Iraqis still ask if U.S. invasion was worth it

[mkemse]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five years after U.S. and British forces swept into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, many Iraqis are asking if the violence and upheaval that turned their lives upside down was worth it.

The human cost is staggering -- anywhere between 90,000 and 1 million Iraqi civilians killed, according to various estimates; nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead; while 4 million Iraqis are displaced.

Keep in Mind That this conflict is now Costing the United States $12billion Dollars a Month, yes billion not Milion and yes per month not per year

What is your opinoin on what the Iraqi's think, has the Human cost and the Finicail cost been worth it, with no apparent end in sight??

[TomOfSweden]

As far as the Iraquis are concerned they're still in minus from the invasion. But it's a bit short-term view to see it in. Democracy takes many years to evolve into something useful. Right now everything sucks ass in Iraq. They have less safety and less protection from the law than they had before. I still support the invasion.

[Ozme52]

As far as the Iraquis are concerned they're still in minus from the invasion. But it's a bit short-term view to see it in. Democracy takes many years to evolve into something useful. Right now everything sucks ass in Iraq. They have less safety and less protection from the law than they had before. I still support the invasion.

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.

[mkemse]

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.

after 5 years and currenty spending $12 billion a month i hardly see ANY Bright Spot

[Ozme52]

after 5 years and currenty spending $12 billion a month i hardly see ANY Bright Spot

Don't complain to me. Go tell Reuters. It is their report you used to start this conversation and it is their right to show both sides of the debate.


They used the term 'bright side'

[mkemse]

Don't complain to me. Go tell Reuters. It is their report you used to start this conversation and it is their right to show both sides of the debate.


They used the term 'bright side'

i know they used that term, that was a genric remark directed at them not you, i know it was their report not yours

[Thorne]

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

True enough. As far as I can determine, the only possible connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was financial support, probably indirectly. If that justified invasion then virtually every Islamic nation would have to be targeted.

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.

I have to disagree with you here, Oz. While I agree it would have been nice for Bush Sr. to finish him off, the UN mandate for the war was to push him out of Kuwait. Once that was done the job was done. If we'd tried to go further chances are we would have alienated the meager support from those Arab countries which were supporting us. We would have been virtually alone in the attacks and with no supply base or local air bases for support. It's even possible that Iran, which remained neutral and out of the way while Iraq was pummeled, may have sent troops across the border to prevent us from getting to Baghdad. It could have been a disaster.

[Ozme52]

I have to disagree with you here, Oz. While I agree it would have been nice for Bush Sr. to finish him off, the UN mandate for the war was to push him out of Kuwait. Once that was done the job was done. If we'd tried to go further chances are we would have alienated the meager support from those Arab countries which were supporting us. We would have been virtually alone in the attacks and with no supply base or local air bases for support.

That was certainly the reasoning and the rationalization at that time... and it was short sighted. Hussein continued to persecute shiites, kurds, and anyone in Iraq who vocally objected to his methods. He cheated on the oil for food agreements he made with the UN. And he almost certainly used that money to support terrorism worldwide under the presumption that creating chaos was to his advantage.

It amazingly paralleled the apeasement policies that allowed Hitler to rearm Germany in the 1930's... but that's certainly debatable.

If Iraq had been subdued then, everything would have been different... maybe worse, but more likely better.

It's even possible that Iran, which remained neutral and out of the way while Iraq was pummeled, may have sent troops across the border to prevent us from getting to Baghdad. It could have been a disaster.

At the time, Iraq and Iran were beligerents, enemies. Iran would have welcomed Hussein's elimination, and they did when it finally happened. Iran (supporting insurgents) presumably stepped into vacuum we left by not getting the occupation right in the first place.

The Wehrmacht took Yugoslavia with a minimal force and couldn't control the population with 400,000 troops. Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Personally, I rolled my eyes when Bush claimed victory on that aircraft carrier.

