posted
If in 5 years Iraq is a succesful and stable democracy friendly to the U.S. will our sacrifice have been worth it?
I have not lost a friend or relative in the war as of yet so I can't claim to understand what that feels like. That being said, watching the mother of the fallen Marine embrace the Iraq woman at the State of the Union gave me hope that we will be able to remember this war with pride.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will bet $5 contributed to the political campaign of winner's choice that Iraq is not a "successful and stable democracy" within the next five years.
I sugest Dagonee, Belle, and msquared (you prolly haven't seen him around, he's a conservative guy who hangs out on ornery) as judges, to operate under the following conditions:
Iraqis as a whole must generally accept their government (even in disagreement). Rebel insurgencies of any kind disqualify it from being "successful and stable".
If Iraq is split up, that ends it in my favor. It being so divided we could not unite it certainly violates the spirit of your statement.
If the central government is beholden to any one religious group (as determined by the judges, and beholden means significantly more than member of -- basically, if that religious group wants a policy strongly, it passes), it is not really a democracy (this is essential as no one religious group constitutes a vast majority of Iraqis). "Muslism" is not a sufficiently granular religious group for the purposes of this criterion.
The condition must persist for at least one year. If the condition has just begun being met at/near the end of the five years, the judges may extend the terms until either a year has passed since the successful period began, or the successful period ends.
Other conditions may be decided by the judges as appropriate.
I think history in the region (and the world in general) is on my side. We didn't have Japan or West Germany solved in anything like 5 years, and those are our two biggest successes to date, plus we took them a lot more seriously than we're taking Iraq.
Not to mention taking a look at Afghanistan; its pretty easy to see what happens when this administration's attention gets diverted from you.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't so much oppose the war as feel that we went into it under false pretenses, and that we were manipulated as a people by our leaders. If everyone lives happily ever after, which is far from assured at this point, I could be more forgiving about these things. I agree that Hussein was a bad guy and that it is better that he is gone.
But there are OTHER aspects about this that a happy ending in Iraq won't resolve for me. First of all, in order to justify this attack, our leaders sold Americans on the concept of pre-emptive strikes. I don't really know why they did this, as I can think of other, more legitimate rationales for using force in Iraq--well, I guess I do know: making the American people afraid is much more compelling than treaty violations and whatnot. I think we took a step down a road there that leads away from what I believe America ought to be about. I believe it is not worth winning and having our way in the world if, in order to do that, we have to check our ideals at the door. We're supposed to be better than that.
Along those same lines, we have made not-so-subtle changes in life in America since September 11th. Many of these are unrelated to Iraq, but since we made Iraq about terrorism, I reckon it does tie in. We have become a country where moral people argue that racial, ethnic, and other profiling is alright because, after all, it's effective. We take away civil rights from our own citizens because we're more able to root out our (likely real) enemies within without those pesky rights like due process, the right not be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime, and the right to counsel. We have responsible people seriously advancing the doctrine that maybe the Geneva convention doesn't apply to us because the stakes are really, really high this time, and we can more effectively get prisoners to talk if we abuse them.
In the name of success, we are moving away from morality. I think we can succeed in our domestic and international aims without abandoning our ideals. It might take longer and cost more, including more lives, but I think that's the standard we ought to hold ourselves to. And, if we really believe in our ideals and our morality, we ought to hold to them even if they do, in fact, cost us victory. (Which, again, I don't believe is a legitimate fear here.)
This isn't new, of course. America made these same types of decisions in World War Two, for instance. But it saddens me to see we haven't improved. OSC will hate this analogy, but I see it as being similar to the way humanity repented of having wiped out the Buggers--until they started to come back into existence. Then fear and a quest for efficacy at all costs took over.
And finally, I am concerned because it is not clear to me what the precedent we have set is. We claimed it was preemptive self-defense before the war, but after finding that the threat was exagerated, the story changed. Now it was about removing a despot. There are other despots. Why haven't we invaded Cuba to remove Castro? He is, after all, (and like Hussein) a despot for whom the United States bears a great deal of direct and indirect responsibility. And he poses more of a threat to the United States. He has made war on some of his own people, we know that at one time, he had access to nuclear weapons, and he is 90 freaking miles away! But he didn't embarrass GHWB, particularly. Maybe if a relative of Carter's or Kennedy's took office, he would have reason to fear.
