I'm placing this in Casual Conversation, because I am not sure how many posters are going to want to debate about this versus just making a statement. The fact is that roughly 3,000 people died during the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the jetliners that were hijacked.

It is also pretty clear that the events of 9/11 were capitalized on in order to carry out the invasion of Iraq, along with "evidence" of Iraq having WMDs (because Saddam didn't want to tip his hand to the Iranians next door that he didn't have them anymore -or- his cronies had robbed the cookie jar and made some big bucks, take your pick), materials to start an atomic weapons program in the form of aluminum tubes (too small in diameter to make warheads) and connections with Niger for yellowcake uranium (refuted by former ambassador Joe Wilson), and ties with al Qaeda (Saddam wouldn't brook any power other than his own while he was in charge), etc.

Now the death toll among American military personnel has reached the number 3,000. That makes approximately 6,000 lives that have been lost, civilian and military, because of the terrorist attacks of 2000.* Did Vietnam claim as many military lives in nearly 4 years as Iraq has? One source (granted: an anti-Iraq war source) says no. Curmudgeon and I plan to be part of a demonstration today commemorating this loss. There will be similar demonstrations nationwide--I wonder if the news media will even pick up on it for a 30-second spot on T.V.

How many more American lives will be claimed in this misnamed "War on Terror" in Iraq before we pull the troops out of that snakepit?

What are your ideas on "acceptable losses"?



*Let us also not forget the lives of innocent Iraqis and the coalition troops not from the United States whose blood has also been spilt in this endeavor.

How many more American lives will be claimed in this misnamed "War on Terror" in Iraq before we pull the troops out of that snakepit?
I don't think the number of troops killed is much of a factor in determining the time we pull out the troops. In Vietnam we lost over 50,000 troops and in the 2nd World War over 400,000 troops. The failure of the war, the lack of a clear rationale for being in Iraq, the weakening of our other overseas commitments and the cost I imagine will weigh much more heavily.

What are your ideas on "acceptable losses"?
One is too many when the war is badly conceived. I do think war opponents make a mistake when they use the loss of American lives as a principal argument to be against the war. It comes off as disingenuous. We lost far more in the civil war, the 1st world war and the 2nd world war and yet weren't generally inclined to use such an argument because most Americans believed in what we were fighting for.

In answer to your first question concerning the numbers of additional American losses that may be experienced I would have to say that depends on if there is any change to the strategy and tactics governing our conduct in Iraq. This is a very restricted type of warfare we are engaged in, against very irregular forces which never attack enmasse. It is not the sort of fighting our military trains for. If we were true conquerors I imagine our casualties would be rather less than they have been. Our restraint is nearly entirely the cause of our losses.

Acceptable losses militarily speaking are any loses up to the point at which a unit losses the ability to fight effectively. This does not mean the ability to win, simply the ability to continue on it's assigned mission. To this end acceptable losses can be rather high, and our forces have not come close to reaching the point of unacceptable losses. Of course politically, I suppose the point at which losses become acceptable is the point at which you are forced to remove forces from combat due to political pressures.

How many more American lives will be claimed in this misnamed "War on Terror" in Iraq before we pull the troops out of that snakepit?

I'll look into my crystal ball. The shadows are clearing. I see the number 10,000, but maybe that comes from the Grand Canyon Origins debate. Now I see a plan floating, turning and twisting, a plan with the date November 7, 2008. There are people crying. They wear suits and travel in limousines, many are overweight and bald. Some are lightweight with irritating laughs. A woman cries too, she's dressed in jeans and a flannel shirt, white sneakers. And a child's face silently screams with fearful eyes. That could be one of the kids the artist photographed after taking the candy away.

The crystal ball grows dim.

What are your ideas on "acceptable losses"?

Current talk is that we have to fix Iraq to avoid it becoming an AQ nation. Now how the heck did that happen? Oh yeah, we made it so.

So more losses have to be accepted to fix the mess that we made. The appeal is that we are all in this together, whether for or against the liberation at the getgo. Maybe so. Then I'll accept the loss of the Bush twins, the Cheney children, anybody Rumsfeld has, all those neocons' children, all those Congresspeople's children, any of the generals in favor of it, right down to the gas station clerk who might have waved a flag and shouted, "Get a [you know what] grip!"

Throw lobbyists in there, airline execs who kept our airports unsecured all those years. Could this be the illegal alien solution? We could empty out our prisons! What a great place to drop off Bernie Ebbers. He's kinda old, but every little bit helps. Forget about Getmo. Plot against the US, you get airdropped in Baghdad, and the parachute might even work. Remember to move in a serpentine fashion.

That would be acceptable. Downright satisfying. I bet if we rounded them all up, the troop levels would be sufficient to finish this project off. If nothing else, the sheer numbers would overwhelm any resistance. What's 70% of 300,000,000? 210,000,000! Yowza. Might want to keep it down to a cool mil.

Anyway, that's my idea. It's warped but somehow just, as in you guys got us into this, now get us out. Others of you are just taking up space and costing us money. Cya. If you survive, help build schools out that way, get on the road crews, learn plumbing. In other words, make yerselves [you know what] useful! By golly, Iraq could become the Australia of the Middle East! Wow, what a vision. We could shut down the entire prison system just like that.

Iraq, where you'll end up if you don't study hard, get a job and follow the rules. Sounds familiar, doesn't it. Well, now it's making sense in a warped way, but it just might be a great solution. It's not nearly as whacky as the neocons' ideas.

The people who insist we need to be in Iraq don't care about the casualties (or think they are 'acceptable losses) so higher number don't matter. They will always find a way to play down the dead, either by compairason to much larger historical war dead (as if that had any relevance) or by playing the bogeyman spectre of 'how much worse' everything would be (in their opinion) if these boys did NOT keep dying for their country.

In my opinion, Bush Jr will not pull out of Iraq. That would be an admission that he had been wrong about something, and I don't think he is capable of that. He will leave it for the next government in two years, which will likely be Democratic. Then its a win for the Neo-cons, as when the Democrats bring the troops home, the neo-cons can blame them for the failure of the mission, claiming then that it was all going fine, or they just needed to be there a bit longer, or they just needed another 'troops surge'...

What are your ideas on "acceptable losses"?

Sometimes, people have to die in wars. It is a tregedy, but it is true. I may be on the left but I am no pacifist, and I understand that sometimes conflict is unavoidable, and people die. I wish that were not the case, but wishes do not make a thing so.