[Thorne]

That was certainly the reasoning and the rationalization at that time... and it was short sighted. Hussein continued to persecute shiites, kurds, and anyone in Iraq who vocally objected to his methods. He cheated on the oil for food agreements he made with the UN. And he almost certainly used that money to support terrorism worldwide under the presumption that creating chaos was to his advantage.

It amazingly paralleled the apeasement policies that allowed Hitler to rearm Germany in the 1930's... but that's certainly debatable.

If Iraq had been subdued then, everything would have been different... maybe worse, but more likely better.

I'm reminded more of 1945, following the surrender of Germany. Supposedly George Patton advocated rearming the Wehrmacht and pushing on against the Russians, under the assumption that we were going to have to fight them sooner or later anyway, it might as well be right then when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do it. Would it have been the smart thing to do? Possibly, but probably not. The same holds true for Iraq in '91. In hindsight it might have been wiser to go on and depose him, but probably not.

At the time, Iraq and Iran were beligerents, enemies. Iran would have welcomed Hussein's elimination, and they did when it finally happened. Iran (supporting insurgents) presumably stepped into vacuum we left by not getting the occupation right in the first place.

True, Iran would probably not have joined with Saddam, but they wouldn't have stood by and let "The Great Satan" move into the region. Iran in 1991 was much more belligerent and threatening than they are now.

The Wehrmacht took Yugoslavia with a minimal force and couldn't control the population with 400,000 troops. Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Personally, I rolled my eyes when Bush claimed victory on that aircraft carrier.

Yeah, and we're having the same problems the Germans did: our troops are not trained or equipped to fight a guerilla war. And the Germans had the chetniks to help them.
BTW, I'm not sure I would qualify an invasion by 21 German divisions as a "minimal force" but I understand your meaning.

[mkemse]

thanks for your reply and comments

[Ozme52]

Well, as is typical, you only quoted (and emphasized) the parts you like.

Here's the rest of the article. Good and bad. One must decide if the good outweighs the bad... if the historical parallels justify the means. Ask Cuban expatriots and they'd tell you they feel let down because we didn't follow through and oust Castro.

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five years after U.S. and British forces swept into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, many Iraqis are asking if the violence and upheaval that turned their lives upside down was worth it.

The human cost is staggering -- anywhere between 90,000 and 1 million Iraqi civilians killed, according to various estimates; nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead; while 4 million Iraqis are displaced.

On the bright side, Iraqis are rid of one of the 20th
century's most ruthless dictators. They held free elections and
have a new constitution.

For Iraqis, deciding if the invasion was worth the sacrifice
depends partly on their sect and ethnicity and where they live.

Saddam, a Sunni Arab, persecuted the country's majority
Shi'ites and Kurds. Shi'ites now hold the reins of power while
once-dominant Sunni Arabs have become marginalised.

In Baghdad, epicentre of a sectarian war in 2006 and 2007
that nearly tore Iraq apart, people long for the safe streets of
Saddam's era. In the Shi'ite south, they no longer fear Saddam's
henchmen, but rival Shi'ite factions competing for influence.

In the north, the economy of largely autonomous Kurdistan is
flourishing in a region that Kurds call "the other Iraq".

Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, a Kurd, said Iraq was
moving in the right direction. Those who felt the invasion was a
mistake should remember Saddam's atrocities, he said.

Zebari said proof that a majority of Iraqis supported the
overthrow of Saddam was their participation in 2005 elections.

"The brutality of Saddam's regime deformed society in many
ways so we have to be patient," he told Reuters in an interview.

"Compared to the experience of other nations I think we have
done very well. But yes, it has been very, very costly."

Um Khalid, a 40-year old Baghdad hairdresser, said violence
was so random that no one knew if they would be its next victim.

"No, no, no. What happened was not worth it. Those who say
things are better are lying," she said.