All snarkiness aside, though, if we believe we are justified in using force to remove tyrants--and I agree that removing tyrants and spreading freedom is a good goal--then how do we prioritize? Or do we invade every country suffering under tyranny? And can we take this mission on without becoming tyrants ourselves? We have arguably succeeded in freeing two nations from tyranny (let's grant that point for the sake of argument) and the cost to our own ideals, morality, and security have been quite high.
Can I forgive being lied to and all that? Yeah, I pretty much can. But I can't forgive all the rest until we know just what the cost is, and quite frankly, the reckoning isn't in yet. How can we possibly say that this was worth the cost, then, at this point?
quote: Iraqis as a whole must generally accept their government (even in disagreement). Rebel insurgencies of any kind disqualify it from being "successful and stable".
Do Americans as whole accept this government? I've seen a lot of feelings on this board and even more off that the past two elections weren't even democratic. The DNC had internet ads that said "Detrone Bush."
Rebel insurgencies of any kind? So Israel even at its most peaceful state doesn't qualify as being "successful and stable?" Maybe you just need to be more clear what you mean by insurgency because geography alone eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be read of a terrorist threat within five years.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I will bet $5 contributed to the political campaign of winner's choice that Iraq is not a "successful and stable democracy" within the next five years.
You do a lot of these online bets, huh?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Israeli state is not nor has ever been (in modern times) stable. It is fairly secure, but that is a significantly different concept.
We have no rebel insurgencies in the US. We occasionally have someone who rises up in violence, but there is no cohesive, violent movement as would be necessary for something to be called a rebel insurgency.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that case we have fundamentally different definitions of what "stable" means. While Israel has been constanly beseiged by its belligerent neighbors I don't believe it has actually had an internal threat to its existence since 1949. Any nation surrounded by violent religious fundamentalism, be it the US, the UK, or Iraq, will always be in serious danger of an insurgent rebellion. I don't think that means that such nations can't be stable and successful democracies that provide security and freedom to its citizens, something Saddam Hussein was never able to provide for Iraq.
Edit to add: I think Israel and Iraq form a very meaningful parallel as they are the only two democracies in the Middle East, have to deal with their own legitimacy due to religious and ethnic divides, and face internal terrorist threats that are propped up by foreigners.
posted
Fugu, I am not predicting that Iraq will be a successful stable democracy in 5 years. I am asking if it is, will it have been worth it? (By the way I do know who all 3 of your proposed judges are and agree they would be excellent choices if I were interested in the bet)
I agree Icarus, it is not possible to say it was worth the cost at this point. However, I believe that if in 5 years the predictions of the Bush administration have come true, and Iraq is stable and free and an example to the people of the middle east of the benefits of freedom, then we will be able to say that this was a noble war and be proud that we fought and won.
Also Icarus in response to your statement about what precedent have we set, to me it is not as complicated as you made it seem. When we have a dictator that has proven himself to be hostile to his people, his neighbors, and to us, who has defied the world community over and over again, who refuses to comply with UN resolution after UN resolution, who is threatened with "serious consequences" by the world community and still refuses to comply, then America will take action. That is why Castro is still in power. He has not attempted to take over any other countries. He has not proven himself capable of using weapons of mass destruction. He does not persistently defy the world community when threatened with serious consequences. (the only time to my knowledge that Castro had access to nuclear weapons the U.S. most certainly did take serious action and most likely would have attacked had he and the Russians not backed down) Is he a bad guy? Obviously. I think the fact that he continues to exist proves my point. The U.S. still has a very high threshold of when we are going to use force.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
England, Russia and Spain do not meet your definitions of stable, Fugu. Perhaps you'd like to loosen your definitions a little?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever happens still won't bring back the thousands that died. War is absolutely nothing to be proud of.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you a true Pacifist Syn? Was fighting Hitler the right thing to do? No one is happy when people die, but when soldiers sacrifice their lives in a noble cause for the good of mankind, I do think it is something to be proud of.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
War is not something to be proud of, but it is necessary at times. And individual soldiers are definitely people to be proud of. As an American I'm proud of every single one of them.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that I don't believe this is such a noble cause... Why should these young people have to sacrifice their lives when the motive for war wasn't even that clear? We should evolve past war, it should be something totally outmoded. Yes, if Iraq was really a threat at the time, perhaps it would have been justified. Also, if it wasn't a preemptive strike. There's just something about a preemptive strike that bothers me completely. What if some other country decided to do the same thing to the US? There's just so much wrong with this war, with this administration that makes me unsupportive. Not to mention the fact that you really can't fight terrorism without international cooperation and by creating the conditions for more terrorism.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
" As an American I'm proud of every single one of them."
