[mike777]

Do you see any bad consequences that influence you or your family and friends from a defeat in Iraq?

Do you think Iraq will turn into a killing field?
Do you think it will result in many more attacks on the Western World?

[hrothgar]

Difficult question... The answer depends completely on how generally you want to define concepts like "defeat" and "influence".

Our little adventure in the sands of Iraq has wasted enormous amounts of money. Last I heard, we have spent close to 400 billion dollars on this war. The total cost is expected to reach well over a trillion dollars. One might argue that this expenditure would have been worthwhile if we actually had something to show for it. Assume for the moment that we had been successful in democratizing the Middle East and establishing Pax Americum throughout the world. A trillion dollars might be considered a worthwhile investment. As is, the war was complete disaster. We've bleed our military dry, thrown most of the Middle East into chaos, crippled our foreign relations, and betrayed the democratic traditions upon which the US was founded. Oh yes, we've also convincingly demonstrated that there are some very real limits to US power. We've probably emboldened our enemies. We've definitely encourage nuclear proliferation.

So yes, in the abstract there are some definite costs associated with defeat. At the same time, one might argue that the grand vision was never achievable. The costs are not a consequence of the "defeat" of our military, but rather represent a failure of the US political process. We lost this when we we launch a war of convenience rather than focusing on the real issues at hand.

On a more concrete level, we're responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The same number will be killed in the years ahead. This is a very real cost, but not one that will definitively affect any of my family or friends.

The blowback from these deaths... Thats another matter. We've radicalized a generation Iraqis. Its entirely possible that some day I might get killed by someone seeking revenge for the death of their mother or brother or whatever. However, its hard to predict anything like that with certainty.

[pbleighton]

The imperialistic, self-destructive war crime which is the U.S. invasion of Iraq will result in more attacks on the West in general and the U.S. in particular. This is true whenever we leave. Bin Laden should give Bush a gold star for his success in boosting the cause of anti-Western terror. Bush certainly deserves it. My family and I live fairly close to NYC, so it may well affect us personally.

Our invasion caused a civil war. Iraq is already a killing field. It will get worse, probably a lot worse. The violence will probably spike when we leave, whenever we leave, whther now, a year from now, five years, etc.

Peter

[1eyedjack]

hrothgar, on Dec 10 2006, 07:45 PM, said:

Last I heard, we have spent close to 400 billion dollars on this war. The total cost is expected to reach well over a trillion dollars.

I tend to view with healthy distrust the glib statistics that are thrown around regarding the "cost" of a venture. I would like to see how those costs are computed, even in broad brush terms, before I would put any faith in them.

Whilst it is true that on active service the salary rates increase, a good proportion of the salaries would be payable to the armed forces even if they were stuck at home. And a respectable proportion of those salaries then come back to the exchequer in the form of tax and insurance (or equivalent). It would not surprise me if the entire salary cost was included in the stats. I have seen its like before.

Even the cost of ordnance consumed is not wholly lost to the economy. That money expended is received by (and taxed on) another, often within the economy bearing the supposed cost. Those recipients then have a higher disposable income which, when expended, results in both growth to the economy and revenue income to the taxing authority.

Then there is the benefit of the training experience to be weighed in the balance. Admittedly hard to quantify, but no less real for that. The UK armed forces "benefitted" substantially from its deployment in Northern Ireland. And there is the testing of hardware in the field that perhaps does not receive the rigour without a "real" enemy.

It's entirely possible that factors such as these have all been taken into account, but it is also possible otherwise. The statistics are often first brought into the public domain by pressure groups with an agenda to pursue, who are not averse to putting a spin on the figures to suit their purposes.

[hrothgar]

1eyedjack, on Dec 10 2006, 11:39 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 10 2006, 07:45 PM, said:

Last I heard, we have spent close to 400 billion dollars on this war.  The total cost is expected to reach well over a trillion dollars.

I tend to view with healthy distrust the glib statistics that are thrown around regarding the "cost" of a venture. I would like to see how those costs are computed, even in broad brush terms, before I would put any faith in them.

Whilst it is true that on active service the salary rates increase, a good proportion of the salaries would be payable to the armed forces even if they were stuck at home. And a respectable proportion of those salaries then come back to the exchequer in the form of tax and insurance (or equivalent). It would not surprise me if the entire salary cost was included in the stats. I have seen its like before.

Even the cost of ordnance consumed is not wholly lost to the economy. That money expended is received by (and taxed on) another, often within the economy bearing the supposed cost. Those recipients then have a higher disposable income which, when expended, results in both growth to the economy and revenue income to the taxing authority.

Then there is the benefit of the training experience to be weighed in the balance. Admittedly hard to quantify, but no less real for that. The UK armed forces "benefitted" substantially from its deployment in Northern Ireland. And there is the testing of hardware in the field that perhaps does not receive the rigour without a "real" enemy.

It's entirely possible that factors such as these have all been taken into account, but it is also possible otherwise. The statistics are often first brought into the public domain by pressure groups with an agenda to pursue, who are not averse to putting a spin on the figures to suit their purposes.