KILLED OVER THEIR NAME

Many Iraqis vividly recall the chaotic months after the
invasion on March 20, 2003, symbolised by the toppling of a big
statue of Saddam in central Baghdad.

Their euphoria at new freedoms and hopes the United States
would transform Iraq into another rich Gulf Arab state were
dashed as Sunni Arabs rose up against their new rulers and car
bombs turned markets and mosques into killing fields.

In February 2006, suspected al Qaeda militants blew up a
revered Shi'ite mosque in the town of Samarra, unleashing a wave
of sectarian violence that meant being a Shi'ite or a Sunni in
the wrong neighbourhood could be a death sentence.

"Before 2003, we lived under a tough regime, no one can deny
that," said Abu Wasan, 55, a former army brigadier-general and a
senior member of Saddam's disbanded Baath party.

"But at least we never heard of bodies getting dumped on
garbage just because people had a Sunni or a Shi'ite name."

The worst of the sectarian carnage is over, at least for
now. A year ago, police would find up to 50 bodies in the
streets of Baghdad each day. That number has dropped to single
digits thanks to the deployment of additional U.S. troops and
ceasefires by many Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs militants. Also in
many Baghdad areas ethnic cleansing has already been completed.


GRIM NUMBERS

The latest tolls from the widely cited human rights group
Iraq Body Count show up to 89,000 civilians have been killed
since 2003. Research conducted by one of Britain's leading
polling groups, however, puts the death toll at 1 million.

The U.S. military death toll stands at 3,975.

Other statistics make for grim reading.

The United Nations estimates 4 million Iraqis are struggling
to feed themselves while 40 percent of the country's 27 million
people have no safe water. The Iraqi doctors' syndicate says up
to 70 percent of spe******t doctors have fled abroad.

Iraq's national power grid, devastated by years of war and
sanctions, leaves millions in the dark. The country has the
world's third largest reserves of oil, but motorists sometimes
queue at petrol stations for hours.

"I have been in this queue since dawn waiting to fill my
car," said Abdullah Ahmed, 53, a taxi driver in the northern
city of Kirkuk, which sits atop huge reserves of oil.

"What democracy? What prosperity? When the statue fell, we
thought we would live like the Gulf, but that was just words."

People with such views are overlooking the joy of speaking
freely, said Ahmed Sebti, 39, owner of a kebab restaurant in the
southern Shi'ite city of Najaf.

In the past, making fun of Saddam could have deadly
consequences. The current president, Jalal Talabani, has a keen
sense of humour and loves satire.

"Before, civil servants couldn't eat kebabs. Now my income
depends on them. Living standards are better," said Sebti.

Some Iraqis fear the invasion has set into motion political
forces that could lead to the partition of Iraq into Shi'ite,
Sunni Arab and Kurdish regions -- a prospect that would
inevitably be bloody and may drag in neighbouring countries.

But Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbours.

It is also one of the few countries in the region to hold
free elections, something unheard of in neighbouring Gulf Arab
countries. Provincial elections that could redraw Iraq's
political map are expected later this year.

Sheikh Fatwa al-Jerboa, a Sunni Arab tribal leader in the
northern city of Mosul, said there was plenty to be happy about.

"I feel grateful to the British and Americans for ousting
this dreadful dictator. Now we enjoy freedom of speech and the
freedom to choose our own leaders," he said.

Yousif Kamil, 25, in the northern city of Baiji, disagreed.

"It was a big mistake by America. We will remember it as
they remember Vietnam," he said.

Link to the Reuters Article

[mkemse]

Well, as is typical, you only quoted (and emphasized) the parts you like.

Here's the rest of the article. Good and bad. One must decide if the good outweighs the bad... if the historical parallels justify the means. Ask Cuban expatriots and they'd tell you they feel let down because we didn't follow through and oust Castro.

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.





Link to the Reuters Article

Thank you for your kind remarks

[Ozme52]

Thank you for your kind remarks

Ah. Sarcasm!