Just to be a little bit of a jerk, I'm not proud of the soldiers who go off and represent me badly. I give a lot of leeway, because its war. But the soldiers involve in prison torture, I am not proud of. They have represented america in a way that reflects badly on all of us.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, you are being a jerk Paul, because you know I don't approve of that and I've said so.
But I take your point, perhaps, "every single one of them" was a bit too inclusive.
However, regardless of their behavior later, I do admire the willingness of them to sign up to serve in the first place, let's not forget that this is completely a volunteer army.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I agree with you, Belle. I've had a lot of problems with soldiers, particularly ROTC people, but I do respect their willingness to join the military, to fight for the country if necessary. Most of the people in the military represent us well when they are abroad, and I'm proud of them for doing so, and for risking their lives for their country.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I maintain that Israel is not stable, but will modify my requirement due to the given counterexamples and make distinctions in particular instances up to the judges. Rebel insurgencies of any kind which pose a serious threat to the elected government or prevent the elected government from generally exercising the rule of law disqualify it from being stable.
And I open the bet up to anyone (any one person).
To answer the initial question: our sacrifice is definitely worth a successful and stable democracy in Iraq within 5 years, even if they're not friendly to us (which they very well might not be).
However, by "our sacrifice" I mean the financial costs and lives lost in pursuit of this war. I do not mean any limitations we have endured on civil liberties, for instance.
Of course, that's basically been my position since before the war started, so this should hardly be surprising. The current administration's dismal performance in Afghanistan and the length which even considerably better done and contextually easier efforts such as Japan and West Germany took suggest we have a long time to go before there is a successful, stable anything in Iraq.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, I am not saying that the Iraq war is something to be proud of. It is still debatable in my mind. I disagreed with your statement that "war is nothing to be proud of" I think there are times when war is something to be very proud of. When as a country we rise up against evil and sacrifice lives and treasure in the name of freedom I am proud. The situation in Iraq has yet to meet that test but I believe it is still possible. And like Belle, I am always proud of the individual soldiers whether I am proud of the war or not.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So i've now posted 14 times and I think about half of them I say "What Belle said" Don't worry Belle, I'm not a stalker. Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We should evolve past war, it should be something totally outmoded.
Syn, this statement reminds me very much of when game publishers tell me my project "should be more open-ended" or "should be more emergent" or "should have more of X feature".
"Should" is a fun word to throw around, but I'm the one looking at the budget and the schedule, trying to figure out how to actually make this game in the real world.
Similarly, we live in a violent world, and war is sometimes necessary. No matter how much we "should" get over it, at the moment, that may not be the reality we live in.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, you're a true liberal idealist. Unfortunately, we "should" evolve past the need for violence doesn't mean that we are. I'm not proud that we have had to fight wars, I am proud that we did when it was necessary.
I wouldn't make that bet, but only because I just don't bet on something that can change so distinctly in five years.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I will bet $5 contributed to the political campaign of winner's choice that Iraq is not a "successful and stable democracy" within the next five years.
The US will go out of Iraq with its tail between its legs. Sorry, Pres. Bush, you are no Truman, and Iraq is no Japan.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify Jon, is that what you want to happen? Are you excited to be able to say "I told you so."? Or are you hoping with every fiber of your being that we will be successful? Just wondering.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I have no point saying "I told you so". I think that it proves nothing, so it's no use to me. I think that the attempt to bring Iraq forth to modern democracy will fail; I hope it won't fail, but I fear it will. I could go on raving about How Stupid Bush Is (was that my thread's name?), but there's no point.
I hope the US will succeed, I pray that Iraq will become democratic, and the stress in the Middle East will be releived. But, according to my acquaintence with the Muslims in Israel, and the vast antagonism and hatred that is lying under the surface, I doubt that a compulsive (accordibng to local point of view) military protectorate will not be able to easily solve the troubles present in Iraq.
It is possible, but the blood to be spilt there will be plenty to redden the Euphrates.
posted
The point at which America COULD leave "with its tail between its legs" as you put it, has passed. The Iraqi vote showed that a large majority of the people there WANT democracy.
Jon, you say that you really don't care about whether or not we have success over there, and that you do want it. Honestly, I think your first comment is more truthful and the second was just backpedaling. I'm not saying that to be mean or anything, I just think it is important for you to think about why you made the first statement. I'm going to be a little bold and probably mean and say that you really do hope things in Iraq fail simply because you hate Bush so much that you don't WANT him to succeed at anything. I think a good number of the people in the world have the same feeling. I don't think it's a good thing either. I think it might be a good idea to examine your motives a bit, personally. Though you are of course free to ignore what I'm saying if you so choose.
