Are Iraq's people better off now than before the invasion?

[Amp1]

Some members constantly iterate that the people of Iraq are better off now than when ruled by the despot Saddam. I beg to differ. Check some of the threads related to this topic and consider the question. Consider their quality of life, living standard, life expectancy, ect.

If you have any thoughts on the topic I'd appreciate your input.

Oh yeah, I cast the first vote, The people are hurting Bad.

 

[Astronuc]

It's a bit like asking is one better off being hung or being shot. It doesn't matter which, one is still dead.

Some Iraqis are better off, others are worse off.

I can't see with the chaos and armed factions kidnapping and killing people that the majority of Iraqis are better off.

Maybe the Kurds are better off, but the Shiites and Sunnis seem to going down the road of mutual destruction or at least suffering.

 

[russ_watters]

A lot depends on how you define "better off". There are certainly some aspects of being an Iraqi that are worse than before the war and there are certainly some aspects that are better. Overall? It depends on what is important to you.

 

[BobG]

That's impossible to answer at this point in time.

Kurds are better off ... unless Iraq disintegrates and Turkey and/or Iran decide an independent Kurdistan is intolerable. Then life for Kurds takes a turn for the worse.

Shi'ites at least have a better hope for the future. Then again, not only do they have to worry about terrorists and Sunnis, but they have rival militias even within their own sect. If Iraq disintegrates, they could wind up being "protected" by Iran - marginally better than being controlled by Sunnis.

Sunnis are much worse off. Most of the terrorism and insurgency takes place around their homes. If Iraq holds together under its current alignment, Sunnis have to live under Shi'ite controls. If Iraq disintegrates, the Sunnis are ones left with no oil fields. The best hope for Sunnis is a civil war that results in an intolerable independent Kurdistan. In that event, Turkey and Iran might find it better to back a Sunni invasion of Kurdistan than to do the invading themselves.

In fact, if the US were to pull its troops today, a Shi'ite section protected by Iran and Sunni control of both the Sunni and Kurdish regions under a new Sunni dictator would probably be the most likely scenario.

 

[russ_watters]

It may be of interest what Iraqis have to say on the issue...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228

 

[Astronuc]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1389228

That link is Dec 12, 2005, three months ago. Things have gone somewhat downhill since then. What are Iraqis saying now? And which Iraqis do the media interview?

However, it seems there was more optimism 3 months ago around the general election and before the surge in violence. Although Sunnis did not seem as thrilled as the Shi'ites or Kurds.

See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_elections

The Prime Minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, has some stiff opposition.

 

[turbo]

I recently watched an interview with an Iraqi woman on www.democracynow.org and she was pleading for the US to either start fixing the infrastructure so people could have electricity and clean water, etc, or just get out. Our invasion has done nothing to improve the security of most Iraqis - just the opposite has happened, with death squads from the Ministry of the Interior torturing and executing Sunnis, and Sunnis retaliating against the Shi'ia. Mixed neighborhoods are being "ethnically cleansed" by the stronger factions in each locale, further increasing the divide between the factions, and tearing families and friends from one another. If you want to know what Iraqis think, you would be well advised to avoid all the networks with their "embedded" pet reporters and seek out reports from independent reporters. They may have an axe to grind, but at least you'll get a perspective that is a bit more balanced than the one the US military allows us to see. In war, truth is the first casualty.

 

[Amp1]

Russ in reply to your post, I posted this in the intro:

...Check some of the threads related to this topic and consider the question. Consider their quality of life, living standard, life expectancy, ect.

How right you are Turbo-1,"In war, truth is the first casualty."

 

[Pengwuino]

A better question is to ask whether or not the Iraqis will be better in the future then they were back under Saddam.

It's similar to asking whether the Japanese were better off in 1947 then they were before they began their asian campaign.

 

[BobG]

Three years later, the good, the bad and the ugly by Richard Engel.

Then: Then there was the time I lost a bag containing $9,000 in cash and my passport. It was returned, an event which Saddam Hussein personally recognized on Iraqi state television in 2001. (The incident was used by the propaganda machine to show the innate honesty of the Iraqi people.)

Now: I cannot walk the streets. I would be kidnapped.

But Penqwuino's right. The important question is what happens in the future.

 

[Amp1]

Thats a hope I think of the Iraqi people and people worldwide.

 

[Pengwuino]

Personal safety was a direct result of one’s ability to appease the state, or be lucky enough to stay out of its way. People were so afraid that men told me they wouldn’t even talk to their wives or children about Saddam.

Saddam fought three wars while in power - resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands - so there was a good chance of getting killed or wounded in one of them.

People seem to ignore this stuff...

 

[Cyrus]

I voted yes, becuase their future, for the first time, is in their own hands. If they decide to end the voilence they can turn Iraq around. With Sadam, they had no say. Times are tough right now, but in the long run they can be be bettter. With Sadam still in power, they could not.