[mkemse]

Ah. Sarcasm!

it was not or inteneded to be sarcasim i just wanted to thank you for your remarks, i have at times a more diffuckut exression myself without it coming out that way, turst me it was mean as nothing otherthen a sincere thank you

[mkemse]

Terrorism would still exisit today if we did not go into Iraq,we just aggrivated the situation by going there, and until we got there there was NO Al Qudia, they were and are based for the most part In The Tora Bora Mountains and in Afghanistan where ALL our efforts should be and have been remained after 9/11
Only after we Invaded Iraq was Al Quida there

[Ozme52]

Terrorism would still exisit today if we did not go into Iraq,we just aggrivated the situation by going there, and until we got there there was NO Al Qudia, they were and are based for the most part In The Tora Bora Mountains and in Afghanistan where ALL our efforts should be and have been remained after 9/11
Only after we Invaded Iraq was Al Quida there

That's irrelevent. And inaccurate. All you can say is they began fighting us there after we ousted Hussein. You have no way to validate the statement that they didn't operate in Iraq under Hussein.

Nor can you validate that they wouldn't have hidden in Iraq (or any other sympathetic country) if we had poured all our efforts into eradicating them in Afganistan. No more than I can say they would have. It's all "what if" supposition.

[mkemse]

That's irrelevent. And inaccurate. All you can say is they began fighting us there after we ousted Hussein. You have no way to validate the statement that they didn't operate in Iraq under Hussein.

Nor can you validate that they wouldn't have hidden in Iraq (or any other sympathetic country) if we had poured all our efforts into eradicating them in Afganistan. No more than I can say they would have. It's all "what if" supposition.

all i was trying to point out is that we should have used and should now only be usiing our Military rescourses to fight Al Quida in Afghansistan after 9/11 and not have invaded Iraq, at the time of 9/11, Al Quida was in Afghansistan that is where the Taiban was and is still there, and the Taliban is part of Al Quida, they ran the Afghan Governement at the time of 9/11 they did not run Iraq,

[Moonraker]

all i was trying to point out is that we should have used and should now only be usiing our Military rescourses to fight Al Quida in Afghansistan after 9/11 and not have invaded Iraq, at the time of 9/11, Al Quida was in Afghansistan that is where the Taiban was and is still there, and the Taliban is part of Al Quida, they ran the Afghan Governement at the time of 9/11 they did not run Iraq,

I question to what extent there is an Al Qaeda as portrayed by the USA and whether there is too much misplaced focus on this "enemy".

The US seems to be promoting the idea of a Smersh type organisation with a central leadership controlling cells around the world. You cut off the head and the snake dies. Really the problem is fundamental Islamic militancy. So the enemy is more of a concept than a single group. It's like the mafia, if you capture the Don of a New York family have you eradicated organised crime throughout the world? I suspect that, aside from 911, Bin Ladins importance was that he had money and experience. So if you had a scheme you could go to him and if he supported the plan you could get financing for it.

[mkemse]

[QUOTE=Moonraker;582337]I question to what extent there is an Al Qaeda as portrayed by the USA and whether there is too much misplaced focus on this "enemy".

The US seems to be promoting the idea of a Smersh type organisation with a central leadership controlling cells around the world. You cut off the head and the snake dies. Really the problem is fundamental Islamic militancy. So the enemy is more of a concept than a single group. It's like the mafia, if you capture the Don of a New York family have you eradicated organised crime throughout the world? I suspect that, aside from 911, Bin Ladins importance was that he had money and experience. So if you had a scheme you could go to him and if he supported the plan you could get financing for it.[/QU

i believe that most Islamic Terrorists view Bin Ladin as a "Savior" or "God" and thus will do anything he asks them
And I amn not an expert on the Quran, but I have heard Islamic Clerks say infact that the Quran specificly prohbits killing or violence of any kind for any reason, thus BinLaden does not even follow his own holy book
and amaziing enough in the late 1980's Bin Laden was hired by the United States Governement (The CIA) to help fight off Russia when they invaded Afghanistan in 1989, now he is attacking us