In this case however, we need to look at the dead and wounded.

3002 US dead.
22,032 US combat wounded.
2 US missing
24,823 non-caombat US wounded

That a lot of people. But as some have said, other wars have had more. So now we look at the last 3 years and 9 months, and ask, what exactly has been gained by all these deaths? Can anyone think of anything at all that has been gained, some advantage or bonus, some good thing which has come of all these US casualties? Anything at all?

Is the nation safer? No, its less safe. Is the international situation better? No, its worse. Is the situation in Iraq better? No, its worse. is the situation in Iraq at least improving? No, its degrading. Are other potential enemy nations cowed? No, the opposite. Has the main enemy on the war on terror been weakened? No, the opposite. Have international relations with US allies improved? No, the opposite. Has Islamic fundamentalism weakened or shown signs of weakening? No.

So, its not that we have all these dead and wounded, its that we have all these dead and wounded for absolutely NOTHING.

Vermillion, I often look forward to your postings and debating skills, but while I agree with your first paragraph, I must disagree with your second. The Iraq War has not gained absolutely nothing; it has toppled a vile dictator. Still, if that was our goal, then we should have pulled out years ago. And now that he is hanged, I can honestly say that something did come out of this conflict.

Was toppling Saddam sufficient justification for invading and occupying another country? Of course not. But, do you honestly believe it was all for nothing?

How many more American lives will be claimed in this misnamed "War on Terror" in Iraq before we pull the troops out of that snakepit?

The US can stay in Iraq indefinitely unless the draft is instituted (at which point the public outcry would curtail our hegemonic ambitions). There's still a solid minority in favor of the war. There's still a solid minority (possibly majority) who believe that the war was a good idea but was just managed poorly.

What are your ideas on "acceptable losses"?

The soldiers were sent to Iraq with a job to do and they are doing it. It's a war and soldiers die. The losses I find unacceptable are the Iraqi civilian causalities (numbered in the 100,000s last I read). That's an astoundingly awful number. For me, this indicates the clear failure in our attempts to bring stability and democracy to this region.

How many more American lives will be claimed in this misnamed "War on Terror" in Iraq before we pull the troops out of that snakepit?

Who knows...? Why are American lives more important to Americans anyway? Its not like you know all these people who are dying. Sure you might know some of them, but there's no way you know who all these people are... so why do their deaths make any difference to you?

People are dying all the time, all around us, some times right in front of us. People get killed in traffic, every day, in far greater numbers than in Iraq.... well, unless you are thinking of the Iraqi's and not US service personnel of course, but then again, you're not are you.... any of you? Look at Nighttimers little counter. Why does it only count US dead? Civilians don't count? Allies neither?

Want to know why the USA is so unpopular There's your answer right there.


What are your ideas on "acceptable losses"?

I have no ideas on acceptable losses. I don't know what the 'moral barometer' says about such things. How many people do you let die to save the rest? Is 'woman and children first' whilst sending young men to the trenches any sort of morality we can understand? Once upon a time we sent millions to die in the mud in order to survive as nations.... now we can barely lose a few thousand and its a catastrophe. Why? What changed? The nature of death is no different so it must be the value we place on life.

If life is valuable then obviously it must be defended. I spy a contradiction. We want to be safe but we're not prepared to die for our safety...? Or are we? Every interview I read from the troops in Iraq is overwhelmingly positive. The troops there apparently do not share the domestic grief about the war. Odd that.

On the 11th September, 2001, the death toll from the al qaeda attacks was 2,973 (+24 still listed as missing), and although most of these people were Americans, not all were. What did it mean that these people were slain? Was it an isolated incident? Was it a cold cut attack by one terrorist organisation against one nation? ...or was it actually a part of some greater pattern?

The trouble is, I don't know why we are in Iraq, but I suspect it has more to do with the Islamic tradition of jihad than with any one group or individual. People keep asking what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

You might just as well ask what did New York have to do with al qaeda? Why attack the greatest visible symbol in the capital city of the western world on the anniversary of the defeat of Islamic forces at the seige of Vienna (The day the last great campaign for a global caliphate ended)...? Yeah, I wonder what that meant.

The USA was attacked, but so too was the whole western world. A lot of people understood it straight away and made declarations of solidarity, but as so often happens, these people did not speak on behalf of their nations and whilst one journalist might proclaim, 'we are all Americans now', the truth is, few people want to be American. Millions and millions look at America as the antithesis of all they believe in... and ask them what they believe in and you'll find its often freedom, democracy and saving planet Earth.

So, why strike back at Iraq and not just Afghanistan? ...well, I suspect, because Iraq is in the centre of the Islamic world, was weak, and if made at least partly democratic could conceivably be used as a counter against the tradition of jihad that sends air craft full of screaming Americans into American buildings.

Afghanistan by contrast is no where, difficult and cannot be used for anything except burning up valuable military resources.

People keep asking why get rid of Saddam Hussein when he was once a US puppet?

...well, has any one forgotten that Saddam Hussein FAILED to defeat the Islamic Republic of Iran?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Vermillion

Cool Vermillion. Just give me an alternative to believe in, cause I can't see one. If soldiers didn't fight and die for our freedoms we would not be exchanging these posts, you do understand that right? You do understand who the enemy is.. right? This is not a war being fought just to murder thousands of Iraqi's. The reasons may be obscured by lies and half truths, but as a historian you must understand that no war was ever fought for the reasons stated by those who went to war. There are always lies, deception and horrific hidden slaughters. Thus is war and ever was.

Buy hey, if you have an alternative thats going to keep the global caliphate at bay without resorting to violence, then lets hear it... 'cause I'm not looking forward to the blood bath thats looming on the horizon.


By itself, any number is 'a lot of people'. Put in context for what a war is though, then this result is a tiny amount of casualty's for a three and a half year campaign of this scale. Consider how many troops have been rotated through Iraq in the last several years and you'll find it tops the million mark easily.

Now, that might not cut any ice with any anti war protestors, but then I'd like to repeat my counter question to Paladin Elspeth's second question: What are your ideas on "acceptable losses"?

Just how many people must die before our freedom is no longer worth the price Vermillion?

Now, granted, you might not believe we are actually fighting for our freedom. Like so many choose to, you might rather look upon the war as something more sinister, something designed to make Dick Cheney even more richer, or Lockheed Martin more powerful perhaps... and maybe you'd be right. I honestly can't say what this war was about and neither it seems can any one else.

