Gates Makes Sense

CAC1001

I think that's oversimplifying it. If we had killed Hussein with a few thousand dead alongside, we'd still have had the same problem, with terrorists trying to take control and fighting. And the objective was never to colonize Iraq. If that was the goal, we'd have set up a permanent puppet government and given access to the Iraqi oil solely to American companies.

He was an incredibly brutal and oppressive dictator though. He wasn't a more benign dictator like Mubarak. That said, again I am not saying wanting to establish a liberal democracy in Iraq was reason enough on its own to invade, I just mean it is a nice thing to get in the end.

As for prosperity, I don't know, time will tell.

It might have been genocidal, but they were also at war with the Soviet Union. It was a "killy everybody" mentality they had, and I was just pointing out that that doesn't always work in war.

Even in the bombings of Germany, it didn't necessarilly work. Today some view it that we could have forgone bombing the major German cities because it just turned the German people against us more and also did not work to stop the German war production (in fact, German war production increased despite the bombings). What stopped the German military was when we attacked the oil refineries, which they could not operate once bombed.

War is about many things IMO.

I think you can argue that the Bush administration was not thorough enough in its intelligence-gathering, or was overzealous, but the administration all thought Hussein had WMDs. This had been thought of as far back as the 1990s under Bill Clinton as well. One of the arguments given by Democrats on why not to invade Iraq was that Hussein would likely use said WMDs on U.S. soldiers.

nismaratwork

Right, we tried, and failed at that. See Haliburton's pullout.

Mubarak was not benign. In addition, there are tons of brutal and oppressive dictators... why him?

So does history.

**** might, it was. I'd add, it very nearly DID work, and it certainly worked for the allied powers. I think you need to become more familiar with the history of warfare.

Again, history may judge, but the results speak for themselves.

Yes, but there are only a few ways to conduct a war if you want to win. If your "win" is a police action or adventure, it's not a war.

I'd argue for deception, but we'll have to wait for history on that.

CAC1001

The goal from the get-go was to turn Iraq into a democracy.

Mubarak wasn't any Hussein though, or Ghadaffi. And I said that just because Hussein was a dictator was not at all justification enough to have invaded Iraq, for the reasons you cited (there are plenty of other dictators).

History shows quite a few nations to have become successful democracies with prosperous economies, many others have failed at the attempt. Chile is an example of a success.

From my understanding of it, part of the reason the Nazis lost to the Soviets was Hitler's infringing on the operations and messing things up, if that is the case, you're right, but then one could reason that the Nazis could have beaten the Soviets a lot easier by making friends with the Soviet peoples.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

nismaratwork

Really? That wasn't the case that was made to the international community, or rather, not the primary case. It's also not a legal reason to invade even a dictator's country.


No, he was sane, but you said "benign" which is very different. Lets keep those goal posts firmly planted, OK?

It's an intersting case, but hardly the norm, and it wasn't the result of a war.

They shoud have left the Soviets alone... making friends would not have been likely given Stalin. I suspect it would have just delayed the inevitable. They also could have won if they had a concept of the weather and terrain, but that's also not the point.


No, I'm saying that I BELIEVE there was deception, but I recognize that I am not an impartial judge, and that history makes the calls. That is not a fallacy, it's admitting humanity. In addition, there is evidence of deception, and an attempt to quash dissent (Plame, Powell...). In a better world, Bush W. would have been removed before sending us into the "graveyard of empires", and Iraq... IMO.

CAC1001

It wasn't the primary cases, but it was one of the goals upon overturning Hussein for the WMDs.

Mubarak didn't slaughter his own people or oppress them in the way Hussein did or Ghadaffi.

Japan, South Korea, and West Germany (now Germany) were successes that were the result of war though.

Making friends with the Soviet peoples would have made it a lot easier to fight against Stalin as the people would not have been fighting against them.

You are misunderstanding me. You said:

in response to my saying the bombings of the big German cities didn't stop the German war machine.

To this, I said, post hoc ergo propter hoc, in other words, just because we bombed the cities and then Germany lost doesn't mean it was the bombing of the German cities that made them lose the war.

Gokul43201

What do you call it when a task billed at $100B ends up costing an order of magnitude more than that? Remember, the Bush admin fired economist Lawrence Lindsey, when he said that the war might cost as much as $200B, rather than the $100B estimate that was publicized by Rummy, Cheney, et al. Where are we now, somewhere near the $1T mark? More, if you include indirect costs, like healthcare for vets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_B._Lindsey

CAC1001

Just because something costs a lot more than expected doesn't mean it is a failure. Medicare has ended up costing a lot more than expected too, but I wouldn't say it is a failure of a program, just that it has ended up costing far more than was estimated. Just because the war has ended up costing far more than was anticipated doesn't make it a "failure," it means it was a lot more expensive than was initially thought.

nismaratwork

CAC... you've gone beyond logic, moved so many goalposts I'm losing track (Mubarak is benign -> he's no Hussein... no kidding, few are), and frankly seem only interested in the echo of your views. If you think Iraq was an honest war with a successful outcome, we must live in different universes.