[mkemse]

i do not want to get into a debate ver us being in Iraq, everyne has there own opnion of should we or not i wassimply tryingto point out part of a story about how Iraqi's People feel about it, andfelt that the portion of the story posted was sufficeint to explain, therst was not intentionalnot post but was not viewed as relelvant, the statics showed in the begiging ofthe article were main main reson for the post

my sincereest apologies to anyone who felt they were mislead, that was not the intention, but to simply point out Iraqi's Citizens feeling on the war and our being there, i was not taking sides

[Ozme52]

i do not want to get into a debate ver us being in Iraq, everyne has there own opnion of should we or not i wassimply tryingto point out part of a story about how Iraqi's People feel about it, andfelt that the portion of the story posted was sufficeint to explain, therst was not intentionalnot post but was not viewed as relelvant, the statics showed in the begiging ofthe article were main main reson for the post

my sincereest apologies to anyone who felt they were mislead, that was not the intention, but to simply point out Iraqi's Citizens feeling on the war and our being there, i was not taking sides

Obviously... because you left out anything that pointed out anything good. Did you READ anything beyond the one-sided statements you posted?

[Wind_Walker25]

Freedom Will Always Coast! How many must die, How Much Is Freedom Worth!!!

[Wind_Walker25]

You are right! But thousands of Curds if I spelled that right, are free and they thank US every day

[Alex Bragi]

Gentleman, please let's keep it cool and calm.

mkemse, you are entitled to quote portions of the article. Oz, you are entitled to post the full article.

All opinions on the topic are welcome. Negative opinions of other members are not.

[Wind_Walker25]

This is one of those times, when you are both right. I wish we did not go into Irag.
But we are there Now. I say get the job done. If we do not we will pay in ways I do not want to think about!

[DOMLORD]

can you really train an army to fight against guerilla and follow the geniva conventions? people will be in an up roar about that if we ever did something like that. however violence is down in iraq (a little bit, but still not much) and its up in afghanistan. i think if we could make a difference in afghanistan we can do it in iraq, but then again that's just my natural optomist.

[Thorne]

can you really train an army to fight against guerilla and follow the geniva conventions? people will be in an up roar about that if we ever did something like that. however violence is down in iraq (a little bit, but still not much) and its up in afghanistan. i think if we could make a difference in afghanistan we can do it in iraq, but then again that's just my natural optomist.

I doubt that you could train an army to fight against them, but an elite group of commando-type fighters might be able to make a difference. The problem is doing it within the "Rules of War", if there is such a thing. I think the only real way to fight that kind of battle is to infiltrate the guerrilla groups and execute their leaders, as brutally and publicly as possible. Don't try to capture them, don't try to reason with them, don't ever let them off the hook. You go in and grab hold and kill them, one at a time or in groups, until the units wither away and die.
It wouldn't be pretty, it probably wouldn't be legal and, if the US news media found out about it they would castrate (figuratively, hopefully) the soldiers doing the work, the generals who sent them out and the lawmakers who appropriated the funding. But if you consistently take out the leadership you will eventually have a group of guerrillas who won't know how to carry on fighting.

[Ozme52]

can you really train an army to fight against guerilla and follow the geniva conventions?

Sure. Why not? But the cost is stupendous. It just takes too many troops to fight an effective campaign against guerillas. The Geneva Convention rules can easily be followed so long as you have enough troops and an effective internal intelligence machine in situ to crush and capture guerilla cells.

But better yet... do what you need and leave. Then deal with whomever takes over... and if they put the hammer down on their own people... do it again. I realize that may seem like an endless proposition but after one or two governments are replaced by force, you will end up with one that is more concerned with progress than power... and in the long run, that might be cheaper in terms of human lives lost than the way we're doing it now.