Sure there are plenty of peace protestors who have decided they know, but the truth is they are just as much in the dark as I am and their knowledge is just so much conjecture.


What has been gained?

US troops now surround the Islamic Republic of Iran, the nation awaiting the arrival of the Mahdi and threatening to start a nuclear war in the very near future... Don't tell me you hadn't noticed this small detail...

Yes, life must be defended if it is valuable. The contradiction comes when the "defenders" start the fight and go after people who don't have the opportunity, let alone know, the people these defenders are defending.

It is like a bunch of teenagers from one high school going to the high school across town to beat up some other teenagers, lest they get the idea to do the same thing to them, only on a much larger, bloodier scale.

But defenders don't pick fights.

It may be that the interviews of the troops sound so much more positive because they are actually doing something while we are, I guess, just supposed to keep the flags flying at half staff and keep our mouths shut about Mr. Bush's costly and deadly misadventure.

Moif, Bush might have had the best of intentions getting us involved in this Iraq war, but he did it dishonestly, and he doesn't have the "stones" to admit he made a mistake and pull the people he likes to brag on so much out of a conflict that it doesn't look like they can win.

You did very well in observing that people die every day, in car accidents, walking across the street, and in previous wars. Tell me, if you had a loved one who was killed walking across a particularly busy and dangerous street, would you send more of your loved ones to risk their lives by crossing it, or would you want to talk to your city council to see if some traffic lights and walk lights could be installed?

If you are talking about sending people to die in the mud for the survival of established nations as in the first and second world wars, the threats at that time were clear; there was an obvious, national incursion into adjoining countries. It was a deliberate act of aggression, and it could not be misinterpreted. This situation is different. If the perpetrators could have been hunted down by international police and either arrested or killed in the attempt, far fewer innocents (and military personnel) would have died. After all, we were after the people who did it, not their countries. Otherwise, why did we leave Dubai and Saudi Arabia alone after we found out that hijackers came from those two countries?

I would most certainly defend my family from a threat that I perceived to be real and close enough to actually happen. If others are young enough and in good enough health to enlist and carry their fight to a country half a world away, that is their prerogative. But these same people dying or sustaining life-changing injuries over there should not be construed as some effective way of defending their relatives or friends here within the fifty United States. I feel sorry for them, not their potential impact on my life.

Yes--many, many more Iraqis have died in the conflict, and also many military personnel from the coalition countries. Funny, though, how difficult it is to get casualty numbers that aren't vociferously questioned and criticized by predominantly the Americans who are, incidentally, trying to keep the bloody consequences of this debacle as much under wraps as possible. Case in point: the big problem there was publishing photos of incoming, flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base. Heavens--some of us didn't want the rest of us knowing how many were DYING over there!

No, I don't know personally the people who comprise the 3,000+ casualties, nor do I know the casualties of the others involved in Iraq trying to establish a nation among people who clearly DO NOT WANT ONE, let alone one held together by U.S. troops.

Wasn't Joseph Stalin quoted saying something to the effect that one life lost was a tragedy, and thousands (or millions) lost was a statistic? Do you subscribe to that line of thinking, moif?

You have possibly seen this interesting definition of insanity:

So there you go. Do you have to be insane to be considered patriotic?

I had read that remark by moif a little earlier, and then when I logged on to the Internet a few minutes ago, a news article, Iraqi deaths hit record as Bush mulls changes popped up which read in part


You may also note, that the "record deaths" the article refers to are the Civilian deaths in Iraq. It doesn't mention the specific number killed in December, just 70 on Saturday and the following:


I know that I once read that the U.S. military expects a ration of about 14 "enemies" killed for every American death, even if those "enemies" are "non-combatants" and "collateral damage." Let's presume then that 3,000 Americans who have died represents at least 42,000 Iraqui deaths. What percentage of 45,000 dead do I really need to know, to believe that all of their deaths are wrong?

I was raised by pacifists, and I have long opposed war. At the same time, I know that the government, and corporations will lie to "protect" their positions. For instance in the late 1960's, my employer maintained that "We don't manufacture Napalm." At the time, I was packaging finely ground clear polystyrene in 1 ton bulk containers to make "cassette tape cases." Eventually I learned that Napalm was a mixture of finely ground polystyrene, gasoline and benzene. Eventually, I worked with a trucker who routinely hauled the benzene and gasoline that we made to the contractor that mixed it with the polystyrene to make napalm...

The decision to go to war with Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein was outlined in the 2000 Republican Platform, well before the events of Sept. 11, 2001. None of the supporting reasons put forth by the Bush administration have as yet held up. At that, the attack on 9/11 was by suicide bombers which really limits the ability of the actual attackers to attack us again. To defend our country, we needed to look at how they got into the United States, tighten our borders, tighten our internal security, etc. The fact remains that by "taking the war to the terrorists," we have spent more money and lost more lives in the Middle East than we lost on 9/11. At the same time, we have been cutting into the ability of the region to pump oil, and raising the cost of gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas.

Thats fine. I look forward to yours as well, but there is nothing wrong with disagreeing, or this woudn't be much of a board...



Absolutely true, Hussein was a vile man and it is all good that he is gone. As I said in another thread, I oppose the death penalty on principle, but I still won't be shedding any tears for this dead psycopath.

But, as you say, what then? THAT war cost a few hundred US lives. But by utterly mismanaging the occupation in every imaginable way, the US has now left Iraq in a state far worse than when it arrived, and getting worse all the time. Toppling a dictator is a fine goal, but not if the post-dictator is 10x worse than the pre-dictator.

Moif



Two problems with that.

One, I have no objection to soldiers fighting and dying in principle, I have a problem with soldiers fighting and dying for absolutely nothing.

Two, re the 'Global Cliphate'. Let me ask you an honest question, Moif.

Would you say the 'Global Caliphate' is closer or further away than it was in january 2003? The reality is, this war has done more for the cause of the 'Global Caliphate' than just about any other event in recent history.

A firmly anti-religious leader in the Middle East is gone and eligious chaos has replaced him. Iran has gone from politically marginalised in ME politics to being the leader of a mass movement, it is beligerant, angry and on the verge of being nuclear. AQ, the international arm of Islamic terror, has never been stronger than now. Even Afghanistan is on the verge of collapsing back into religious chaos.

This supposed war has forced the West to compromise its basic morality, accepting despotic actions in nations like Russia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and others, simply because they position themselves as 'allies' in the war on terror. How different is that from supporting brutal dictators and sadists because they happen to oppose Communism 30 years ago?