Gokul43201

The administration fired someone who said the war might cost up to $200B. They didn't think the citizenry would consider the results (deposing Saddam, instilling democracy in the ME, securing the WMDs, reducing the terrorist thread to the US, and inflicting payback for September 11) worth $200B. If all of that is not worth $200B, I don't see how the argument can be made that some of that is worth $1T. And if it can't, then I don't see how one can call it a success.

It's not a question of expectations, or poor calculations, but one of justification. If the $200B estimate was going to be hard to justify, how do you justify a ten-fold bigger cost, with no additional benefits?

CAC1001

You would be mistaken.

I never said it had a successful outcome, I just do not see it as a failure either. I really think it is too soon to tell at the moment.

CAC1001

I don't judge the success of it based solely on the financial cost, but as said, I do not declare it a success, I just don't see it as a failure. I think whether it was a success or not will take more time to determine.

nismaratwork

Prove it... once.



War is a win, or a lose... see previous quote from a rather respected general.

ThomasT

We've been repeatedly and sometimes painfully reminded that it's a mistake to take the proclamations of politicians as evidence of the truth.

The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US. The Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq no matter what and the propaganda campaign leading up to the invasion have been well enough demonstated.

Countering weapons of mass destruction was not the reason. Dismantling a despotic regime in order to spread freedom and democracy was not the reason. (The US government has and will, it seems, continue to support oppressive regimes whenever it's deemed 'in the national interest' to do so.)

Didn't Iraq have these before the invasion?
You mean aside from the US?

Is the US going to maintain any permanent military base(s) in Iraq? I don't know. But iff that's the case, then maybe the propaganda and the invasion and the subsequent effort might be considered necessary and the cost justifiable.

Still, hundreds of thousands of killed and injured Iraqis. Millions of displaced Iraqis and ruined lives. Thousands of killed and injured Americans. A devastated Iraq infrastructure.

That's a lot of collateral damage.

Whether or not Gates' statement makes sense depends on who's evaluating it. Some players benefitted from the Iraq 'war' and will benefit from future deployments of big American land armies. Others (most people, I would guess) won't.

In any case, I think that American Secretaries of State and Presidents should have their heads examined regularly.

nismaratwork

VERY well said, and factually correct. A fine turn of affairs that I can only assume will be appreciated by most, and ignored by some.

I give it:

CAC1001

Prove that I'm not only interested "in the echo of my own views?" Now you've lost me. You seem to have a problem with a person disagreeing with your POV. A person disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are only interested in their own way of seeing something.

It can take time to determine whether certain wars have been won or lost.

CAC1001

I would disagree a propaganda campaign was demonstrated, what was demonstrated was that a lot of the information presented on why Iraq was a threat turned out not to be true. There's a difference.

The U.S. government has supported oppressive regimes when it was the lesser of the available evils. If you have the choice between a liberal democracy (and when I say "liberal" democracy, I don't mean the modern American definition of liberal that means a leftwing mindset, I mean the term liberal as in respecting human rights, freedoms, etc...) being established or an oppressive regime, you go for the liberal democracy.

What too many people don't realize is that democracy itself is not a panacea. Democracy is a necessary component for freedom, but in and of itself, will not result in freedom. Democracy in its pure form is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. What you can end up with in these Middle Eastern nations is a democracy that votes into power an incredibly oppressive (to women and anyone who disagrees with it), incredibly anti-Western government.

Germany voting in Adolf Hitler and then voting to give him dictatorial powers is one of the most infamous examples of this (albeit in Europe).

Establishing a liberal democratic government is a tough thing to do, and oftentimes as a result, you end up having to support a dictator who is friendly to you. This may mean overturning a democratically-elected government in the process, but only if said democratically-elected government would be worse than the dictator.

Mubarak was an example of such a regime. The fear was his being thrown out of power could result in the Egyptians putting into power a very oppressive, extremist government. He was a dictator, but he was not the kind of dictator Hussein was or Ghadaffi is/was.

How is the U.S. a substantial threat to Iraq's sovereignty?

nismaratwork

That's patently untrue, and something I can prove through my postingh history. Disagreemet based purely on ideology isn't just that, it's propoganda.



That must be why I kept mentioning history! Gosh!

Yeah... time's passed, we lost. In the end it's a bunch of civilians who are toppling the regimes we've armed and funded buying their oil. So... you tell me where we won; respond substantively to the points raised by Gokul, and more than just rhetoric with ThomasT. Until then, you just appear to be selling something that only a fool would buy.