[TomOfSweden]

Patton is a great example of a great military leader who would have been a terrible political leader.

It's important for a soldier to be decisive a strong. It's important for a politician to have popular support. These are very different qualities.

Collateral damage is not a term used in civilian matters. Anybody caught up in any conflict will in political debate and in the press be judged as unacceptable.

There was that blog that kid in Baghdad wrote during the war where he exemplified the ambivalent Iraqi position. He was pretty clear that he hated Saddam Hussein and wanted to be rid of him. But at the same time he did not forgive USA for any civilian casualties. No matter how much we may rationally may understand how unreasonable this demand is, this is how normal people think. I do. If there's a war on and a friend or relative of me dies, and the attacker is from some completely alien source, in my head I'd blame the aliens for their death.

So basically the Iraqi's will blame USA for everything bad happening but assume anything good happening is a result of their own work. Just plain human dumb-ass nature. We're all guilty of this thinking. USA knew that going in and will naturally have to deal with taking the blame for all eternity for anything bad every happening in Iraq from the war onward.

That is a large reason why I thought it was idiotic by the USA to attack with such a small coalition. If it would have been more countries in the invading force there would have been more countries to take the blame. A large group always turn into an anonymous mass, and USA wouldn't have to deal with all this animosity.

Just in the same way, US citizens will in general be completely non-plussed about the Iraqi reaction and just assume they're ungrateful and think collateral damage should be acceptable for the Iraqi's. Just really dumb ass positive thinking.

All in all, when it comes to our own, we all have a tendency to be really stupid and short sighted. All of us.

[GS42]

'You can't fight for a cause! A cause is just a thing!' said Rincewind.
'Then we are fighting for the peasants,' said Butterfly. She'd backed away. Rincewind's anger was coming off him like steam.
'Oh? Have you ever met them?'
'I - have seen them.'
'Oh, good! And what is it you want to achieve?'
'A better life for the people,' said Butterfly coldly.
'You think you having some uprising and hanging a few people will do it? Well, I come from Ankh-Morpork and we've had more rebellions and civil wars than you've had ... lukewarm ducks' feet, and you know what? The rulers are still in charge! They always are!'
They smiled at him in polite and nervous incomprehension.
'Look,' he said, rubbing his forehead. 'All those people out in the fields, the water buffalo people . . . If you have a revolution it'll all be better for them, will it?'
'Of course,' said Butterfly. 'They will no longer be subject to the cruel and capricious whims of the Forbidden City.'
'Oh, that's good,' said Rincewind. 'So they'll sort of be in charge of themselves, will they?'
'Indeed,' said Lotus Blossom.
'By means of the People's Committee,' said Butterfly.
Rincewind pressed both hands to his head.
'My word,' he said. 'I don't know why, but I had this predictive flash!'
They looked impressed.
'I had this sudden feeling,' he went on, 'that there won't be all that many peasants on the People's Committee. In fact ... I get this kind of ... voice telling me that a lot of the People's Committee, correct me if I'm wrong, are standing in front of me right now?'
'Initially, of course,' said Butterfly. 'The peasants can't even read and write.'
'I expect they don't even know how to farm properly,' said Rincewind, gloomily. 'Not after doing it for only three or four thousand years.'
'We certainly believe that there are many improvements that could be made, yes,' said Butterfly. 'If we act collectively.'
'I bet they'll be really glad when you show them,' said Rincewind. [...] He wanted to say: how can you be so nice and yet so dumb? The best thing you can do with the peasants is leave them alone. Let them get on with it. When people who can read and write start fighting on behalf of people who can't, you just end up with another kind of stupidity. If you want to help them, build a big library or something somewhere and leave the door open.

Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times

The whole debate often reminds me of this passage. I think Terry captured the problem rather well: you can't drive out one dictator and force people you never met to lead themselves. I think the envasion should never have happened, but since it has, you can't retreat now. Too late...