 

[Pengwuino]

I voted yes, becuase their future, for the first time, is in their own hands. If they decide to end the voilence they can turn Iraq around. With Sadam, they had no say. Times are tough right now, but in the long run they can be be bettter. With Sadam still in power, they could not.

This is what most people ignore. It is obvious to almost everyone that their health care, education, and other things are worse off then pre-invasion iraq... but someone tell me what country thrives during and months after a war?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ in reply to your post, I posted this in the intro:

Check some of the threads related to this topic and consider the question. Consider their quality of life, living standard, life expectancy, ect.

I saw it the first time, Amp, but that doesn't help much at all. Life expectancy may be a matter of statistics (and I'd like to see some...), but "quality of life" and "living standard" are somewhat subjective. Beyond that, some of the most important changes since Saddam are the most subjective: such as safety and freedom. So the point still stands: it depends a lot on what is important to you. You may want to ask yourself: is the right to vote worth sacrificing safety in the short term if you've never had the right to vote before? If people hadn't answered that question in the affirmative 250 years ago, the US wouldn't exist today.

Plus, that thing about the future is important as well. Everyone recognizes that there is still an ongoing conflict there and the government is still consolodating its power. Yet simutaneously, people demand results now or else declare the action a failure. Those two positions are mutually exclusive, yet commonly simultaneously held.

 

[scott1]

I voted yes.They might not seem like there doing better now but I think in decade or two they will probally have a better ecconmy then they did now.

 

[Amp1]

I guess it is nice to have the possible prospect of an adequate or good standard of living, adequate or good health and life expectany and so on ... 10, 20 maybe 30 years down the road. And sure - people what what they want now, immediately. The matter resolves to this IMO, what good does these fruits do me if I'm not alive to experience them? Langston Hughs in his poem 'Democracy' imparted that sentiment, what good would it do him if he were dead before the freedom arrived.

If I were an Iraqi, I imagine I should take the looonnnggg view as suggested. Meanwhile, I'd just brush off the death of my women, children and loved ones to the resignation that things will get better just give it time. Kinda like Sam Cooke's song 'I know a change going to come'.

I am getting a picture of what's happening from some of the replies, the Kurds are actually better off, the Shiites and Sunnis will deplete each other and what's left will be easier to manage by whomever ultimately gains control.

 

[alexandra]

I guess it is nice to have the possible prospect of an adequate or good standard of living, adequate or good health and life expectany and so on ... 10, 20 maybe 30 years down the road. And sure - people what what they want now, immediately. The matter resolves to this IMO, what good does these fruits do me if I'm not alive to experience them? Langston Hughs in his poem 'Democracy' imparted that sentiment, what good would it do him if he were dead before the freedom arrived.

If I were an Iraqi, I imagine I should take the looonnnggg view as suggested. Meanwhile, I'd just brush off the death of my women, children and loved ones to the resignation that things will get better just give it time. Kinda like Sam Cooke's song 'I know a change going to come'.

I am getting a picture of what's happening from some of the replies, the Kurds are actually better off, the Shiites and Sunnis will deplete each other and what's left will be easier to manage by whomever ultimately gains control.

Excellent points, Amp1.

 

[alexandra]

A local opinion

A perspective from within Iraq:

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Three Years...

It has been three years since the beginning of the war that marked the end of Iraq’s independence. Three years of occupation and bloodshed.

Spring should be about renewal and rebirth. For Iraqis, spring has been about reliving painful memories and preparing for future disasters. In many ways, this year is like 2003 prior to the war when we were stocking up on fuel, water, food and first aid supplies and medications. We're doing it again this year but now we don't discuss what we're stocking up for. Bombs and B-52's are so much easier to face than other possibilities.

I don’t think anyone imagined three years ago that things could be quite this bad today. The last few weeks have been ridden with tension. I’m so tired of it all- we’re all tired.

Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it’s on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

 

[Pengwuino]

Theres far more perspectives of people who have been there a long time saying things are better then under saddam (many of which actually lived under the guy) alexandra. Anecdotal evidence off someones blog is not convincing.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess it is nice to have the possible prospect of an adequate or good standard of living, adequate or good health and life expectany and so on ... 10, 20 maybe 30 years down the road. And sure - people what what they want now, immediately. The matter resolves to this IMO, what good does these fruits do me if I'm not alive to experience them? Langston Hughs in his poem 'Democracy' imparted that sentiment, what good would it do him if he were dead before the freedom arrived.

Wow, with that attitude, we'd still be British. People chose to accept the risk of death so that their children can have the possibility of freedom.

 

[Hootenanny]

Wow, with that attitude, we'd still be British. People chose to accept the risk of death so that their children can have the possibility of freedom.

What's wrong with being British?

 

[Pengwuino]

What's wrong with being British?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Getting a good laugh in this section of the forum is a rarity

 

[Hootenanny]

I thought the mood could do with lightening...

 

[alexandra]

Theres far more perspectives of people who have been there a long time saying things are better then under saddam (many of which actually lived under the guy) alexandra. Anecdotal evidence off someones blog is not convincing.

