Iraq is clearly one of the topics that has dominated discussion here on AD, but there is one question that I think remains to be answered and indirectly should have an impact on the election this year.

The debate on what the war is about clearly isn't finished and I don't think anyone is willing to give in on their position. However, it is a fact that the Bush administration believed and still believes that Iraq is central to the war on terror (I think we can all agree that is their stated position). I'd like to frame the debate questions given that belief.

Questions for debate:
1. What specifically has been gained in the War on Terror by the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime? Has the war on terror been helped or hampered by our actions?

2. If you believe we have gained something has the cost of the war, both financial and cost of life, been worth it?



3. Finally, why is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda no longer the focus of our efforts? Did Iraq pose a greater danger?

Very good topic, CJ! (I'll skip the bit about this being the next Iraqi Thread of the Week )

1. What specifically has been gained in the War on Terror by the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime? Has the war on terror been helped or hampered by our actions?

Let me start by saying I don't think the expected benefits will be realized for a while yet (ie, Iraq with new, stable government). However, there have already been several notable gains.

1. Saddam's regime is no longer in power, which was a destabilizing force in the region.
2. The need for sanctions is gone.
3. The need to devote excess intelligence resources to monitoring Iraq is gone.
4. The US has established that it will act decisively against those countries that it considers a threat (which has already had a positive impact on Libya).
5. We have the opportunity to establish a democracy in Iraq, which can set a precedent in the area, and also possibly create a government friendly to us amongst the Arab states, thereby removing the need to so staunchly support Israel (required before since it was the only 'friendly' government in the region).

I think the WoT has been helped. I don't think the Iraqi invasion had much effect on efforts in Afghanistan, and therefore didn't affect the mission to get UBL. In fact, I think invading Iraq had a positive impact on getting Pakistan on our side, thereby greatly benefiting our efforts against Alqueda. Also, I think other countries are more reluctant to offer Alqueda support. Finally, it has localized resistance to an area where our troops are already located, and kept the focus away from the US.

2. If you believe we have gained something has the cost of the war, both financial and cost of life, been worth it?


I think this depends on the ultimate outcome. If Iraq does indeed form a stable democracy, then I think the efforts are well worth it. If Iraq doesn't form a new, stable government, then the value of the action is much more questionable.

3. Finally, why is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda no longer the focus of our efforts? Did Iraq pose a greater danger?

I think the purpose of the quoted statement was to depersonalize the conflict (ie, not just us against UBL). Therefore, I don't think it indicated any change in our efforts to get UBL. However, I do think at that time Iraq did indeed pose a greater danger, due to its indirect effects on the WoT as well as the WMD potential. What was going to be done against UBL was being done, therefore there was 'room' to elevate other priorities without impacting efforts against UBL. Further, Iraq contributed greatly to many of the underlying issues behind AlQueda, so invading Iraq was, in effect, a continuation of the effort against that group (and others).

1. What specifically has been gained in the War on Terror by the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime? Has the war on terror been helped or hampered by our actions?

I don't think we've gained much as far as the War on Terror is concerned. If Iraq were a hotbed of terrorist activity under Hussein, then clearly invasion should have reduced that number. I feel pretty confident that the invasion of Iraq has only increased the number of folks willing to commit terrorist attacks inside and outside Iraq. Saying that we are "safer" does not mean that we are in fact safer. Those are just words. Any objective measurement of terrorist attacks would give lie to that statement.

[quote=Hobbes,Sep 8 2004, 08:30 AM]Let me start by saying I don't think the expected benefits will be realized for a while yet (ie, Iraq with new, stable government). [/quote]
I won't disagree that there are benefits to the removal of Saddam: some are well-intentioned; some are cynical. However, I'll see your expected benefits and raise you expected costs . We will reap what we sow.

[quote]However, there have already been several notable gains.

1.  Saddam's regime is no longer in power, which was a destabilizing force in the region.[/quote]
I'm not sure this is true. But, it remains to be seen. There was a brutal balance of power between secular fascism and islamic authoritarianism. This no longer exists. I also believe that civil war will inevitably break out in Iraq. Moreover, border countries such as Iran/Syria/Turkey will support certain factions in preference to others. So, I suppose that destabilization is the eye of the beholder.

[quote]2.  The need for sanctions is gone.[/quote]
Hey, we agree. This is a good point.