You have to admit, saying that the US 'surrounds Iran' is a positive spin. Another way of looking at the same situation is: The US has its entire projectable military power bogged down and taking casualties in an enormous quagmire, which is consuming vast sums of money, US lives and enormous military resources, leaving Iran and nations Like NK free for the first time since the end of the cold war to sabre-rattle at will without dear of an invasion. Thus the beligerancy, and the nuclear staus, all since the 2003 invasion.

Are you really sure about that? Are you so sure you know why this war was undertaken? 'cause I'm not. I have no idea what the truth is, only suspicions.

It seems to me that this conflict is much older than every one seems to think, that Iraq is not the goal of American desire but rather a necessary strategic base of operations against the forces of jihad which have been waging their clandestine war against the USA for some several decades now. This enemy is now refered to as 'terrorism', and the fight as a 'war against terrorism', but I suspect the truth is rather, it is a war against a global jihad to bring about the return of the Great Caliphate and its many supporters, al qaeda being only one organisation amongst many.

I suspect Iran fits into the picture by virtue of it being a direct enemy of the USA which has actively sought to defeat the USA and inflict damage to US interests on many occaisions in the past. It is also a dangerous threat to Israel, and thus by extension the entire region, including several US allies, not least in Europe. Whether or not Iran can be considered an ally of the calphate jihadi's is any one's guess, but considering the resources available to the Iranians, and their belligerent attitude towards non Muslims, I suspect its US policy to consider them an even greater threat than al qaeda (or North Korea for that matter)


There is no one simple answer to that. If you are correct that GW Bush is a moral coward who is more concerned with his legacy than with his nations security, then your answer correctly fits the situation as you perceive it.

If on the other hand you see GW Bush as just one in a long line of Americans who have engaged their nation in war on false pretences, then his mistakes are merely those of style and political skill and at heart he is no different in his motivations than any previous president.

If you see Iraq as an American failure, then again, you are correct.
But if you see Iraq as merely one battle in an ongoing conflict then the ball is still very much in the air and then you are mistaken.
It all comes down to perception because thats all we have at the moment. What you perceive as a failure, I perceive as something more like a step on a longer road. Until we know for sure however, just why the USA invaded Iraq, we are left with our best guess to work with, and thats not much.

For a while I was also annoyed at the obvious lies and mistruth's put about by the Bush administration and Blair government, but with time I've come to remember the lessons of history. That so many wars of the past were fought on false pretences and these for many credible reasons and if being lied to is the price we must pay to win a war that is being fought against us, then so be it. Its not easy to trust politicians in this day and age, there are so many reasons not to, but the law remains as a means to reign in political excess and if we do not have faith in our laws, then what do we have faith in?

I fear I am not conveying my point as I would like to. Its not that I suddenly trust GW Bush, or approve of his tactics in invading Iraq. Only that I perceive there is more to this war than meets the eye. That it appears to fit into a greater picture than the reasons given for it would indicate. I can see there are also opposing forces. People and groups who are intent on bringing about the destruction of western civilisation and who's motivation stems from Islam, or at least a violent perception of Islamic obligation. I can also see why it would be necessary to fabricate lies about Iraq in order to not upset other Muslims, allies of the USA. I just can't be sure of it.


I could write more but I'm running out of time. I hope I made myself understandable.

What concerns me about such a position is that all sorts of atrocities may be committed under the aegis of the "larger context". If Iraq is a "battle" in a greater "war", then winning or losing in Iraq can be considered somewhat immaterial. The Iraqi people are not pawns in a greater chess game and treating them as such is not only demeaning but borders on genocide.

It is so easy to sit in the stability and calm of the non-war-zone world and talk sanguinely about the need to look at the "big picture". Perhaps, it's a defense mechanism: a self-engendered psychological ploy to reconcile the death and destruction we have wrought.

Well, here's a big picture. Iraq is truly a horrific mess. Close to 10% of the population has fled Iraq. The casualty rate of Iraqis is increasing. The violence is worse today than it was yesterday and every day for the past year. Yes, Iraqis voted; yes, Saddam is dead. That is little comfort when your family, your home, your livelihood is threatened. How much "big picture" can an Iraqi look forward to?

The US has not not left though have they. Your conclusion is incorrect.


Has it? How do you know who is going to emerge as the dominant political force in Iraq?


Afghanistan was always in a state of religious chaos. The only change that has occured there is the reforming of Taliban forces in Pakistan has reached enough strength to hit back.

As for the post Saddam Hussein situation, the chaos in Iraq was already happening as Saddam Hussein's power waned. It was always inevitable that the country would slide into civil war once he lost his grip. Now though there is a chance, however slim, that moderate, perhaps even democratic, forces will have a say in what ever power structure forms in Iraq. This chance is non existant without coalition forces on the ground to provide strength... or so the argument goes.

Possibly the venture is doomed. The Muslim mind does not seem to like the notion of democracy very much, and perhaps the whole mission is a fools errand. But this is more conjecture. There is nothing written by fate that says Muslims cannot embrace democracy. There is certainly a willing minority in Iraq who wish to be democratic.

As for Iran, I do not see any justification for your assertion of that country now being a leader where it was not before. The Shi'a have always looked to Iran for leadership just as the Sunni have not. Iran has been leading its drive for nuclear armed power since the day Ayatollah Khomeni seized power.


Or joining in an alliance with Joesf Stalin against the Third Reich? or with Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets? Necessity makes for unpleasant compromises. It always has and always will.

To misquote Robert Graves, the reed which bends before a strong wind, rises again afterwards.


Spin is when you are trying to justify or recalibrate a perception. I am doing neither. I am merely pointing out an over looked consideration in this debate. You asked the question: what has been gained?. I merely provided you with a possible answer that fits the facts. Calling the answer 'spin' is a cop out.


And point me to the American war which was fought cheaply Vermillion.

American wars cost. Thats how they manage to reduce the mortality rate so effectively. A cheap war is when you arm natives with rifles and send them out to fight for you. Thats how the British empire worked. As a historian you must know this so why do you pretend not to?

If US troops are indeed 'bogged down', then its also true they are 'bogged down' on all sides of Iran. The US casualty rate is one of the most lenient in the history of modern warfare and Iran is certainly not 'free to rattle sabres'. Iran is in what I'd describe as a very desperate situation. Between a rock and a very hard place with US nuclear assets no doubt poised to strike at the first sign of a attack against Israel.

