Iraq
The Associated Press

On patrol.

Featured Topic | Posted 37 weeks 6 days ago

Iraq after five years: Was it worth it?

This month marks the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that deposed Saddam Hussein. No weapons of mass destruction were found, but the U.S. hasn't left yet -- and there is no end date for American involvement there.

Was the invasion the right choice? Is it the right choice to stay?

Read More

Ben likes: Worth the price

Christopher Hitchens/Washington Post

The most important factors are unquantifiable, or at least unquantifiable by this sort of actuarial shorthand. A few years ago, we had armed forces that were quite able to remove a ramshackle yet horrific government in Kabul or Baghdad but were quite unprepared to tackle the much more agonizing and tenacious enemies -- a Baathist/Al Quaeda alliance, or a Pakistani Pushtun/Bin Laden coalition -- that had partly emerged under those ex-governments' shadows. Now, after infinite labor, we have armed forces who have learned in practice how to smash Islamist terrorism on the battlefield, and also how to isolate and discredit it in the slums and the villages. This is what we needed in the first place and still need, as it happens, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and will also need in the future.

Read More

Joel likes: The costs to America's security

Rand Beers/National Security Network

The world is a complex place full of threats and dangers, and the United States has many interests and values to protect. By its strategic misstep into an ill-conceived war in Iraq, this Administration has found itself unable handle more significant threats elsewhere - and that is costing us abroad and at home.

The question we need to be asking is one of opportunity costs and strategic costs to the United States. We're seeing a new debate emerge - one where we look at the financial costs of Iraq and their impact on U.S. priorities. I want to make sure Americans fully understand the global consequences of where we are now. The strategic sinkhole in Iraq means that our priorities at home and around the world are not being met. It is difficult to see how remaining in Iraq will offer this country the opportunity to move forward on any of these concerns. And it is equally difficult for me to understand how remaining in Iraq without a disengagement strategy will break the culture of dependency and ensure an Iraqi government and security force more committed to Iraq's future than we are.

Read More

Where do you stand on this issue?

Click on the graph to cast your vote.
average
vote
your vote
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Thoughts

seriously?

Submitted on March 28th, 2008 by Anonymous

"i never felt as safe as i was that moment."

What kind of red blooded American doesn't use capitals and then goes on to not space after periods. If you're five then you're indoctrinated, no problem. If you are somehow much older then it is my duty to inform you that by pressing the shift key (there are two of them actually) it creates a capital.

Oh and by the way there's no connection and we are now way worse off since we killed all of those innocent Iraqis in our shock and awe? Iraqis with brothers and sons and fathers that might want to fight back?

Oh and Bush made the Iraqi army disband. HE FIRED PEOPLE WITH GUNS IN A COUNTRY WE INVADED FOR NO REASON.

Stupid is equating Iraq with 9/11

Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by Anonymous

He and his ilk also told us that there were WMD, we would be greeted as liberators, it would likely only take a few months, etc.

By now you should be able to distinguish between our response to 9/11 and keeping America safe on one hand and the travesty that is Iraq on the other.

Iraq and 9/11 never were related. Bush tried to convince us otherwise. The country bought it, but now knows better. Are we giving up because the going got tough? No, we want to get out because the reasons we went to war were lies.

BTW, a capital letter every now and again might help--especially if your post is calling Americans stupid.

leadership qulities

Submitted on March 19th, 2008 by Anonymous

we elected geo bush and when he gives a speech and tells people in advance,on top of pure common senses that undertaking this war would be costly. deadly,and years to acheive,he also reminded us to stay the course especially when it gets rough.are people that stupid?or is it that they are led astray by the entertainment/news type shows that merley play the crtics corner for ratings.schools should teach our children how to interact with television and other forms of entertainment.as well as the responsibilities and privlages we share as u.s citicens.by the way after 9/11 when bush made his adress to the nation i never slept felling so safe.and when he named our enemys axis of evil again i never felt as safe as i was that moment.getting to know an enemy most americans will never meet is hard to teach.that is why we participate in elections and back the winner no matter which party.

re: A mobius strip

Submitted on March 11th, 2008 by Jim Lakely

And I will reply by saying (1) Sullivan long ago became unhinged, and (2) quote a smarter Brit living in America, Christopher Hitchens:

And that assumption (widely shared but seldom if ever articulated) is that our engagement with Iraq was somehow "a war of choice" -- to use a favorite catchphrase from a few years ago -- and thus that all of its costs, ranging from the physical damage to Iraqi infrastructure to the moral damage to our warriors, could have been avoided by abstention.

I don't know anybody who knows anything about the subject who believes anything so frivolous. The original, highly serious, disagreement about Iraq took its point of departure from this question: Was it possible or tolerable to continue to coexist with the regime of Saddam Hussein?

Short answer: No. Hitchens also points out that our "adventure" in Iraq has taught our armed forces something they didn't know six years ago:

Now, after infinite labor, we have armed forces who have learned in practice how to smash Islamist terrorism on the battlefield, and also how to isolate and discredit it in the slums and the villages. This is what we needed in the first place and still need, as it happens, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and will also need in the future.

Such skills, as we have learned, are not inherent to us. We've had to acquire them -- as is true for most important things -- the hard way and on the fly.

Oh, and that is the real al-Qaida in Iraq. It is simply nonsense to say that the enemy we have in Iraq is an enemy that didn't exist before we got there.

Wrathful post ended.

A Mobius strip

Submitted on March 11th, 2008 by Joel

I will incur Jim's wrath by quoting Andrew Sullivan, who nails it:

The current main goal of the war in Iraq is to defeat an enemy we didn't have in Iraq before we got there. It is a war that has generated its own rationale.

Join the Debate

Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!

User login

login

Ads by Google