[quote]3.  The need to devote excess intelligence resources to monitoring Iraq is gone.[/quote]
This is in exchange for excess military resources. Which is more costly? I have to say occupation. Also, we all know how well the "intelligence resources" worked out in Iraq. Apparently, having them was worse than not having them. Curve Ball? Chalabi?

[quote]4.  The US has established that it will act decisively against those countries that it considers a threat (which has already had a positive impact on Libya).[/quote]
Okay, I'm not going to argue Libya (though I disagree with the conclusion). But, if you're going to claim the beneficence of policy to change Libya's position, then you must acknowledge the failure of policy with regard to Iran and North Korea.

[quote]5.  We have the opportunity to establish a democracy in Iraq, which can set a precedent in the area, and also possibly create a government friendly to us amongst the Arab states, thereby removing the need to so staunchly support Israel (required before since it was the only 'friendly' government in the region).[/quote]
These are a lot of hypotheticals piled on top of each other. I won't disagree that democracy would be a good thing™. But, banking on these issues all lining up seems...well...unrealistic.

[quote]I think the WoT has been helped.  I don't think the Iraqi invasion had much effect on efforts in Afghanistan, and therefore didn't affect the mission to get UBL.[/quote]
Huh...this just seems patently false to me. But, I don't have any evidence to back my position up. Nor do you, I see.

[quote]In fact, I think invading Iraq had a positive impact on getting Pakistan on our side, thereby greatly benefiting our efforts against Alqueda.[/quote]
Revisionist history? Wasn't Pakistan on "our" side prior to the Iraq invasion? I believe they were crucial to the Afghanistan conflict.

[quote]Also, I think other countries are more reluctant to offer Alqueda support.[/quote]
This may or may not be true. However, I believe NGOs and private individuals provide the most "support".

[quote]Finally, it has localized resistance to an area where our troops are already located, and kept the focus away from the US.[/quote]
I see...so the Spain bombing is localized? Also, let me ask you a question. If you were walking down the street and someone walked up and hit you, would you be, shall we say, a touch angry? Isn't it possible that the localized forces in Iraq are at least in part generated because of the US occupation? Anyway, I think there are far more terrorists in the world willing to attack the US than happen to be in Iraq.

2. If you believe we have gained something has the cost of the war, both financial and cost of life, been worth it?

I'd have to say that the costs outweigh the benefits. However, the point is really moot; we have invaded. The deed is done.

[quote]I think this depends on the ultimate outcome.  If Iraq does indeed form a stable democracy, then I think the efforts are well worth it.  If Iraq doesn't form a new, stable government, then the value of the action is much more questionable.[/quote]
Democracy may eventually form. It may form, then die, then form and then die again, you know, banana-republic style.

3. Finally, why is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda no longer the focus of our efforts? Did Iraq pose a greater danger?

Focus...we need focus. Abstract, depersonalized goals is tantamount to failure. Pick a target and stick with it. Iraq is, was and will continue to be a distraction from the War on Terror. Potential WMD-related programs? I'm sorry but that's the most convoluted and weak justification for invasion I've heard yet.

Looking at the situation in the Middle East as it stood in 2001, it is fairly clear that a long-term change in strategy was in order. The status quo was boiling over with anti-American and anti-Western feelings that were not going to be contained in the Middle East itself. Terrorism was spreading throughout the world and this simple fact had to be addressed. Unfortunately, as with most problems, the solution is long-term.

The Middle East was a breeding ground of terrorists due to several factors, including (but not limited to) the state control of the Press and internet, the state sanctioned anti-American teachings in the mosques, and the growing fundamentalism caused by the perceived gap between the Middle East and the West and the yearning for "what should have been" following the fall of the Ottomans.

The problem would only grow worse with time. Middle East populations are expected to explode over the next 50 years, with some expected to quadruple in size during that time. Population Resource Center: The Middle East and North Africa With this manpower, the Middle East would soon turn into a real cauldron of trouble for the US, especially given our dependence on its oil reserves. A change was needed.

How could we change the status quo, especially after 9/11 and after the US's invasion of Afghanistan? What direction could we move in that, in the long term, could quell the seething anti-American sentiments?

As with most forms of hatred, exposure to alternative viewpoints is the surest way to dissipate this anti-Americanism which would drive 19 educated, middle class men to blow themselves up for the anti-American cause.

