Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young. In a column titled After Iraq elections, U.S. Should pull out in yesterday's Detroit Free Press, he raised an interesting question.


I put the column in my pocket, reread it a couple of times, and couldn't find a better way to phrase the question. So...

What, if anything is the U.S. gaining from its occupation of Iraq, and what is the U.S. losing by being there?

Essentially, can we justify the cost of this war, or should we declare victory and leave?

This is basically the same debate we have had over, and over, and over (and over) again.

1) Of course the obvious answer is a free and democratic Iraq. The terrorists want us to fail. They want us to pull out of Iraq in shame so they can take over the nation and put in place a fundamentalist government. We can't fail, we can't give up. Anyone who wants to pull out before the job is done is being irrational. If we fail att his point...we invite only greater disaster.

By "losing", i guess the only thing we are losing is troops. But its a harsh reality of war. In a perfect world there would be no terrorists and no war...but we do not live in a perfect world. Except for Americans...we are not losing anything of true value IMO. "Place in the world" and all that? Its all rhetoric. The world has never liked us. For the same reasons people in baseball hate the yankees. It really is quite easy to juxtapose the two.

2) We can justify it with what i have said earlier in my post. The cost of failure and leaving at this point is WAAAAY higher than that of staying and seeing the job trhough. We have brought democracy to dozens of nations over the years and we can do it in Iraq. There just has to be people willing to see it through.

People on here can debate the justification for invasion until their blue in the face because it matters not. The reality is that we are in Iraq, there are problems, we ARE fighting AL Queda, and that we MUST establish a stable and democratic Iraq. And i cant stress enough that anyone who believes that we should leave before the job is done is just not thinking it through.

What, if anything is the U.S. gaining from its occupation of Iraq, and what is the U.S. losing by being there?


Well, I'd like to say the US is gaining the reputation that we follow through with our ideas and goals, and that we not only follow through but meet them too. Also I'd like to say that the world is looking at us and saying "Kudos United States, you've brought freedom to a haggard nation." But I'm pretty sure it's more like "Um, United States, why is this going so poorly and what's the exit strategy?"

I'd say by staying we do two things: show that we can see it through (good) and spend a lot more time, money, and military personnel (bad).

Essentially, can we justify the cost of this war, or should we declare victory and leave?

I thought we already declared victory, huh, ok well, I guess not, but Bush did look pretty at home in that Air Force suite. From what I've read and from how the situation looks, if we pull out there will be the power vacuum and whatnot. We've really just worked out way into quite a pickle here. We've committed ourself to rebuilding their governmental system from the ground up. So even though I'm against the occupation, er liberation, I think we don't help ourselves by leaving.

Perhaps we could just come up with a Pre-packaged do-it-yourself "Democracy in a Box" where a nation could just purchase it from the US and they they'll build a new governmental system themselves, would be a lot more cost effective seeing as how it'd be almost all profit!

Gain: A strategic ME presence.

Loss: Lives and dollars.

Two years have almost completed their cycles. Don't think anyone at the outset thought Iraq would still be an issue. Oh well.



I can't justify it and have no idea what the resolution might be. Others are very nimble for inventing justification. I guess this war is to protect Americans from Iraqi-supported terrorists. Resolutions aren't being made with such dexterity.

I also guess we can declare anything and do anything as much as we want.

Eh, I'm tired of thinking about this too. Just fix it, okay power holders?

What, if anything is the U.S. gaining from its occupation of Iraq, and what is the U.S. losing by being there?We are buying time, nothing more. We are losing billions of wasted dollars and hundreds of American soldiers lives.

The Arabs don't want democracy and they won't get anytime soon. We have friends in the region, like the Kurds and we don't support them enough, and we have enemies like the Shi'ites that we support too much. Keep our friends, and stop helping the enemy.

Essentially, can we justify the cost of this war, or should we declare victory and leave?Never could, we should have just dropped a Nuc on Baghdad and not committed a single soldier. By all means lets go NOW!!!

Ledur:


Before responding to this thread, would you mind listing a few of the 'dozens of nations' we have brought democracy to? That would demonstrate that we have some experience at this, but more-so that you have no credibility when constantly making blanket propagandistic statements with absolutely no truth to them.