I am in doubt that an actual war with Iran however is not what the USA wishes for. I think rather it wishes to put Iran into such a position where by it cannot move and in doing so, would like to see internal divisions put an end to the Islamic Republic, but.... I believe the USA is not prepared to accept Iranian dominance in the region. No doubt because the USA realises the reality of the global economy and how dependent the US economy is on Middle Eastern stability. Even if the USA does not get its oil from that region, it is still subject to the rest of the global economy and cannot afford to stand idly by whilst the global economis is drowned in an Islamic orgy of religious blood letting. To that end the USA has always sought to maintain a balace in the region, apparently even taking it upon itself to use force against the destabilizing elements so its own allies do not have to.

Why? People constantly ask why the USA does not punish Saudi Arabia, but the anti war activist Michael Moore already answered this question. Saudi Arabia owns up to 8% of domestic US assets and if the House of Saud and its domestic allies fall to the forces of jihad, then just who exactly do you suppose will inheret that 8%? Tp put it bluntly, the USA itself is stuck between a rock and hard place. It must protect Saudi Arabia at all costs or face the consequences.

This is of course conjecture on my part, but I believe it fits the situation far better than describing the war in Iraq as the product of moral cowardice by GW Bush. I simply do not believe the American president would be able to seperate himself from his own military planners and 'do a Hitler'. Rather I believe the USA is playing a long term game with a very clear objective in mind, but one which cannot be broadcast for fear of upsetting sensitive allies in the region.... not to mention a billion or more Muslims the world over.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


logophage

Battles are never immaterial. Iraq must be won if the USA wishes to stabilize the region... but yes, all sorts of atrocities will be committed under the aegis of 'larger context'. As I said before, thats the nature of war. You cannot prevent atrocities from happening in war which is why the Nurenberg trials lead to the Geneva Conventions and why the USA makes a big show of punishing soldiers it finds guilty.

As for the people of Iraq, they are no different from any one else. We are all pawns in geopolitics.


I am not attempting to justify anything here. I am merely searching for a plausible explanation because I am not convinced by the GW Bush-is-a-war-criminal argument


About the same as any other person who survives a war I would imagine. I doubt whether the Iraqi's will rise up to be the new Germans, but they have that chance now. Whether or not they understand that and seize it is up to them.


editted to add a missing word or two

I always like to learn new things from these boards. Which are some of the Great Caliphate Jihadist groups that don't operate under the umbrella of Al Qaeda? And when did this government show any interest in such a movement before 1995 when the CIA first recognized Al Qaeda as an organization. I know we had earlier dealt with Islamic "terrorists" as political opponents with more specific political agendas like Hezbollah blowing up our military barracks in Lebanon but I'm unaware of any evidence that we have self-consciously been conducting any grand campaign against any Great Caliphate groups before 1995. Correct me if I'm wrong and please give evidence.

I fully agree with you Moif that up till this point it is extremely difficult to point out the real, not the popularised, reasons behind the intervention / invasion of Iraq. Perhaps in a few years the historical community will take a good look at it and perhaps will produce a plausible explanation. Up till then suspicions and speculations will surround this issue.

But .... I am not really satisfied with your own personal explanation / suspicion. Although the forces of Jihad, as you call them, present indeed serious problems for the Western world, I have troubles accepting your view that the invasion is part of a global battle against jihad and the return of the Great Caliphate. The path the U.S. took to start the war and the way it has been carried out, does not really fit together with this notion.

I always suspected that the neoconservative philosophy of strengthening U.S. hegemony in the world ( a philosophy people like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Powell adhered to) could be seen as one of the most important factors in explaining the reasons the U.S. went to war with Iraq. It sounds more realistic from my own historical point of view.

I found this article . I hope it can shed some light on the issue from this point of view. Perhaps it is helpfull.

P.S. I hope that the site I found the article on can be viewed as objective. With U.S. opinion sites I just never know for sure.

1. Of course, battles are important. However, the point I was making is that if Iraq is a "battle" in a larger "war", then it doesn't matter whether the battle is won or lost as long as the war is won, correct? There are numerous examples of just this occurring.

2. Of course, you can prevent atrocities in war. Things like the Military Code of Justice and the Geneva Conventions exist to do just that. It's why there's a stated and unstated proscription on the use of WMD. Maybe, you were saying that you cannot always prevent atrocities from happening (I agree with this). Still, this is a far cry from waving your hands and saying that because atrocities can occur that they must occur. Moreover, you seem to take a "philosophical" attitude towards Iraq because you consider it merely a "battle" in a greater "war". I cannot understand how you can treat Iraq with such blitheness.


What does this mean? Are you saying that because we are all pawns in geopolitics and Iraqis are no different than anyone else, then the suffering of Iraqis is somehow mitigated? Either I'm confused or I'm left breathless at how callous your position reads.


Fair enough. I also look for plausible explanations. How about? Don't look for malice when incompetence will do. Personally, I don't have a opinion on the whole war criminal thing. I see problems and look for solutions. I try let pragmatism and not ideology be my guide.


Is this some form of the "blame the Iraqis" argument? Would the Germans have been able to rebuild without the Marshall Plan? Maybe, maybe not. The Germans did rebuild following WWI but they had a huge cultural "chip on their shoulder". It took a second world war to remove it.

Since you're being so philosophical with regard to atrocities, cultural imperatives and general human misery, why stop there? Why not go all the way and advocate for the annihilation of mankind itself? Afterall, when you look at the "big picture", humans are just a blip of history on the Earth.

I disagree. I think it's a very, very simple reason: Bush wanted his Reagan moment. Bush wanted his version of the Berlin Wall to fall.

It was clear going in that Bush wanted regime change. Heck, Bush campaigned on it the first election. When 9/11 hit, it opened the door wide for him. WMD, links to Al Qaida, etc all became subsets of his reasoning to go to war. The big picture was his domino theory. Bush 43 would be remembered as the president that established peace and democracy in the middle east. He would show the country that after being trusted with the keys to the house after 40 years, the republicans were the ones that could get it done and make the world a better place. He picked Iraq because Bush 41 decimated the republican guard with very little trouble in 91 and knew only a fraction of those forces would be in place. Add the no-fly zones and sanctions to the mix, and Iraq was as easy a target as shown in our quick military victory in Gulf War 2.0

Unfortunately, it blew up in his face and he doesn't have the courage to own up to it. Your sons and daughter's lives are less important to him then his political survival. If he had the courage to do what is right, he would resign and turn this mess over to someone who knows what they are doing, has the moral authority to effect change, and who can begin the healing process.