So, how do we expose Middle Easterners to our ways of thinking and show them the benefits that our way of life could bring them?

The most sure solution would be to get rid of the anti-American governments who were (and are) sponsoring the mosques to preach and to use the "will of Allah" against us.

Naturally, international law prevents us from overtly invading countries. As was clear from the build up to the Iraq conflict, even war against a known mass murderer who has flouted the will of the international community for over a decade is difficult. But Iraq was a toe hold that we could use to change the dynamics of the Middle East. By installing a secular government that was not actively anti-West, the rising threat of a greater war in the Middle East might be avoided. A democracy would be a bonus, but not necessary to the plan's success.

This is the paradigm through which I view the situation in the Middle East.

1. What specifically has been gained in the War on Terror by the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime? Has the war on terror been helped or hampered by our actions?
We have gained the potentially secular pro-Western state that will help us break the anti-American fundamentalist movement has on the Middle East. Granted, in the short term this comes at a fairly high price. We must look long term at the solution and at the price of inaction.

2. If you believe we have gained something has the cost of the war, both financial and cost of life, been worth it?

I believe it was well worth it. For one thing, I don't think many people understand the severe economic impact that 9/11 had on the US economy. According to this report, 9/11 had an impact of between $83 and $95 billion and a loss of over 140,000 jobs. Those numbers are for New York City alone. The national impact is much larger. The airline industry lost 100,000 jobs as a direct result of the attacks. A total of 300,000 jobs were lost between 9/11/01 and the end of 2001.

To me, the impact of 9/11 to the economy was much greater than the $150-170 billion or so we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. The prevention of another attack is well worth the effort.

3. Finally, why is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda no longer the focus of our efforts? Did Iraq pose a greater danger?

I think Hobbes nailed this one. Bush did not want to turn the War on Terror into a simple "Osama hunt" since the war is obviously much more far ranging than that. Had he kept it personal between Osama and himself, many would have expected the war to end with the capture of Osama when it clearly would not.

Did Iraq pose a real danger? I felt it did. Many others felt it did. Tony Blair felt it did. Vladimir Putin warned that Iraq was planning an attack on the US (this is still blown off to this day). Danger is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

1. What specifically has been gained in the War on Terror by the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime? Has the war on terror been helped or hampered by our actions?

I do not see the war on terror value of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Granted Hussein was a horrible leader with a poor record on human rights (understatement), but he was a secular dictator who's primary purpose was to retain power. He earlier harbored ambitions of carving together a Pan-Arab dynasty, but that has long since been thwarted. His connection to terrorism is heavily the support of anti-Israeli terrorism. These are not the terrorists we are waging war against. The approach that maintains that we would rather have American soldiers fighting Arabs in Iraq rather than catching terrorists in the act in the United States is a type of false logic in my opinion. There has been no proven connection between the Iraqi government and the planning of terrorist attacks in the United States.

I think that this war exploited an American desire to strike out at others to find a target for our rage at the terrorist acts against the United States. Americans have been doing this type of activity since the days of John Smith and Miles Standish. When a Native American attacked someone on the frontier, a Native American community was going to pay for it, and often the care was not taken to distinguish between peaceful and guilty parties.

The association of the Middle East with Al Qaeda's terrorism has served as a blinder to the fact that we are fighting in a battleground that was not a place of support for terrorism. Iran has a history of supporting anti-American terror. Saudi Arabia created a culture in which anti-Americanism flourished and many of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi Citizens. Another ally, Pakistan, has since proven to be guilty of disseminating "nukular" technology.

Al Cauda was formed in large part because of the affront of American forces being based in the holy country that houses Mecca and Medina. Now placing an army of occupation/liberation in the fertile crescent is being offered as an anecdote or a solution to the terrorist threat.

We need to make friends in the Arab world. An army is a blunt instrument, even a liberating army. Soldiers are frightening, they carry guns. Soldiers are trained to kill, not to practice diplomacy. They are frightened, as they well should be. There number one priority is and should be returning to their loved one's alive. This leads to itchy trigger fingers, civilian casualties, and confrontations with unfriendlies. An army is no way to make friends.

Instead of finding a bridge between the cultures of the Islamic World and the protestant world, we have chosen a new foreign policy by which to attempt to remake the Middle East into a collection of democratic governments. The very policy goal is a threat to all of the governments and peoples of the Middle East. I don't want any Islamic crusade coming in to try to influence my government, why would the people of the Middle East look on our policy as a positive influence?