The blog I referred to is written by a young woman who has lived in Baghdad all her life. She was born there. She lived there under Saddam, and she lives there now. She knows what she's talking about. You should read some of those entries, Pengwuino - they're about everyday life. They're about the danger, the fear, the way there is no electricity, the crime. They're heart-breaking. Don't tell me Riverbend's views don't count: she's living the reality. Things have happened to her and her family - truly awful things. Sigh...

 

[Cyrus]

Im sorry alexandra, but the comments of one person does not reflect the feelings of a population. You would need some sort of statistical sampling of the population.

 

[edward]

The last survey taken in regards to the conditions in Iraq was a multinational effort done in 2004. It was bad then. I doubt it is any better now. It isn't even possible for someone to take a survey. That is why we have to rely on bits and pieces coming from individuals.

 

[alexandra]

Im sorry alexandra, but the comments of one person does not reflect the feelings of a population. You would need some sort of statistical sampling of the population.

cyrusabdollahi, the OP topic is "Are Iraq's people better off now than before the invasion?" Surely people who are living in Iraq and living the (in my opinion, hellish) reality of what's happening there should have a voice about whether or not life is better there than before. I presented this as an example of a relevant 'voice'. Ignore it if you don't like what they say. Find a blog that says how marvellous everything is there now and post the link to that instead. We were not asked to do a statistical study to address the OP: we were asked our opinion. I have given mine, and I have provided some of the evidence I use to inform my opinon. I don't formulate my opinion entirely on the basis of a single blog - I do a lot of reading, I watch the news, I listen to analyses... I totally torture myself staying aware of all the horrifying things that are happening in this so-called 'civilised' age and time I am living in.

 

[Cyrus]

I am not ignoring what they are saying alexandra. I am telling you that ONE blog is not enough to say how the Iraqi's feel about the situation. Do you think that if I found ONE person on the street and asked their opinion on America that it would reflect what the majority of what the population thinks? That is why you NEED a statistical survey.

 

[russ_watters]

The last survey taken in regards to the conditions in Iraq was a multinational effort done in 2004. It was bad then. I doubt it is any better now. It isn't even possible for someone to take a survey. That is why we have to rely on bits and pieces coming from individuals.

The survey I posted was taken 4 months ago.

 

[dsky]

I suggest that all the M people be involved and take charge in restoring peace in their brother's land, find a way to find a common ground for peace to grow as both are believers of "A", The most stable and sincere Arab countries should be the one to go in and establish peace in Iraq. All this seemingly horrible civil war is a muddied pool made by the western Leeches trying to hide the oil sucking. oops IMO only

 

[Cyrus]

You know you really are going to get booted for your nonsense opinions, right?

 

[dsky]

nonsense opinions, I don't think so.

 

[Cyrus]

Yea, saying things like why germany should have exterminated the jews is pretty much nonsense.

 

[vanesch]

I voted yes, becuase their future, for the first time, is in their own hands. If they decide to end the voilence they can turn Iraq around. With Sadam, they had no say. Times are tough right now, but in the long run they can be be bettter. With Sadam still in power, they could not.

I think that what's blinding people here, is the certainty of the past versus the possibility of the future. As such there's always more "hope" for the future than for the past, and is judged more positively.
So, yes, the probability exists that, 20 years from now, Iraq will turn out to be better than it was, 15 years ago. And as what happened 15 years ago is fixed, and clear, and wasn't very bright, this makes people think that the situation 20 years from now can potentially be better - so it was maybe worth the effort.
But what people seem to forget is that we should not compare what was the situation under Saddam, 15 years ago, with what will happen now, 20 years in the future. We should compare what would have evolved out of Saddam and no war, 20 years in the future, with what will evolve out of the current situation, 20 years in the future.
That's a harder exercise, because we now need not one, but two crystal balls.

The Iraqis now have a dubious potential of taking their own fate in their hands (at least if it pleases the occupying forces), which can go for the better or the worse (a bright young democracy, or a civil war, with a quite high probability for the latter) - so where will this lead us in 20 years from now ? A wide spectrum of possibilities.
If there would not have been an invasion, sooner or later Saddam would die (with a little help from his friends, or from old age). If the international community, the UN and so would not have sacrificed their legitimity for this invasion, they might, at that point, have intervened if the situation turned chaotic, or the Iraqis might have taken their fate in their own hands at that point - without the West taking the blame for it, without the polarisation of the West versus the Arab world and with a lot more legitimity.

So to me, if the argument is that we should make the balance not now, after 3 year, but rather after 20 years from now, of the improvement of the Iraqi situation thanks to the invasion, I answer that you don't know what was the alternative you'd have to compare to and that you don't know where things will be in 20 years.
And if the predictions over 3 years (namely what would have been the outcome of the invasion, just before doing it) are already terribly off the mark, I really don't give much credit to the predictions over 20 years from now.
In other words, that invasion was nothing else but a totally random act, and if it improves anything in the long run, then that's sheer luck.