There really is no other plausible reason why we are in this mess. Bush wanted his moment and he blew it. Iraq is now a salvage operation - nothing more and nothing less.

No, you are correct. I am expressing myself badly and confusing Iran with the Caliphatic jihadi's. As I said, I don't have any definitive answers. Only suspicions based on observations. You have also put your finger on the primary event by which I was being influenced as well. The US Marines and French barracks attacks of 1982 by a group known as Islamic jihad. That and the Iranian revolution keep nagging at the back of my mind when ever I consider the war against terror. These events were monumental at the time and yet seem to have been completely forgotten in current considerations regarding Iraq.

Perhaps there is no connection at all, but I find that very hard to believe. I'll freely admit to my own confusion as well. Partly this stems from the near total impregnable Arabic/Islamic terminology where by a phrase like jihad apparently has so many meanings as to be almost impervious to scrutiny.

I'm also aware that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never seems to talk about jihad, even though he is clearly motivated by an Islamic obligation regarding a returning imam from the past.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




That article appears to represent the common view regarding the Neo Conservatives, certainly. How much of it is true I cannot say. I've always been suspicious of the whole PNAC thing. It just seems so 'convenient' to me. Like something created in order to misdirect attention away from whats really going on. By this, I don't mean that the conclusions put forward in your article actually strike me as being wrong, only that I have an itch in my mind that suggests PNAC was always a sort of smoke screen... a way of justifying events to people who would be hostile to US foreign policy if they understood what its real goals were.

I'm not saying I understand what those real goals are either.... only that I do not believe that PNAC provides a full explanation as to what is going on. There is too much left unsaid in the PNAC explanation, like why Rumsfeld was giving North Korea nuclear reactors, or why the USA calmly allowed the Europeans to try to bring Iran to the table. Since when did the USA trust Europe to do anything? Its all just too pat.

Whilst the EU trio were trying to use dialogue with Iran, the USA has been fighting this unusual 'war against terror' in the region directly around Iran. Now, as the European talks have apparently failed (surprise surprise) the US military has a noose right around Iran that could conceivably be closed at a moments notice. It all seems to fit together. I suspect Iran has always been the reason for the US attack on Iraq.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Within the context of your question, then yes, that is correct. That doesn't mean to say that Iraq is superfluous though. A democratic Iraq would be a goal in of itself I would imagine. I certainly cannot see how it could be seen any other way. If Iraq succeeded in becoming a prosperus and stable democratic nation, the knock on effect in the region would probably be profound.

Yes, I meant that such things will happen in a war regardless of laws and measures undertaken to prevent them, That the very nature of war breeds atrocity and the only defence against this is punishing those found guilty.

Since I am not personally involved in the war in Iraq then I can't see how else I can regard Iraq except philosophically. Are you suggesting I am being callous simply becaue I am attempting to figure out whats going on there?


The plight of individuals is always secondary to the needs of nations. The people of Iraq are no different in this regard to the people of any where else. War can be unleashed anywhere it becomes necessary for a nation to do so. That is what I meant. Once nations perceive their interests are best served by the use of force then common people no longer matter. we like to think they do, but the truth is, they don't.

This is not something I am happy about. War is not a course of action I would like to advocate. It is merely that I recognise the true nature of warfare is to kill and destroy other people, and not just other armies. We have tried to impose our morality on to war by means of the Geneva Conventions but the truth is, these laws are often violated, even by the forces who maintain them and the nations which created them. Abu Graib, Guantanamo bay and the practice of rendition all prove this. Human nature is a base and elemental aspect of who we are and at heart we are all animals. Anger, hatred and fear will always be a part of who we are and they will always find a means of expression in cruelty, murder and destruction.

Understanding this and pointing it out does not mean I am blithe about it. I am not.


Alas, I am a pessimist. I always look at the worst aspects of life first in order as not to be caught by an unpleasant surprise. Perhaps incompetence and not malice is the true cause of America's problems in Iraq, but if that be the case, then it means GW Bush is actually doing what he thinks is right, but is just not very good at doing the right thing...

Personally, I have never believed GW Bush to be the real brains behind Iraq. I have a gut feeling that American politicians are just front figures and the real brains behind the US government are the faceless planners, the joint chiefs of staff and the various vested corporate interests who conspire to maintain America's position of power. Whether this vague collection of people is known as PNAC or the Industrial Military complex makes no difference really. I don't think there is any real common group identity as such. Rather I think America produces a great many political minds, many of whom are very astute and the majority of whom never come before the public eye. I have never believed that the checks and balances of the American political system are anything but a pacifier for the people. I suspect the real power in America lies else where.


At some point the Iraqi's have got to take responsibility for their state. It cannot be otherwise. The USA can not carry them for ever. If they do not pick up the burden for rebuilding, no matter whether or not they get help, it will only succeed if they make it happen. The Germans rebuilt their nation, not the USA. Sure they had help. The Iraqi's are also being helped, but it was the Germans themselves who took advantage of that help.


I'm not advocating any one be annhiliated. I am only seeking to understand what is going on. If I come across as being callous, blithe or philosophical, then I can only assume it is because you are reading motives in my words that I do not subscribe to. I do not wish to see any one hurt and am not aware that pointing out the nature of war means I rejoice of it.

When we look a Vietnam 30+ years after the US withdrew, we can say that Vietnam has indeed become a prosperous, stable, if not democratic, nation. Is this because of the war or in spite of it? I'm thinking the latter. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for prosperity, stability and democracy. But, if I had to pick two out of three, I'd pick the first two.

Also, I don't buy the Domino Theory of Democracy. Pakistan had a democracy and that didn't work out so well. India has a democracy and it hasn't really spread (and it's not part of the ME). Afghanistan...well...that's a mess to rival Iraq. Iran has a limited democracy (yes, theocracy at the top) but Iran isn't particularly friendly. Lebanon is a mess. Syria, autocracy. Jordan, monarchy (with some democratic reforms). Saudi Arabia, autocracy (liberalization in process). Kuwait, monarchy. Qatar, monarchy (liberalization in process). UAE, autocracy. Yemen, theocratic democracy. Bahrain, monarchy. Egypt, autocracy (clothed in the trappings of democracy). Did I miss any? Oh, yes, Israel, democracy and Palestine, democracy (but Republicans are in power) and, of course, Iraq (a mess).