We are over-reaching our ability to change the world and we are laying our credibility on the line. In doing so we are creating a wellspring of hatred against American policies and in the eyes of many, I suspect, we are seeming to behave the way the Jihadists had claimed we were. The "terrorists" we are fighting in Iraq are creations of the Iraq war. They are not the people we were initially hunting.

We have stretched our forces out thin by sitting in Iraq, but we have not been able to solve the major problems of that country in a convincing manner. We have upped the stakes beyond protecting our country and moved into wars to set examples of American power and determination.

We need to hope that we can create a secure environment in Iraq. Who knows how many years we will be committed to playing a role helping fend off enemies of the new government and trying to avoid a civil war, shift to dictatorship, or loss of an effective central government. The sanction period lasted twelve years and seems to have been effective.



2. If you believe we have gained something has the cost of the war, both financial and cost of life, been worth it?

I believe that the issue of international terrorism (and let's face it. anti-American terrorism) needs to be faced up to and dealt with. The economic and personal costs of this were are high, and I wish I supported this action. But I think the costs are too high because we are creating more long-term problems than we are solving.



Now I don't see a connection to these quotes, but that is a flip flop worth talking about. Maybe the dem's should start a repetitive campaign about Bush flip flops to question his resoluteness.



3. Finally, why is Bin Laden and Al Cauda no longer the focus of our efforts? Did Iraq pose a greater danger?

I don't believe that Al Cauda is no longer a focus of our actions, but a disproportionate number of dollars is being used in Iraq in the war on terror.

I agree with most of what you wrote Amlord, but I still have a question for you. How does Iraq fit into the terrorism picture? None of the hijackers on 9/11 were Iraqi (in fact most were Saudi), none of them had Iraqi passports, and the 9/11 commission report has stated they were not in any way involved. If you look at other recent terrorist acts in the last 10 years or so, I don't believe many (if any) Iraqis have been involved (although without doing research I could be wrong, but it seems to me that from memory I am correct).

So granted, we brought the end to an evil regime and we are bringing western opportunity to the country, etc, etc. But the question that needs to be answered is - are we focusing our attention on the right nation to make progress in the war on terror. I don't think we are and furthermore I think we may have exacerbated the problem.

The problem at the time was: which country in the region could we use to change the dynamic? In which country could we replace the current anti-American regime with a pro-Western one?

Iraq had served as a thorn in our side for over a decade. Osama bin Laden cited Iraqi children as one of his motives against the West. He specifically said that what we were doing had caused the deaths of a million Iraqi children. Bin Laden's warning: full text


The Iraq situation had to be resolved. It was a distraction for our intelligence and a motivation for their fundamentalists.

We had two options: pull out and capitulate or force Saddam to comply with the will of the international community (as expressed through over a dozen Security Council resolutions).

Bush chose the latter and in the face of the unfolding drama, an opportunity presented itself: Iraq could be the foothold we needed in the region, the example of Western values that could be used to show the Middle Easterners the folly of their hatred of us.

Now I have no insider knowledge of whether or not my vision was the same one that Bush had. Perhaps he wanted to resolve Iraq and the whole "democracy in Iraq" idea was simply a sound bite with no real rhyme or reason behind it. Who knows.

If it works out in the long term, we will have avoided a much broader, much bloodier conflict with the countries of the Middle East (I refer the conspiracy theorists to Nostradamus's prediction about the rise of a great leader in the Middle East at the end of the 20th century).

Was it all worth it? Again, time will tell.

1. What specifically has been gained in the War on Terror by the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime? Has the war on terror been helped or hampered by our actions?

I think Hobbe’s 5 points make a good basis for discussion, so that’s where I’ll start.

1. Saddam's regime is no longer in power, which was a destabilizing force in the region.
That statement is true, but we have yet to establish a stable administration in Iraq to take the place of the Saddam dictatorship. At this snapshot in time, the region is currently more unstable than ever before. But I'm still optimistic that we can achieve success in Iraq over the long-term.