Except of course if, under free and fair elections, a Shia majority vote in a government that prefers close links to Iran rather than close links to America...

I don't really know how most Iraqis view American soldiers (well, I read the papers, all the ones in the UK say that generally the UK / US are seen as invaders - but then I don't know how true that is. ) but IF the Iraqi people perceive US forces as being needlessly violent and agressive, or kill too many civilians then, given the chance, they might vote for a government that is anti-American. And then no strategic presence in the Middle East....

Loreng59, I agree with your entire post except for the idea of dropping a nuke on Baghdad.

Today on CNN, two things have been brought up that are pertinent to this subject:
1) The official search for WMD's was given up a couple of weeks ago, and without fanfare
2) The Sunnis who were going to participate in the election there by running candidates have pulled out

There is absolutely nothing that American or British or any other soldiers can do about either one of these things.

When the election takes place in Iraq, there is no way that it can be construed as representative of the citizens of that country, especially since resurgents are threatening people about running in it or even going out to vote. When the suicide attacks cannot even be stopped in the nation's capital, what are our soldiers going to do? Escort each and every voter to the polls? What about after they vote and have to go home to their dangerous neighborhoods?

How many years will it take after this election before there will not have to be an American/British military presence to keep the peace?

France
Germany
Japan
Afghanistan
Philippines

US has had some influence over democracy in:
Former Soviet Union
South korea
Various latin american countries

Also it is legitamate to say that through US efforts, many countries have been pressured into becoming more democratic (such as Saudi Arabia).

France had a first taste of democracy long before 1945... First Republic was established in 1791, if I am not mistaken. With brief interruptions for Bonaparte's wars and Restoration, France had some kind of democratic government almost as long as United States. As for 1945, coalition troops liberated France, not United States alone; Paris, as a matter of fact, was liberated by French division of General Leclerc.
Technically, in Germany the Allies were cleaning up after democratic process gone awry, not "bringing them democracy"; Germans reaped what they saw. Hitler was elected in 1933 in perfectly legitimate and democratic election.
Also, when talking about Latin American countries, I hope you are not referring to Chilie... I would be interested to know which Latin-American country you had in mind.

Only 2 yrs? Gee silly me it felt like decades..maybe because it has been decades. Goodness if that isn't a bit of an understatement. We have been gaining.. losing... gaining again... losing again strategic presences in the ME (along with lives and dollars) for sometime now..Iraq is on what now? phase 3?
I wonder if anyone thought Israel would still be an issue 2 yrs after the outset too?




I don't think we have gained anything..the Iraqis have to some extent but I am not sure if the tradeoff will be to their advantage yet. So far nothing has been gained but then again little is gained in the act of war itself..more so in the victory.


Well now we have to justify it because it must be fixed. How can we declare victory when we have not achieved it?

I read this and I couldn't stop laughing! I love it. I want to just give them a "Democracy in a Box". Hey -- if it works --

More seriously, I was vehemently opposed to going into Iraq. I thought it was the stupidest darn thing we could have done. And it used to irritate me till no end when Kerry and Edwards were backtracking on this issue during the campaign-- blaming their vote in favor of the war on the lack of information. Geez-- even I could tell that it was a bad idea before Congress voted to give the authorization. That is why I loved and supported Howard Dean (me the conservative leaning one!). He really called it as he saw it. In any case I am digressing . . .

But I do agree with Lederuvpac-- we can argue till we are blue in the face about whether it was a good idea to go in -- but it doesn't matter one bit. We are there now and we must do what needs to be done. We have a lousy situation (of our own making) that needs to be fixed. We cannot under any circumstances leave Iraq in a vacuum. I think that artificially declaring victory at this point would be harmful. I see it as a long term plan over at least the next three years -- where we stay on to insure that elections are held, and the elected officials are in office and the government is stable. I really don't see that we can get out any sooner.

First of all, what victory would you be declaring? To go in there and create chaos in a country that had a cruel oppressor yet a stable government is not victory by my definition.