Further, I think you may be seeing Muslims in the wrong light. I think the average Muslim is just like anyone else. They want to be happy, they want to be free, and the don't want to have to worry about whether they're going to be alive tomorrow. Now, when the radical Muslims come in and blow stuff up without caring for those things, they just make every other Muslim in the world look bad.
I honestly think we are going to succeed over there. You are right that there are going to be a lot of dead people when it is over. I would be perfectly willing to give my life for this cause. If it weren't for the medical issues that keep me from enlisting, I'd be there right now helping to make democracy happen over there.
[ February 03, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the nobility of a war really depend on the outcome?
Because there's no way to predict the outcome from the beginning, yet somehow people have been taking sides long before we actually win. And why? Because "it won't work out", or "it will work out". There is no way we can know either side for sure.
Wouldn't it be more practical to base the nobility of a war based on the beginnings, and the here-and-now? Or do we just do what we did with Vietnam, where we look back in hindsight and realize all the mistakes and thus hold it against our country (and our soldiers) forever?
Which side do you take on WMD? Do you say that this war was not worth it because there was no WMD when we went in, or do you say it was worth it because almost every intelligence agency in the world thought the evidence was clear that it was there? Which is more important? The certainty beforehand or the mistake afterwards?
Posts: 48 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are the man, I mean sausage, man, whatever.
What I mean to say is excellent point. We can only make decisions based on the information we currently have, not the unknown final outcome. To me we are looking at 2 different questions: 1. Was it the right decision to enter the war in the first place? 2. Will our sacrifice have been worth it in the end?
As to 1, I think we made the best decision we could with the information we had at the time. As to 2, we won't know for years because I think it will be worth it if the Iraqi people grab hold of freedom and not worth it if Iraq ultiimately becomes even worse than before. We have know way of knowing which outcome will happen so I agree that nobility should be based on our reasons for war, not the final result.
Whether our actions end up being worth it or not, soldiers who sacrifice for our country should be held in the highest esteem.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the "nobility" of a war is determined by its outcome, but whether or not the war "was worth it" is determined by its outcome. I think we were perfectly justified in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism and to prevent the invasion of an ally by a Soviet backed enemy. However, because of the poor choices of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations we as a nation would have been better off never fighting it.
Similarly it is possible that a war could have been fought for the wrong reasons, but for the war to have been worth fighting considering the outcome. I do not believe this applies to Iraq, but it could happen in my opinion.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, when the radical Muslims come in and blow stuff up without caring for those things, they just make every other Muslim in the world look bad.
Remember, Boris, they are those who hit the news and make all the noise. They are those with the power and they are those who actually execute (no pun intended).
I think the question on many people's minds is that "our". Invading Iraq is and was not just an issue that caused trouble for Americans, it's an issue that affected Iraqis, too.
Also, I (and I'm sure many others) would be hesitant to call it a 'sacrifice'. People died, yes, Americans* died and left their families and took a lot of world anger, but I'm not sure it was a 'sacrifice' on behalf of America.
I think that if the Iraqi people are happy within five years, the war will have been more a success than a disaster.
*For all nitpicking people I'm using the term in the sense of the United States of America.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Remember, Boris, they are those who hit the news and make all the noise.
They also represent a very small portion of the world's Muslim population. Out of well over a billion Muslims in the world, these guys, at the most, represent about .5 percent. Honestly. If all Muslims were crazed, psychopathic killers, there is very little short of nuclear warfare that could keep them from killing everyone on the face of the planet. The vast (We're talking over 99% I'm sure) majority of muslims don't go out crying for Jihad. I think it's important to remember that.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Americans die to bring Iraq democracy there will have been an American sacrifice. There will also have been a British sacrifice, an Iraqi sacrifice, a Polish sacrifice, a Spanish sacrifice, and on and on and on. Those soldiers and civilians certainly gave their lives for something, they didn't just all have heart attacks.
Just because the forum's name is minus the word "American," doesn't mean that threads such as this one aren't dealing specifically American perpective.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The vast (We're talking over 99% I'm sure) majority of muslims don't go out crying for Jihad.
Obviously not! If there is one in my class in school that is actually empathetic and does not call to "kill the Arabs" (or Muslims, for this matter), it is I.
However, although 99% don't go out crying Jihad, many dozens of those percents don't seem to go against Jihad in a way that will refrain it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Even if it is from Ornery. Of course I do have over a 1600 posts here.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