2. The need for sanctions is gone.
True. They have been replaced by a driving need for extremely expensive reconstruction – which is a critical part of any hoped for stabilization of the country. (Afghanistan’s needs are even greater than Iraq’s – and getting far less attention)
Reconstructing Iraq
Progress or Peril? Measuring Iraq’s Reconstruction

3. The need to devote excess intelligence resources to monitoring Iraq is gone.
That was a myth to begin with. Our intelligence assets were not unduly focused on Iraq to the detriment of collection and analysis on other targets. By 9/11 and up to the Iraq War, the intelligence community had achieved a post-Cold War level of dysfunction that seriously damaged our effectiveness world-wide. The weaknesses we had (and to a certain extent, still have) were systemic and had nothing to do with any excessive focus of key assets on Iraq. Currently, the community is in the early stages of fundamental reform – it remains to be seen how effective that reform will ultimately be over the long term.

4. The US has established that it will act decisively against those countries that it considers a threat (which has already had a positive impact on Libya).
We have also established the fact that our military is over-extended and committed in-depth (Active Force, Reserve, and Guard), leaving very little to respond to any future contingency. Both Iran and North Korea are good examples of regimes that feel we are unable to put forces in on the ground and that they could potentially absorb any air-strikes we may throw at them. They both continue their drive to acquire (or expand) nuclear weapons’ capability unabated.
A Preemptive Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences

5. We have the opportunity to establish a democracy in Iraq, which can set a precedent in the area, and also possibly create a government friendly to us amongst the Arab states, thereby removing the need to so staunchly support Israel (required before since it was the only 'friendly' government in the region).
Have you forgotten that both Egypt and Jordan are key US allies in the region? Prior to the massive commitment of forces to Iraq, the Bright Star exercises in Egypt were the largest joint military exercises held in the world. Qatar and Bahrain play host to important US bases, and we have a presence in a few other places in the Arab world as well.

Our “need” to support Israel is driven domestically, and has little to do with the existence or lack of Arab regimes “friendly” to the US.

Having said all that, the “opportunity” does now exist to establish a stable democracy in Iraq – and it could have significant, positive effects upon the region; if it happens. I’m keeping my fingers crossed, and am hoping we’re successful, but, as stated earlier, at this point we’ve only succeeded in further destabilizing the region.

Again, I must emphasize that unexpected and unplanned for expenses and commitments in Iraq have significantly contributed to the watering down and de-prioritization of the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, which held out such promise in its earlier, conceptual form.

2. If you believe we have gained something has the cost of the war, both financial and cost of life, been worth it?
That remains to be seen. That is question that can only be answered by long-term gains, and it is still early days.

3. Finally, why is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda no longer the focus of our efforts? Did Iraq pose a greater danger?
Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror, and certainly has had a negative impact upon our focus and operations in Afghanistan and overall on the WoT. Once again, I think Dr. Jeffrey Record’s Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, published last December, gives the best reply.

This article by Juan Cole adds an interesting dimension to this debate as far as suggesting that Iraq was in fact harmful to the overall war on terror.

The whole thing is rather interesting and worth a read but the following paragraphs are particularly interesting:


I think that it is tough to put yourself in the shoes of your enemy, but if we are to truely assess where we are in the war on terror I think that to a certain extent you have to do this. Cole's assertion that Bush has indirectly accomplished Bin Laden's goals is an interesting one, and definitely worth some thought. I wonder if anyone's answers would change if they took a look at things from that perspective.

To follow up on Mustang's comments (which, I will add, were excellent).



True. This MUST be the long term goal...else all was in vain.



Again, true. However, I think most will agree that, if successful, the reconstruction costs will be well worth it. Obviously, if not successful, it is wasted money....



In general, I would agree with this assessment. I think the issue was more with focus than with actual resources. However, in either case, the issue has been alleviated.



I think the point here was that by showing we will act decisively, we would reduce the need to do so again (and more often) in the future, which would have extended us even more. While the effect may be minimal on Iran and N. Korea, you can point to success already in the case of Libya. The long term affect of this remains to be seen.



Yes, but none of these countries has the all important resource of oil. While Egypt and Jordan might be able to influence our access to this oil, we didn't have a stable relationship with any of the producing countries outside of Saudi Arabia (forcing us to give them undue influence). The basic gist is that being on friendly relations with more of the oil producing Arab states would be a good thing...and that it would make us less dependent on our relationship with Israel to at least some degree (agree that this is mainly driven by domestic interests at this time).

1. What specifically has been gained in the War on Terror by the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime? Has the war on terror been helped or hampered by our actions?