Oh but it does. Not for you as an American, but for the strategy that has to be pursued now in order to not lose the war completely.
The real crunch comes after the election. Will the elected government be accepted by the voters? If not, there will be civil war. Will the elected government address the important issues and deal with them the best way they can?

I have the feeling that this war will never be won completely, but there is still a chance that the country can be stabilized. Even if this means that Iraq will not be an ally of the US but devoted to neutrality. If the American public and their reelected government is willing to accept that, then there is still hope.


I wish you would have asked that question before the US went in there.

What, if anything is the U.S. gaining from its occupation of Iraq, and what is the U.S. losing by being there?

Loaded question. ( Curm, Im suprised that you would be so transparent.) The US is hoping to gain strategic location, total control of Iraqi oil and a huge governing presence in the ME as a start , now. This is a strategy that goes way beyond a few decades, even our lifetimes, but in the future assures that when oil becomes a more or less scant, or high dollar resource, we have control of it. By certain standards it had to be done now. It was an open opportunity, Saddam was weak, Iraq depleted.
I am not in agreement because I think it was essentially a wrong action. Iraqis dont like to give up what is theirs and by much of history we have no chance of this being short or winnable. There is no precedent that they will succumb, au contraire, they know what they are fighting for and will be wane to give it up. Its not about freedom and democracy, or even Islam, they know it, and if Joe Public America would stop fooling themselves by being so horrendously naive, they would get it too. It doesnt mean its bad, it just is not about 'righteousness and liberty'.
Its about survival of the fittest and that means control of OIL resources. They have it, we want it, they dont want us to have it, and they are right, morally. We decided we would make excuses to get it, and they will fight for their right to keep it, to the death.

Essentially, can we justify the cost of this war, or should we declare victory and leave?

Regardless of whether the cost is justified or not to the public, we shall never leave. We may pretend to give over power, but I dont think we will even do that. This is not Vietnam. This is OIL. This is everything for us. This is the mother of all resources, and Iraq has loads of it, untapped.
Ive come to realize that the Iraq war was not any light excersize, about WMD or cruel dictators. This was hardball about oil. Anyone who even entertains any other ideological theory is buying a half truth. If you think in oil terms, the entire war takes on a whole new meaning and it all makes sense, where none of the other foul smelling baloney ever has.

One should contemplate that China is coming into the modern age of industrialized fossil fuel needs, lots of cars =gas , plus industry and food production.
Thats 1 billion, 300 million people (1,298,847,624 ) as of July 2004, to become a huge strain on oil supply. ( We in the US are the highest fossil fuel users in the world at 300 million people)
Not only that. We could be reaching Peak oil, which is not lack of, but lack of cheap extraction and increased in costs due to demand, and we shall eventually have used half our 'non renewable' supply. ( I wrote on this here on AD a time back) China will increase that probability at least three-fold. Tell me you dont see resource wars coming?
It doesnt matter if we have (reached peak oil) or not, eventually we will, and the US needs control of oil to retain world power. Leave it to to the Saudis or anyone else? Sure, especially in the ideology of everyone in the Bush administration who are arms and oil barons since the first born.

The only problem we are having is that we are pretending its something else. For it to be successful we need to break Iraq, crush it to smitherines and occupy it wholeheartedly, but the rest of the world might oppose such an action, knowing the motive, and we have to play with them too. We are making a big play on this one, and everyone else, especially the UN and Arab countries are firstly scrambling and secondly working against us.

The game is dicey, because we were not strong when we started, and are vunerable to starting a world war for resources if we dont tred lightly, we have problems with Islam, which could see us unprepared if we are attacked internally, we could lose in Iraq as well.
Like Rumsfeld said, you dont have the army you wish for, but they went for it anyway.

We could see the American empire expand or die in terrible defeat. In the bigger picture, perhaps more of us could get behind the concept of oil for the US. When you have to make choices about Arabs controlling the worlds most important resource when there's little of it to be had, or China, or the US. Which would you choose?
You see they should tell us the truth sometimes, its much easier perhaps, to be uterly and totally selfish, rather than have a false concept of righteousness, which disappoints through disbelief.

