iran-Iraq war, the Kuwait invasion, and the two civil wars, and those who died as a result of sanctions initiated after the Kuwait invasion. The total is 1 - 3 million depending on whose numbers you uses; 2 million gives you ~84,000 per year over 24 years.
Whatever the average number of people killed by Hussein, I suspect it had gone down after its apogee.
Well, there were peaks during the major conflicts obviously. One could argue the relatively peaceful period from 1994-2003 should be thrown out because the presence of U.S. forces enforcing no-fly zones was a deterrent, in which case the average is closer to 120,000/year. Others have argued the opposite, that we should calculcate based on a theory of continuing containment -- but that ignores the fact international support for sanctions and the no-fly zones was collapsing, partly due to massive bribes from the regime.
We also, of course, don't know what would have happened 2003-2008 absent our intervention. Would there have been another massacre of Shia or Kurds? And so the question becomes very tricky. Given all the uncertainty, I prefer to use the average of all the regime's years, better and worse.
You simply cannot take the line that Iraq was OBVIOUSLY the right choice
Perhaps you can take the line that the justification for the war was obvious, therefore the war was the right choice. And judging the war by the Iraqi suffering is wrong, instead we should judge it by the accomplishment of our goals.
Bill said:
Iraq has been painful enough for the Iraqis so that for definitely one year during the conflict and possibly the yearly average, more have died than the yearly average under Saddam Hussein, dpending on which estimate is correct.
All wars are going to be painful, especially for the loser. It seems to me that some people expect Iraq to of been invaded and its people to not suffer. To me that's like expecting a tumor to be removed and for the operation to not hurt, no blood lost, and no go tissue also cut away. It's just unrealistic.
Basically, I agree with the jist of your argument - that the alternative to the expeditious removal of the man with whom we found ourselves locked in an open-ended and almost certainly unresolvable by 2003 conflict were not pretty.
One could argue that as ugly as the alternatives were, the war is worse.
One could also argue that the most likely alternative, or at least one very plausible one - Al Qaida forcing America to abandon it's containment of Hussein with a series of terrorist attacks that brought isolationists and Al-Qaida appeasers into power was - in the long run - worse, because it would simultaneously bring down America and elevate bin Laden as the guy who killed not one but to - count 'em two - giants.
One could argue that as ugly as the alternatives were, the war is worse.
I feel I can say with confidence that argument is wrong, as fewer people were killed and liberty greatly expanded. Those that disagree are generally either confused about the former or place no value on the latter.
Nothing but bad choices
That's the nature of bad situations. We supported Stalin against Hitler, we supported petty dictators like Saddam against Stalin's empire, we supported a not-great Kuwaiti regime against Saddam, and eventually we chose a bloody war of liberation over tolerating Saddam.
1.11.2008 12:06pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
If this guy makes a positive contribution to the stabilization of Iraq, then he is increasing the chances that this particular "elective" war will have achieved something good, or will at least not have proven a catastrophic humiliation for the aggressor.
Then, next time someone contemplates military action (against, say, that other country that sounds a lot like, "Iraq," only different), he (or she) will have as a recent example a hard won success, rather than a humiliating disaster to guide his (or her) decision-making.
I'm just sayin...
Understand you point, but there has already been enough tragedy in the Iraq War for someone to successfully frame an argument that another is not worth doing.
What one person claims as a hard-fought victory another will quite easily see as a tragedy. Iraq is and will be a Rashomon of wars.
Just that this particular anti-war guy just might me working to reduce the likelihood of circumstances that will reduce the likelihood of American going to war in the near future.
Success in Iraq would make the military option much more viable in the future.
Excellent point. I agree.
Also, one could say that this guy is just trying to limit the damage Bush's blunder has caused the Iraqis.
It's nowhere near that clear. It's possible this thing will turn out ... not horribly, eventually.
Maybe.
But's it's not a no-brainer-good thing, glad we did it type o' deal, by a long shot.
I didn't say "everyone" believed that, but...
If one opposes the U.S. troop presence in Iraq on the basis of supposed concern for Iraqis, one either thinks U.S. troops are bad for Iraq (i.e. a simpleminded "war = bad") or one does not care whether millions of Iraqis suffer but is cynically and dishonestly citing that concern anyway (i.e. the evil warmongering Bushitler and his wasteful debacle must be stopped at all costs!).
I'm sure he sees it that way.
What I applaud is his willingness to do so despite the fact that making Iraqis' lives better may increase the possibility of a course of action he would oppose.
Some will question whether it was worth 40 - 150,000 Iraqi lives and the horrors of sectarian bloodshed.