Let's count: democracy (Israel, Palestine, Yemen). That's 3 out of 16. 10 years ago that was a higher ratio.

Anyway, I don't think we're gonna see democracy spread like peanut butter any time soon.


No, and I apologize if I am falsely impugning your motivations. I agree with what you have written. What I am concerned about is where I've seen this type of argument lead -- into Rumsfeld land.

... That is, we should look at Iraq and its problems with the long view of history. In 50-100 years what happens now will be filtered through layers of historical context. The ME will have "worked itself out" and the actions of the US will be judged differently from how they appear now....

I find such a position to be a moral cop-out. It relieves us from the moral culpability of what we do today by offering a fantasy about how it will be viewed tomorrow. Sorry but I don't think that pushing our moral quandaries to the future in any way removes our culpability to our actions in the present.


Fair enough and agreed.


I suppose one could construct all sorts of reasonable sounding scenarios to describe the motivations and actions of the US's leadership. For me, I pick the simplest explanation. Dubya is not competent. His Rasputins are not competent -- they are blinded by their ideology. They believe what they are doing is right™. It's that simple.


Yes, at some point, the Iraqis will need to pick up the pieces of their shattered homes. Out of desperation, they will ally themselves with whatever authority offers them stability. The US is unwilling to do what it takes to offer them stability and the Iraqi government cannot offer them stability. Something like the Taliban might offer them stability. It will take many, many years.


Again, I apologize if I misread your position here.

That is not what I asked. I did not ask 'what would be the situation if everything turns around in Iraq and the nation suddenly becomes peaceful harmonious and pro-US.

I asked you about the situation now. If the 'Global Califate' closer now or in 2003? The fact is neither os us can predict what is going to happen in Iraq. Were we to play the prediction game, I think my prediction of 'things continuing to get worse as they have unceasingly and inescapably for 3.5 years' is not unreasonable, but EITHER way, the future of Iraq is unknown.

Now, in 2007, the threat of this 'Global Califate' is far worse than it was in 2003, and much (though not all) of that is directly due to the US intervention in Iraq.

So that, in the end, is my problem. See, I'm not sure I buy your framing of this conflict as a worldwide struggle against the coming global califate, and I buy even less that Bush Jr buys it. However I cannot disprove it, and it isn't exactly beyond the realm of possibility, so let us, for the sake of argument, accept it.

EVEN IF this is all part of this 'greater war' of yours, all that does is make the invasion of Iraq an EVEN WORSE decision. I mean come on, in a struggle against islamic Fundamentalism, personified by AQ, the decision was taken to invade the ONLY secular state in the Middle East, which has provided a counterbalance against the regigious groups in the region for 50 years, and as a result allow the uninterrupted growth of AQ, opened new areas for AQ to expand, created fundamentalist religious groups, upset the balance of the ME, and yet expend vast sums of US funds and thousands of US lives in a venture with no apparent end. Th e Islamic states in the Middle East, free from the threat of invasion (as all US projectable power is bogged down) are now free to sabre-rattle and engage their nuclear programs.

Not so good for the 'global war'.



As you say, so the argument goes. But the reality is we have NO idea what would have happened when Hussein eventually died. The most likely scenario is that he would be replaced by another Baath leader, still anti-Islamicist, and who hopefully would have been less despotic. Who knows. What we DO know is that by removing the structure of government and imposing another one, we have taken an ENORMOUS gamble, and one that (at the moment) has been an absolute failure largely due to stupid decisions and bad planning.


And another thing. I hear all the time the 'hope and dream' of a democratic state emerging in Iraq. Well at the moment and based on the last 2.5 years, that seems highly unlikely. BUT, even if it DOES happen, what has happened in the 'democratic states' in the Middle East so far? Palestine, lebanon and (sortof) Iran: all three are democratic, and all three freely elected eligious, anti-US leaders. Can you think of a single country in the ME where the excersise of democracy has led to a leader who is Pro-US or contributes to peace and stability?

I have said for years, re the desire for a 'democratic' Iraq: be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.





The 'cheaply' point is also a cop-out. It is the universal justification for anything that costs too much and achieved nothing. $600 billion dollars is not just random couch-change, and SO far that $600 billion has been a TOTAL waste. If anything positive ever comes from the Iraqi debacle, it will require MORE money, and more lives. So what does that mean? Say the total cost of Iraq is, I don't know, $900 billion dollars.

That means this so called 'Global war' against the califate is Over. Americans are used to thinking of US resources as infinite, but they are most assuredly not. The US simply cannot afford another war costing that sum of money again, not when it is still starting to feel the eceonomic effects of this one. Not to mention the people of the US, 99% of them, will never countenance ANOTHER war following this debacle, especially when this one has turned out to be (so far) a complete and utter loss.


And as to Iran, they are not in a hard place, they are in the best situation they have been in in decades. Here they are, free to develop nuclear power without hinderance, free to sabre rattle and rant, because the US has no capacity to mount any kind of assault on them, save perhaps a perfunctory air attack.

You say they are surrounded, I say it is the difference between being surrounded by, say, not by armed soldiers, but by coma victims. Being surrounded by the completely powerless is hardly a threat.

But wait, it gets better. Not only is the US powerles to do much about them, Iran can sit back and watch the US suffer, watch US soldiers be killed and maimed, and watch the US treasury empty, and all they need to do is send in some truckloads of weapons every now and then. They get a front row seat to see the US being weakened and defeated, without needing to lift a finger of lose a single Iranian life.

I guarentee you Iran is desperately hoping the US sends in 20,000 more troops: thats 20,000 troops that cannot be committed elsewhere, thats billions more dollars down the hole, and thats more US troops coming home in bodybags, all the while Iran has MORE free time to built up their defences and their nuclear ambitions. How could this situation POSSIBLY be any better for them?

Nor I, but I think you are wrong nonetheless with regards to the significance of a possible democratic Iraq. The difference between Iraq and your examples lies in the geography and culture of Iraq. As a significant Arab nation, it would be far more influential than Palestine, or far away Pakistan. Its a question of culture I believe. A democratic and prosperous Iraq would rapidly grow to dominate the region, culturally as well as economically.
I don't beleive this is going to happen though. I do not have any faith that Muslims are able to reconcile their autocratic religious beliefs with democratic virtues. I am simply pointing out the possibility that Iraq could, even now, over come its internal difficulties and religious heritage and succeed as a democracy.