What, if anything is the U.S. gaining from its occupation of Iraq, and what is the U.S. losing by being there?

Without being there it's really hard to tell what benefit the invasion or the occupation are doing for Iraqis or the US. From what I gather, we're not rebuilding infrastructure (it's being destroyed as fast or faster than it can be built, and more contractors are leaving every month because of the danger), the Iraqis are probably worse off now than under Sadam.

We're losing soldiers and our soldiers are indiscrimanantly killing Iraqis (100,000 to date since the occupation).

And the worse thing of all is that I see NO immediate solution to a better Iraq, aside from killing all the Sunnis.

Seriously, consider this. We cannot leave until the Iraqis "help themselves". Until they have armed forces, etc. that can protect their own people we must continue to be there. BUT because we continue to be there we cannot build up their armed forces and the insurgents are using the American occupation as an excuse to kill other Iraqis (who cooperate with "the infidels"). And the insurgents are getting BETTER at this every day!

BUT now comes the tricky part. How do we get Iraqis to protect themselves when there are factions involved? If we have Kurds and Shiites killing Sunnis, we're ENCOURAGING a civil war.

So the result of this occupation is a) a Civil War or we stay and it only gets worse anyway.


Essentially, can we justify the cost of this war, or should we declare victory and leave?

I say we pull troops back to areas friendly to the US. We protect the communities and build barbed wire walls around them and isolate communities that may be hostile, but let them do what they want.

The only way that I think Iraq can be a success is if we carve it up. That's the only way IMHO.

Otherwise, we may as well leave NOW. I see no problem in leaving now since now coherent solution has been provided. And I really don't trust this administration to come up with an intelligent solution to Iraq.

I think we should leave.....i.e. CUT BAIT.

The U.S. hasn't gained anything in Iraq except a puppet government, access to the world's best and easiest to refine crude and a healthy respect for its vaunted missiles and aircraft. By the way those high-tech U.S. missiles cost taxpayers $500,000 each.

Rather than reduce terrorism, the invasion of Iraq has cost the lives of even more people. It's worse than before

If Iraq has secret stashes of horror weapons, U.N. inspectors could have taken their time combing the nation for them.

There was no need to slaughter the 25,000 to 35,000 Iraqi civilians who are estimated to now lie dead and engender the hatred of most of the world’s Muslims and millions of others.

That's what the U.S. has truly gained.



If the U.S. leaves, it would give every miscreant wth either a gun or a bomb the idea that spilling a little blood can force the world's only superpower to run home with its tail between its legs.

Actually, this was proven most effectively in Somalia and Lebanon.

The U.S. now is forced to remain in Iraq. Colin Powell warned Bush: "You break it. You own it."

The U.S. now owns Iraq. With all its turmoil, anger, blood feuds and competing factions.

And it's major dilemma is this: It can't prove is pre-war assertions that Iraq had WMD's.

It hinted that Saddam was in bed with Osama and possibly had a hand in the 9-11 attacks. That can't be proven either.

It can't pacify Iraq's people, because it cannot:

(1) repair the portions of Iraq's infrastructure its air force pummeled into rubble because of out of control violence

(2) repair the portions of Iraq's infrastructure that slowly succumbed from 12 years of poor maintenance due to sanctions because the money that was supposed to pay for this is being used to pay for security

(3) protect even the governor of Baghdad province.

(4) explain why it had to destroy the ancient city of Fallujah, leaving thousands homeless

(5) explain why only some Iraqi rejoiced over the invasion and why most don't think it was a splendid idea now

(6) guarantee the safety of the average Iraqi.

But I see the United States' real problem as this: It can't quell the insurgency without blowing to bits entire cities and neighborhoods and arresting one out of every three males aged 14 to 64.

Because every time another U.S. soldier is revealed as a vicious amoral torturer or rapist, or another Iraqi wedding party is blasted by an errant bomb, another house hit from the air because of bad intelligence or another carload of innocent civilians riddled with bullets by jittery troops at a checkpoint, it belies the Bush supporters' assertions that this invasion is a liberation.

You don't kill or abuse people you claim to be liberatiing.