Its been a while since I looked into this much, but I seem to recall that there were some decent studies contrasting the multiplier effect for different types of discretionary spending.

The multiplier effect associated with military spending was significantly lower than that associated with most other types of spend (infrastructure, public education, welfare spending...)

[hrothgar]

1eyedjack, on Dec 10 2006, 11:39 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 10 2006, 07:45 PM, said:

Last I heard, we have spent close to 400 billion dollars on this war.  The total cost is expected to reach well over a trillion dollars.

I tend to view with healthy distrust the glib statistics that are thrown around regarding the "cost" of a venture. I would like to see how those costs are computed, even in broad brush terms, before I would put any faith in them.

The numbers that I cited were taken from the Iraq Study Group report. (The report actually states "Estimates run as high as $2 Trillion for the final cost of the US involvement in Iraq", however, most of the talk show discussions have been using the figure one trillion.)

The report doesn't provide any documentation or cites regarding the genesis of these figures. The relevant section of the report can be found on page 27.

I'm not sure if you consider the ISG report trustworthy or not... Personally, I don't think that I have the time or resources necessary to second guess them. Its entirely possible that one of the news rags my uncover an error in methodology. Time will tell.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Do you see any bad consequences that influence you or your family and friends from a defeat in Iraq?

I have already seen consequences from the defeat - a Democrat-controlled Congress - and that has yet to be proven either good or bad. I can't say.

Mike, I honestly don't know what you are asking in this question - what is defeat in Iraq?

These were the reasons given by Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney to invade Iraq:
1) They have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons - Lie
2) They are trying to gain access to nuclear weapons - Lie
3) They support al-Qaeda - Lie

We were lied to and misled into this horror of a war by our elected leaders, not by any threat from Iraq. Without a true, stated purpose for the invasion, how can we determine if we are winning or losing the war? If the goal was simply to oust Saddam Hussein, we have already won. If the goal was to install a western-friendly regime and make it work, we have failed.

But here are the reasons, as stated over and over by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld:
1) Iraq has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons - Lie
2) Iraq is trying to gain access to nuclear weapons - Lie
3) Iraq supports and sponsors terrorists such as al-qaeda - Lie

How do you win a lie?

The simple truth is we were defeated as a nation the moment we listened to and believed the lies of this administration and allowed the war-mongering to start.
We continue to be misled and redirected from the original message, and we keep allowing the truth to be twisted and the goals redefined - does it matter that civil war has occurred? We were lied to, deliberately and with knowledge that the information being fed to us was false. To continue the war for any cause is to continue to ignore the lies that perpetuated the conflict.

What happens in and to Iraq is of less consequence than what happens in and to the Unitied States. We have no choice but to halt our involvement in the war in order to halt our support of the lies and liers within our own leadership. Every day in Iraq is another day that we allow the lies that led us there to be rewarded.

We were told that Iraq was a terrorist threat because of ties to al-Qaeda and WMDs, but now we are arguing whether the U.S. installed regime should be abandoned or protected and whether democracy in Iraq should be preserved - excuse me, but this isn't our problem - the Iraqi's should determine their own course of history. After all, it is their country. We are the ones who destroyed it.
We destroyed a sovereign nation because we were told by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld:
1.) Iraq has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons - Lie
2). Iraq is attempting to gain access to nuclear weapons - Lie
3). Iraq supports and sponsors terrorists such as al-Qaeda - Lie

The argument should not be what we do about Iraq - the argument should be what we do about Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, how quickly we can bring impeachment procedings against the first two, and whether or not they all can and should be charged with war crimes, and whether or not the U.S. can ever again trust any of its leaders or ever have credibility with the world at large.

So I guess I do have consequences - I feel ashamed that I am to blame as much as anyone, as I am a part of the electorate that allowed this to happen.

[mike777]

".......as I am a part of the electorate that allowed this to happen"


Are you saying that the electorate or America should be punished some more or pay more of a price since it is America's fault?

Somehow for some reason I really chuckled at your comment "what is defeat". This struck me as "blackhumor" at its best.

We(America/and others) are at war and seem to have no definition of not only victory but even of defeat

[pbleighton]

"Are you saying that the electorate or America should be punished some more or pay more of a price since it is America's fault?"

The invasion is certainly America's fault. Why wouldn't it be?

I don't think we SHOULD be punished for it, since the individual victims of the additional terrorist attacks we will incur because of it will be innocent, but I think we WILL be punished for it, what goes around comes around, etc.

Mike, answer your own question: will we be punished?

Peter

[cherdano]

Can someone fixed the title? The punctuation is wrong..

[mike777]

cherdano, on Dec 10 2006, 04:40 PM, said:

Can someone fixed the title? The punctuation is wrong..

More "blackhumor" at its best.

I do not think America should be punished more than of course the terrible life and limb loss we have suffered already. No I do not think we deserve it. But I get the impression many of you do think so.

Do I think there will be bad consquences if the punctuation is corrected, sure.....

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 11 2006, 12:29 AM, said:

".......as I am a part of the electorate that allowed this to happen"

Are you saying that the electorate or America should be punished some more or pay more of a price since it is America's fault?