For many Europeans, the notion of what America is (as typified by the nightmare of Disneyland) is already a 'Rumsfeld land'. A nation of unchecked commercial and cynical exploitation that wages war for obscure capitalist reasons.

I do not blindly accept this point of view however. I can see the reasons why so many Europeans do not like US culture and I can readily empathise with that perspective. Where I differ is in my opinion that common culture translates into common politics. I just don't accept that the USA has become what Dayton Rocker describes, which seems to be more like a mediveal kingdom than the fore most political power of the era.

Perhaps I am searching for something which isn't really there and I'm giving the USA too much benefit of the doubt, but I can't but help notice that the USA always wins, even when it apparently loses. That US 'stupidity' always seems to conceal hidden depths. My suspicion is that GW Bush is not all powerful at all, and his 'mistakes' are not his own. That the true reasons for the war are to maintain the global economy because the US economy cannot sustain itself without it. In other words, the USA is fighting to maintain its current position, not to expand it. America is fighting because it has no other choice. To not fight now is to accept the chaos which would follow when the Middle East erupted into nuclear war with Israel and if the Middle East goes belly up, so too will most of the developed nations economies. Europe would implode without the Middle East, of that I am certain. The EU would struggle to maintain its authority but it would rapidly become a Russian dependency, rife with ethnic tensions and failing social systems.

I don't know what would happen to America in such a scenario, but I bet it would mean a far greater loss of civil rights and liberties than is currently the case. Would the American Union as it exists today even survive if its economy failed?


I understand your feelings but I don't see how they relate to anything I've written. I'm not looking 100 years ahead and saying nothing that happens now really matters. Of course it matters! People are dying!

What I'm saying is that I do not see how, if the goal is to pacify the region, this conflict could be avoided. Iran has been on its collision course since 1979 and the Israel/Palestine issue is even older. Such conflicts as these cannot simmer for ever. When nether side is prepared to back down or even compromise there will be war. I believe/suspect that the war in Iraq and the whole war against terroism are being undertaken in an attempt to counter Iranian ambition. That essentially the USA is moving into a position where it can retaliate against Iran with rapidity once Iran makes its first move.

Vermillion would have me believe the USA cannot maintain its military strength in the region...


Vermillion.

Yeah, well you may be right. Obviously you are convinced of it. I'm not. Such a situation is certainly possible but there is too much which doesn't add up for me to simply accept that a magnitude of blind stupidty is the simple cause at the centre of the American position. There are also too many assumptions in your argument to be convincing. You don't have any explanations, only conclusions as far as I can see.

For example, you claim the USA is not able to sustain its military footing, and yet it did so for forty years prior to the current era. You say the USA does not have enough money to pay for its military endeavours, but where are you getting this information from? How do you know how the USA is paying for its military, or even how much money is even in the US war chest? For all we know any public accountants could be a misdirection and the USA still has enough resources to fight ten such wars. That is certainly how I've understood the winning tactic of fighting war. One conceals one's true strength and over plays one's weaknesses. If your persepctive is to be believed, the USA, the foremost military power on planet Earth has not understood this simple military maxim... possible but not likely.

People have been predicting US military melt down from the second month of the Iraq deployment, and yet now, three and a half years later the USA is considering increasing its deployment. Odd that. According to so many experts GW Bush had to begin drafting people to fight from about two years ago.

I'm not saying you are wrong though. I don't know. I'm just pointing out the many inconsistencies in the point of view you seem so sure about. Your insistence on Iran's freedom is also unconvincing...

I'm sorry to be a disapontment Vermillion, but you are not in any position to guarantee me anything with regards to Iran's wishes.... unless you are actually Ayatollah Ali Khamenei posting incognito.

How could this situation possibly be any better for Iran?

I can't believe you can even ask such a question since the answer is obvious. Irans situation would be infinately improved if it was not in contest with any other political power, and especially not the worlds richest and most technologically advanced military whose aircraft, submarines, missile cruisers, carriers as well as several divisions of experienced troops are currently rotating in and out of surrounding positions. Iran may be free to develop nuclear weapons but this was always the case. Khomeni initiated Iran's nuclear research programme from the very beginning and its nearing the point where Iran could have nuclear weapons. When that happens, the USA will be poised to react quickly to any possible use of these weapons.

The only question on which I am uncertain is whether or not Iraq was a integrated part of a plan to isolate Iran. The more time goes by, the more I am becoming certain of it. I suspect a democratic Iraq was always a looked for bonus prize, but the real goal has always been to isolate Iran. When Saddam Hussein was unable to counter Iran he was dropped like a hot potato. As time went by, it became more important to tighten the noose. Thus the war on terrorism/jihad moved to Iraq.

A democratic Iraq would be significant in so far that Iraq would become a democratic state in the ME. That's it. I have yet to see any empirical or even analytical evidence to suggest that the "Domino Theory of Democracy" would follow.

Still, while we don't agree on the significance of an Iraqi democracy, we do agree that it won't happen. I am not so cynical as you with regard to your assertion of Muslim autocratic beliefs. Certainly, Turkey is more or less a Muslim nation and does have a democracy.


The US has done a great many wonderful things in its time. I'm still in awe when I consider post-WWII reconstruction (Marshall Plan) and the establishment of the UN. Approximately, 1/2 the world's economy is composed of the US alone. We live in a time of unprecedented mobility and technological richness (at least in the First World) largely due to free-market reforms in the global marketplace pushed forward by the US. The US also has the most technologically advanced military the world has ever known and its military budget dwarfs the world's military budget combined.

These are things to respect and be in awe of. But, the US has reached its zenith. The US's power and influence cannot increase further and relative to the growth rate of the rest of the world will contract.

That said, I do not believe that Iraq in any way positively affects the US economy. Nor do I believe that Iraq is/was an inevitable conflict. Finally, I don't believe that the US has no other choice but to fight in Iraq. I don't agree with any of these ideas and find them morally suspect.

As to your ultimate question here: would the US survive an economic collapse? The answer is: no. It would not survive (at least in its current form). If all the oil stopped flowing from the ME to the US, then the US would certainly have a problem. It seems to me that war is the last thing you'd want though.


I'm gonna side with Vermillion on this one. I don't think US troops fighting in Iraq pose any danger to Iran. They are tied down. In fact, I could make an opposite argument. I think that US troops on US bases in Iraq are in great danger from a nuclear-weapon w