2. If you believe we have gained something has the cost of the war, both financial and cost of life, been worth it?

3. Finally, why is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda no longer the focus of our efforts? Did Iraq pose a greater danger?

Getting involved in Iraq was a lose-lose proposal. Hobbes, kudos to you for bringing up some good points. Has the war on terror been helped? No.
If anything, we are increasingly at risk of more attacks overseas as a result of invading Iraq, though our forces have good intentions.
The sooner we as a nation can restore some credibility and tell the truth, the better off we will be. This means our leaders should come clean and quit fabricating their own version events to justify their actions.
Our credibility in the world is in the toilet, and continues to decline with every passing headline. If anything, our countries' invasion of Iraq has contributed to insurgencie, or nationalist, recruitment.
Did Iraq pose a greater threat? A threat to who? What could Saddam do?
As has been pointed out, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. What we gained is a tragic loss of life, an enormous bill for occupation and a perilously destabilized middle east.
The fact of the matter remains that many beleive Bush misled the nation into invading Iraq. Where is Osama? It's been 3 years, thats a good question.

Saddam's regime is no longer in power, though in fact since the first Gulf war it was hardly a destabilising force. Saddam had been steadily improving relations with all of its neighbours, including even Iran and Kuwait, which opened diplimatic relations with Iraq after a long and drawn out negotiations, praised by both sides as a watershed in their mutual relations.

Though in Public Hussein expressed (and probably felt) great annoyance at the help saudi was lending the US and the troops there, Saudi and Iraq had also improved relations. In fact, the period between the two gulf wars was literally one of steady reconciliation between Iraq and its neighbours.



Much in the same way the need for life support is gone if you kill the patient. Yes, sanctions are no longer in place, at least for the moment, but what is in the place of sanctions is a massive war effort consuming the resources and men of primarily the US. What is in its place is a steadily worsening mess with death rates of US servicement which have steadily and inexorably increased since the handover of power, not to mention the death rates to Iraqis themselves. The US has burned through, and stands to burn through hundreds of billions of dollars because of this, to say nothing of the human costs, and reputation costs, which involved taking the US at the modern peak of its world popularity after 9/11 and making it reviled through heavy handed and improperly justified actions.



I have seen this repeated several times and have been puzzled by it every time. Firstly, what evidence do we have that a prohibitive portion of US intel resources were being used on Iraq that were needed elsewhere, and FAR more importantly, what evidence do we have that, considering the worsening bloodshed there, they have been freed up?



Yes, that worked REALLY well against Lybia. The nation that spoke out placatingly in favour of the US and against WMD, while at the same time financing and backing a coup to overthrow the House of Saud. and now is under investigation for supporting an attempted coup in Mauritania in August.

Meanwhile, that same show that the US is willing to ignore the UN and attack nations on its own regardless of the substance of the evidence they provide has caused Iran to accelerate its nuclear program, and caused North korea to break off talks with the US, Japan and South Korea. In fact the ONLY nation in the world with IMPROVED relations with the US after this debacle is Poland.

That certainly has been a big sucess.



Firstly, it may also allow us to establish an oligarchy in Iraq where the top hollywood star is names head of the country, according to popularity at the Box office. That seems about as likely.

The 'new government' has so far been an abject failure, violence and death rates are on the steady increase, not only becoming more numerous but more organised and better equipped.

To quote CBS:
"The Pentagon said 219 U.S. soldiers were wounded in Iraq in the past week. The number of Americans killed and wounded has grown rapidly amid an intensifying and increasingly effective insurgency. The total number of GIs wounded since the U.S. invaded Iraq now stands at 7,245."

"The violence appeared to be part of an increasingly brazen and coordinated campaign to bring the battle to Baghdad,"

To quote USA today:
"Attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq have escalated over the past several months, and insurgents are now launching an average of 17 assaults a day against patrols, convoys and bases, an analysis of coalition security reports shows. The data also show insurgents are using more sophisticated tactics and weapons."

"Daily attacks against U.S.-led forces have risen 20 percent since the handover, to about 60 a day, compared with 50 a day in the three months preceding, according to figures provided by the military. "

60 attacks on US forces (nationwide) a DAY. Does that sound like a stable democracy to you? These numbers are steadily getting worse, with NO sign they will improve...