Here's how I would phrase things: Pissing against the wind rarely leads to a pleasant outcome.

Its not a question of whether or not we "should" be punished.
Rather, we are taking actions that are contrary to our long term interests.
The repercussions will not be pretty.

[pbleighton]

"I do not think America should be punished more than of course the terrible life and limb loss we have suffered already. No I do not think we deserve it."

But do you think we will, that's the question.

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 11 2006, 12:48 AM, said:

I do not  think America should be punished more than of course the terrible life and limb loss we have suffered already. No I do not think we deserve it. But I get the impression many of you do think so.

The US was the victim of the 911 attacks. No one disputes this.
However, this doesn't give us the right to kill innocent Iraqis.

I very much believe that America is going to need to assume responsibility for the War in Iraq. Some of the responsibility should be specific and individual.
Some of it needs to be collective.

I very much believe that the instigators of the Iraq war should be placed on trial for war crimes. I don't think that it would be productive for the Democrats to be pushing for impeachment. However, I'd like to see the International Criminal Court in the Hague take up this issue. I would not be surprised if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the like are unable to travel outside the US in fear that they might be arrested. If the world is truely just Cheney will disappear in a special rendition late some night.

On a more general basis, I think that the US owes a massive debt to the people of Iraq. We destroyed their country in a fit of pique. Its going to take a long time for things to settle down, but if and when it does the US should start providing large amounts of economic aid for reconstruction.

[pbleighton]

"On a more general basis, I think that the US owes a massive debt to the people of Iraq. We destroyed their country in a fit of pique. Its going to take a long time for things to settle down, but if and when it does the US should start providing large amounts of economic aid for reconstruction."

I agree 100%.

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Dec 10 2006, 05:11 PM, said:

"On a more general basis, I think that the US owes a massive debt to the people of Iraq. We destroyed their country in a fit of pique. Its going to take a long time for things to settle down, but if and when it does the US should start providing large amounts of economic aid for reconstruction."

I agree 100%.

Peter

What exactly do you guys agree too?


Give money to who or what? And who enforces how it is spent? You want to pour billions into a new Cambodia extermination country?

[pbleighton]

"Give money to who or what? And who enforces how it is spent? You want to pour billions into a new Cambodia extermination country?"

You might want to read a post before responding to it, particularly:
"Its going to take a long time for things to settle down, but if and when it does..."

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Dec 10 2006, 06:49 PM, said:

"Give money to who or what? And who enforces how it is spent? You want to pour billions into a new Cambodia extermination country?"

You might want to read a post before responding to it, particularly:
"Its going to take a long time for things to settle down, but if and when it does..."

Peter

I did read that and I asked what does that mean? After 20% or 10% or pick whatever number is your best guess of the population is wiped out are things settled down? Do we then send in billions to the winning killers? How do we enforce what is spent? This plan sounds like...at some point in the next 100 years we throw money at the survivors so we feel better?

Sounds like another mean anything plan or do you have some ideas here?

[pbleighton]

"I did read that and I asked what does that mean? After 20% or 10% or pick whatever number is your best guess of the population is wiped out are things settled down? Do we then send in billions to the winning killers?"

Why this obsession with defining winners? It's unlikely there will be ANY winners, only a LOT of losers, and after things calm down, we should help them however we can.

Don't you feel any sense of responsibility?

As to specifics, they will have to wait. The devil is always in the details, and things won't calm down for years.

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 11 2006, 04:27 AM, said:

pbleighton, on Dec 10 2006, 06:49 PM, said:

"Give money to who or what? And who enforces how it is spent? You want to pour billions into a new Cambodia extermination country?"

You might want to read a post before responding to it, particularly:
"Its going to take a long time for things to settle down, but if and when it does..."

Peter

I did read that and I asked what does that mean? After 20% or 10% or pick whatever number is your best guess of the population is wiped out are things settled down? Do we then send in billions to the winning killers? How do we enforce what is spent? This plan sounds like...at some point in the next 100 years we throw money at the survivors so we feel better?

Sounds like another mean anything plan or do you have some ideas here?

The last couple decades have certainly demonstrated that people have a real capacity to gather together and kill one another. The Rwandan genocide provides a useful example. No one sure precisely how many people died, however, the standard estimate is that roughly 750,000 Tutsis were killed, along with 50,000 "moderate" Hutus. Approximately 130,000 Tutsis survived the massacre.

I have no idea what will be required to stablilize the situation in Iraq. I have the unfortunate feeling that the infighting is going to continue until the various ethnic groups have self-segregated into fairly large / homogeous blocks. I very much hope that this happens before we see any kind of casualty rates that approach what we saw there. One way or another, we'll fine out/

Most of the Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) pulled out of Iraq back when the UN offices were bombed. Can't say that I blame them much... Hell, from what I can a large portion of the Iraqi population has fled the country. However, they will eventually return.

As for "throwing money at the survivors"... The question at hand is not whether or not this makes use feel better. I suspect anything that separated you from one of your precious dollars would make you feel terrible, no matter how many people would be helped/lives save. Rather, the question is one of responsibility. If you capriciously destroy someone's home, you need to help them rebuild.