Look at the Iraq war in utilitarian terms

[Stoneburner]

Maintaining stability in the region is going to require alot of monies. Furthermore, the occupation has been rather brutal out of necessity, it is difficult to keep the nation functioning w/o it. Abu Gharaib was not a freak incident, american troops are doing what is necessary for them to obtain their inchoate goal, and if sexually molesting female muslims to break the spirit of their male kin is necessary, then so be it.

Let's say you don't have a problem with the brutality itself. Can you justify spending several hundred billions to bring about essentially the same state of affairs that existed before the invasion? Seems like a waste of cash plain and simple.

Thank you, come again.

 

[nageov3t]

yes.

but I don't think it will happen. I think we'll end up cutting and running from Iraq, and the Iraq we leave behind will make Taliban-controlled Afghanistan look like a day care center.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Maintaining stability in the region requires more than just a lot of money. Allies! Significant numbers of real, participatiing allies is and was and will be the key. Without them, all the money in the world won't fix Iraq.

The prospects of recruiting real, pariticipating allies at this late date are nil.

 

[Red Dawn]

It was a mistake to go to war there in the first place and now young Americans and innocent Iraqi's are paying the price for the Dub's ill conceived and ill advised Excellent Adventure.

 

[GroundedSailor]

The war was a mistake in the first place and it has been compounded by lack of foresight, poor planning and a lack of understanding of how the region would respond.

The very reason for going to war has been one it's worst consequences - terrorism.

 

[yllus]

I tend to think that a democratic state exists as an idea rather than as something built out of fiscal expenditure.

The primary goal is to provide the security and infrastructure for that idea to take firm root in Iraq, with the ultimate goal being that having spent the first gazillion there you won't have to spend the next twenty gazillions mopping up the aftermath of numerous terrorist attacks - the situation in the ME isn't going to magically reverse itself if U.S. foreign policy returns to the status quo. Leaders in the ME have a stake in keeping their downtrodden people focused on the West as enemies instead of themselves.

 

[BDawg]

*sigh* You liberals are all the same. Dubbya has already told us this war won't cost anything, and I believe it. He said it would pay for itself with the oil money. I believe him.

If we need to spend more to make the area stable, just pump more oil!

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: yllus
...with the ultimate goal being that having spent the first gazillion there you won't have to spend the next twenty gazillions mopping up the aftermath of numerous terrorist attacks

You're assuming Iraq would have been involved in terrorist attacks against us in the future had we not invaded ???

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: yllus
I tend to think that a democratic state exists as an idea rather than as something built out of fiscal expenditure.

The primary goal is to provide the security and infrastructure for that idea to take firm root in Iraq, with the ultimate goal being that having spent the first gazillion there you won't have to spend the next twenty gazillions mopping up the aftermath of numerous terrorist attacks - the situation in the ME isn't going to magically reverse itself if U.S. foreign policy returns to the status quo. Leaders in the ME have a stake in keeping their downtrodden people focused on the West as enemies instead of themselves.

Your entire premise assumes that the people have democracy as their first concern. Perhaps their concept of freedom is more about self determination, which may not be what this administration wants.

What if they want an Islamic theocracy? It certainly is heading that way.


Oh, and that also assumes your money spent is on an area that sponsored terrorists. As pointed out Iraq was not significant in that way. There are NOW some of course. It also assumes that invading a country makes other people want to adopt their invaders policies. That didn't go well with Nazi Germany in WWII. People resisted, although many conformed.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: yllus
...with the ultimate goal being that having spent the first gazillion there you won't have to spend the next twenty gazillions mopping up the aftermath of numerous terrorist attacks

You're assuming Iraq would have been involved in terrorist attacks against us in the future had we not invaded ???

no assumption needed, ready my sig....

"What if they want an Islamic theocracy? It certainly is heading that way."


Thats their CHOICE, something they never enjoyed under Saddam. Their freedom and the extra security to the world and the US made the war worthwhile IMO.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It was a mistake to go to war there in the first place and now young Americans and innocent Iraqi's are paying the price for the Dub's ill conceived and ill advised Excellent Adventure.

I wish I knew VBA and could script this response with the push of a button...on command

 

[piasabird]

As the Iraqi forces start to take over more of the responsibility they can deal with some of these terrorists using their own brutal methods. I do not think we go about dealing with the terrorists in the right way. If they are coming accross the border, then bomb the neighboring civilians as a reprisal and make an anouncement that when foreign terrorists are found, that you intend to bomb civilians in the country that they came from. They like brutality, so I say give it to them. We bombed civilian cities in WWII and we may have to in this war also.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: yllus
I tend to think that a democratic state exists as an idea rather than as something built out of fiscal expenditure.

The primary goal is to provide the security and infrastructure for that idea to take firm root in Iraq, with the ultimate goal being that having spent the first gazillion there you won't have to spend the next twenty gazillions mopping up the aftermath of numerous terrorist attacks - the situation in the ME isn't going to magically reverse itself if U.S. foreign policy returns to the status quo. Leaders in the ME have a stake in keeping their downtrodden people focused on the West as enemies instead of themselves.

I agree. The problem is that we haven't dedicated adequate resources to protect the peace in Iraq during its reformation, and can't do so absent a draft.

I'm very torn about which way to go with Iraq, in that I really think the only way we might conceivably attain a positive outcome there is through continued (and probably escalated) sacrifice of American money and lives. I fear that our current "strategy" is being made up on the fly, and essentially puts us on a very slow, painful vector toward failure.

This, more than anything else, is why I resent OIF. Even if one accepts the underlying rationale for going to war (which I personally don't), this has been the worst-planned major military operation in history. We planned a successful military strike, which got us to "Mission Accomplished," but had essentially no plan for what would follow.