Oh, and secondly, even if your earlier statement WERE correct, even if Iraq did miraculously transform into a shiny-happy place, that would not help Israel, after all Of ALL the nations in the Middle East Iraq gave the LEAST financial aid to hamas and the PLO. The nation which still, to this day, funds Hamas and the PLO more then every other nation in the Gulf combined is: (drum roll)

You guessed it, longtime ally and friend of Bush Jr, Saudi Arabia.



How has the war in Iraq made the slightest difference here? Pakistan was on the side of the US solidly long before the US even invaded Iraq, following the war in Afghanistan, a war (by the way) largely forgotten, where the taliban still controls as much as 15% of the country, and Taliban style rules on women have treturned to the majority of the country helf by local warlords.



Another often claimed statement, but according to the IISS report, Al Qaida has used this break to rebuild, re-arm and reorganise, and is now at or above the strength it was immediatly post-9/11. This has been nothing more than a vacation for Al qaida, allowing them to mount operations across South-east asia and in Spain easily. Even the CIA figures no more than 1000 foreign Al Qaida fighters have been involved in Iraq...



Here, for the first time, we agree, with one caveat... if things continue how they are going and a Stable democracy in Iraq is NOT in the outing, then this is not 'questionable' behaviour on the part of Bush Jr, it is criminal behaviour.

Of course it was...through the sanctions etc. that his regime forced us to continue to apply. His improved relations with his ME neighbors probably only heightened this (and probably by design....Saddam was nothing if not very shrewd). In fact, just that simple fact that Saddam remained in power made him much like the mouse that roared, which was destabilizing all by itself.



The point being that the sanctions were what was causing the tension, and that there seemed to be no other way to remove them, and that they had no hope of achieving their ultimate goal, which was regime change.



This is a good point, to which I would only say that this was never one of the primary benefits or reasons for the invasion...only a potential side effect.



Which UN resolution did we ignore?

Iran was already working on its nuclear programs, and hasn't really done anything to accelerate them--given the time commitments, there often isn't much that CAN be done to accelerate the process. N. Korea and Iraq are completely unrelated...the issues there were present long ago and hadn't really changed much. Also, to follow your reasoning above, what would be FAR more important is to understand what the impact of NOT invading, but continuing the status quo would have been.

I have a hard time swallowing this one. Under Hussein, there was no destablization in Iraq. He killed key clerics and put down rebellions. Yes, he was satan incarnate, but without an iron hand, we've seen what happens-different groups causing chaos. Iraqi guardsmen can't even enter a number of cities, that wasn't the case under Hussein's rule, and that's a fact. Perhaps that is why from '81 to gulf war one, we didn't mind what he did. Destablizing the region? How is Iraq a calm and stabilizing force in the region now given the number of foreign fighters, money, and suicide bombers who are flocking to the region??

Well, that because he killed anyone remotely capable of destabilizing anything, isn't it? Hardly a recommendation, is it?

Iraq was destabilizing prior to Gulf War I....ask any Iranian or Kuwaiti. They have been destabilizing post GW I since Hussein used to situation to spur anti-US sentiment, creating dissent with the troops and policies necessary in the area to contain him and enforce the sanctions. As Guiliani put it...it isn't possible to define a WOT effort that didn't deal with Iraq at some point. Despite all the protests to the relationship between Iraq and the WOT, I haven't seen anyone yet define how that could happen, either.

Aren't we doing the same thing?

If you are hanging your hat on that premise, how are we different? Because God is on Bush's side?

Saddam had three factions to deal with and all of them wanted to rule Iraq. He used the same tactics as us to keep civil war from occuring.

So, please explain to me how Saddam was worse in this respect? Because of his actions in Abu Gharib prison or something?

You should have extended your quotation of me to include the words "satan incarnate." The simple fact of the matter is that we've relieved a nation of an oppressor, and opened up pandora's box to a potential dozen oppressors. Things are worse now, not better. In recent days, three u.s. soldiers and an Iraqi were killed in a car bomb attack in Baghdad. Over 40 Iraqi civilians have been killed by U.S. bombing runs in Falluja. We've also lost a handful of troops during an attack in Kirkuk. Insurgents also dropped off the dead body of an Anbar governor, in a key sign of who owns who in the struggle between insurgents and Iraqi NG forces. Toss into the mix that an entire national guard unit is in lock down for wanting to see their families before leaving, and you have every indication that this situation is one that has gone from bad(under Hussein) to worse(with car-bombings, sabotage, kidnappings, and suicide bombers.)