If Iraq continues to stabilize I might argue it is, but others will have a subjective argument that will be strong with many people.
Yours,
Wince
You simply cannot take the line that Iraq was OBVIOUSLY the right choice (oh look at me, now I'm taking that tone, darnitall). That's a discussion killer, or a flame starter, but not a discussion advancer.
I contend that a phrase like "Bush's blunder" is a great example -- indeed, the first example in this thread -- of the "Only an idiot would disagree with me" tone.
Martin,
I was paraphrasing what I thought might be the motivation of the anti-War anthropoligist who is now assisting the war effort.
I don't see it as Bush's blunder necessarily. I don't think anyone was going to extricate us from this conflict without either a war or a capitulation on our committment that Hussein would never aquire WMD.
I stand corrected. I didn't catch the intent to suppose and paraphrase. But I suspect that's what Dean was reacting to.
True, but this is a flawed argument as it ignores the opportunity cost: how many Iraqis would have died 2003-2008 had we not invaded? Based on the 84,000/year average annual body count of the regime, one can argue the opportunity cost was higher than the actual cost.
It's not like sectarian bloodshed was unknown pre-invasion; Iraq has two major civil wars in the 1980s and 1990s.
Well, World War II looks good (for America) compared to the Civil War.
Iraq has been painful enough for the Iraqis so that for definitely one year during the conflict and possibly the yearly average, more have died than the yearly average under Saddam Hussein, dpending on which estimate is correct.
If Iraq stabilizes and the present form of government flourishes, I'd say this painful genesis was worth it. Others, captivated by the horror (especially of 2006) will not agree.
Either way, the experience has been pretty traumatic for Iraq.
Ha. I was writing my preceding comment before I saw yours.
I have not seen an 84,000 number for Hussein's regime, the number I've always seen as a yearly average is ~36,000.
In other words, we need to compare the number of deaths that would not have occurred if we had not invaded Iraq to the Hussein-caused deaths that would have occurred had we not invaded.
Not easy of course, but an estimate taking these qualifications into considerations should be possible.
If I don't get my a## back to work, I'll soon have enough time on my hands to calculate that number.
Bye!
Yes, that's the number of deaths attributable to the internal security forces; those 36,000 were the grease to keep the machine running.
I think it's fair to also include those killed in the Iran-Iraq war, the Kuwait invasion, and the two civil wars, and those who died as a result of sanctions initiated after the Kuwait invasion. The total is 1 - 3 million depending on whose numbers you uses; 2 million gives you ~84,000 per year over 24 years.
Well, there were peaks during the major conflicts obviously. One could argue the relatively peaceful period from 1994-2003 should be thrown out because the presence of U.S. forces enforcing no-fly zones was a deterrent, in which case the average is closer to 120,000/year. Others have argued the opposite, that we should calculcate based on a theory of continuing containment -- but that ignores the fact international support for sanctions and the no-fly zones was collapsing, partly due to massive bribes from the regime.
We also, of course, don't know what would have happened 2003-2008 absent our intervention. Would there have been another massacre of Shia or Kurds? And so the question becomes very tricky. Given all the uncertainty, I prefer to use the average of all the regime's years, better and worse.
Perhaps you can take the line that the justification for the war was obvious, therefore the war was the right choice. And judging the war by the Iraqi suffering is wrong, instead we should judge it by the accomplishment of our goals.
Bill said:
All wars are going to be painful, especially for the loser. It seems to me that some people expect Iraq to of been invaded and its people to not suffer. To me that's like expecting a tumor to be removed and for the operation to not hurt, no blood lost, and no go tissue also cut away. It's just unrealistic.
War sucks.
Basically, I agree with the jist of your argument - that the alternative to the expeditious removal of the man with whom we found ourselves locked in an open-ended and almost certainly unresolvable by 2003 conflict were not pretty.
One could argue that as ugly as the alternatives were, the war is worse.
One could also argue that the most likely alternative, or at least one very plausible one - Al Qaida forcing America to abandon it's containment of Hussein with a series of terrorist attacks that brought isolationists and Al-Qaida appeasers into power was - in the long run - worse, because it would simultaneously bring down America and elevate bin Laden as the guy who killed not one but to - count 'em two - giants.
That would be bad.
Nothing but bad choices.
I feel I can say with confidence that argument is wrong, as fewer people were killed and liberty greatly expanded. Those that disagree are generally either confused about the former or place no value on the latter.
Nothing but bad choices
That's the nature of bad situations. We supported Stalin against Hitler, we supported petty dictators like Saddam against Stalin's empire, we supported a not-great Kuwaiti regime against Saddam, and eventually we chose a bloody war of liberation over tolerating Saddam.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.