Goodness, it would help to do some research on the subject, we are not doing the same things as Saddam, anyone with passing familiarity with what Saddam did knows that.

The coalition, together with the Iraqi government, puts down armed rebellion by imprisoning and killing when the former is impossible, armed fighters seeking to harm the country or government. This is the right of any country.

Saddam on the other hand killed, largely in cold blood, anyone he suspected of fighting against him including using methods that killed civilians down-right indiscriminately (mustard-gas in Halabja). He made very little effort to distinguish between combatant and non-combatants and was known to drag "traitors" from their homes and have them and their families subjected to torture far beyond anything committed by the US in Iraq....

then have them tied to a poll and shot.

I see something of a difference.

...not according to most Iraqis, it is their opinion that expert in the area after all.

Unlike Saddam's army, the Iraqi national guard can't enter a number of cities. Coalition mayors can't even be kept from being killed by a rag-tag mob of insurgents. Could you post links about suicide bombings and killings of Baathist mayors occured and undermined Hussein's rule? Or perhaps provide for us how Saddam's forces couldn't enter five cities and had pipe lines blown up? I blieve that would be evidence enough to answer the question at hand. Do you seriously maintain that there was MORE chaos under Hussein's regime than the coalition's puppet-governance?

In an effort to stay on topic (my fault for leaving it really, ) I'll quote and respond in another thread...

I'll edit in a link later too.

This goes for response to DaytonRocker as well...

Oh....here we go again...the "Saddam gassed his own people" rhetoric to make it sound like he bombed downtown Bagdad. Here's what the Hannitization of America has done for us - twisted half-truths into a case for war because the actual truth can't get the job done.

For the umpteenth time (and I'm getting really tired of having to retype this), Saddam didn't target his people. He targeted the Iranians who were using WMD themselves. The Kurds took up sides with Tehran and fought with them in the north. When the Iranians crossed into Iraq en masse, Saddam unleashed the gates of hell on them to protect his country. The Kurds got caught in the "crossfire" and many got killed. But it doesn't stop here. An Army war College report says there is nothing to say Saddam was even responsible for their deaths. According to the senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, the Iranians were responsible because of the type of gasses used.

Stephen C. Pelletiere's article can be found here. Excerpts from the report titled "Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East" can be found here.

This no small issue, because not unlike almost every report we hear from that region, the analysis is wrong. We were wrong about WMD. We were wrong about being welcomed as liberators. We were wrong about exiles coming back to Iraq and running the country. And for all those 100's of thousands slaughtered and mass killing your refer to, we haven't found the evidence of that.

Mass graves? Sure...and quite horrific. But what is worse (from a tribal community's point of view in the middle east versus ours), several thousand rebellious militants getting killed, or the 10's of thousand innocents we've killed accomplishing the same thing?

If we put all the innocent people we've killed since we've invaded into one grave, what do you think the world would see?

There has been NOTHING to substantiate any claims you continue to make. It seems that everything we learn, is counter to what we thought we know. So, I can only assume the additional rhetoric you repeat is subject to scrutiny at the very least. The Halabja reference I picked apart is only an example (although an important one).

You know, some of us also continue to watch this situation closely. And some of us don't allow the Sean Hannitys and Michael Moores of the world to do our thinking for us. Facts are facts. And the facts do not support many of your opinions.

We are not gaining anything from Iraq because we can't even do as "good" a job as Saddam in providing security. If we can't defend ourselves there adequatly, how do we think we are defending the world? It defies logic...

My suggestion is to take the topic up at the link below, I am a bit busy at the moment but will respond in due time.
Iraq Humanitarian Benefit

As I've mentioned in other threads, despite the difficulties, the Iraqis by and large seem to be optimistic. Depite posturing and kowtowing to the mullah-du-jour, especially the Shi'ites, I strongly believe that they will remember who brought their country out of the dictatorship. And as noted by others, establishing a Western-friendly democracy in the mid-east should be a good thing long term for the USA.

Iraqis Show Optimism About the Future ...

2. If you believe we have gained something has the cost of the war, both financial and cost of life, been worth it?

Iraq is free, on its way to becoming a democracy. Another group of people free from oppression. Was it worth it? Well, was the American revolution worth it? If it was, then the Iraqi one was as well.