well, did we win?

[bigrun]

Editor's Note: Andrew J. Bacevich is Professor of International Relations and History at Boston University. This post is one of four from the Council on Foreign Relations in response to the question, Was the Iraq War worth it?
By Andrew Bacevich
As framed, the question invites a sober comparison of benefits and costs - gain vs. pain. The principal benefit derived from the Iraq War is easily identified: as the war's defenders insist with monotonous regularity, the world is indeed a better place without Saddam Hussein. Point taken.
Yet few of those defenders have demonstrated the moral courage - or is it simple decency - to consider who paid and what was lost in securing Saddam's removal. That tally includes well over four thousand U.S. dead along with several tens of thousands wounded and otherwise bearing the scars of war; vastly larger numbers of Iraqi civilians killed, maimed, and displaced; and at least a trillion dollars expended - probably several times that by the time the last bill comes due decades from now. Recalling that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda both turned out to be all but non-existent, a Churchillian verdict on the war might read thusly: Seldom in the course of human history have so many sacrificed so dearly to achieve so little.
Yet in inviting a narrow cost-benefit analysis, the question-as-posed serves to understate the scope of the debacle engineered by the war's architects. The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft. With all remaining prudential, normative, and constitutional barriers to the use of force having now been set aside, war has become a normal condition, something that the great majority of Americans accept without complaint. War is U.S.
Central to [the war's] legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.
One senses that this was what the likes of [Vice President Dick] Cheney, [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld, and [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz (urged on by militarists cheering from the sidelines and with George W. Bush serving as their enabler) intended all along. By leaving intact and even enlarging the policies that his predecessor had inaugurated, President Barack Obama has handed these militarists an unearned victory. As they drag themselves from one "overseas contingency operation" to the next, American soldiers must reckon with the consequences. So too will the somnolent American people be obliged to do, perhaps sooner than they think.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Andrew Bacevich. For more, visit CFR.org.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Editor's Note: Andrew J. Bacevich is Professor of International Relations and History at Boston University. This post is one of four from the Council on Foreign Relations in response to the question, Was the Iraq War worth it?
By Andrew Bacevich
As framed, the question invites a sober comparison of benefits and costs - gain vs. pain. The principal benefit derived from the Iraq War is easily identified: as the war's defenders insist with monotonous regularity, the world is indeed a better place without Saddam Hussein. Point taken.
Yet few of those defenders have demonstrated the moral courage - or is it simple decency - to consider who paid and what was lost in securing Saddam's removal. That tally includes well over four thousand U.S. dead along with several tens of thousands wounded and otherwise bearing the scars of war; vastly larger numbers of Iraqi civilians killed, maimed, and displaced; and at least a trillion dollars expended - probably several times that by the time the last bill comes due decades from now. Recalling that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda both turned out to be all but non-existent, a Churchillian verdict on the war might read thusly: Seldom in the course of human history have so many sacrificed so dearly to achieve so little.
Yet in inviting a narrow cost-benefit analysis, the question-as-posed serves to understate the scope of the debacle engineered by the war's architects. The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft. With all remaining prudential, normative, and constitutional barriers to the use of force having now been set aside, war has become a normal condition, something that the great majority of Americans accept without complaint. War is U.S.
Central to [the war's] legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.
One senses that this was what the likes of [Vice President Dick] Cheney, [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld, and [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz (urged on by militarists cheering from the sidelines and with George W. Bush serving as their enabler) intended all along. By leaving intact and even enlarging the policies that his predecessor had inaugurated, President Barack Obama has handed these militarists an unearned victory. As they drag themselves from one "overseas contingency operation" to the next, American soldiers must reckon with the consequences. So too will the somnolent American people be obliged to do, perhaps sooner than they think.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Andrew Bacevich. For more, visit CFR.org.

this, along with lives and treasure squandered, is what bothers me most. we used to have a policy of peace thru strength. we used to refuse to resort to violence unless we were first attacked. it seems 9-11 has become carte blanche for our govt. to decide who to attack and how-but to not necessarily worry about why. our treatment of borders other than our own as only a line on a map is a symptom of this new behavior. our 'either with us or against us' mentality continues along with the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' line of thought.
our foreign policy has been a disgrace for years; it needs a new mindset. we must consider our best interest first, last and always. we used to stay out of foreign conflicts, we need to go back to that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

we used to stay out of foreign conflicts, we need to go back to that.

Well, every single Republican candidate (except for Libertarian Ron Paul) wants to immediately start another war in Iran. The military industrial complex is throwing money at them. The American public is apparently too stupid to be appalled (they cheered this at the last debate). Considering that most people less than 30 years old have been trained that this is normal and rightous, via the disastrous 8 years of the last administration, it's not surprising.

So good luck with that.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, every single Republican candidate (except for Libertarian Ron Paul) wants to immediately start another war in Iran. The military industrial complex is throwing money at them. The American public is apparently too stupid to be appalled (they cheered this at the last debate). Considering that most people less than 30 years old have been trained that this is normal and rightous, via the disastrous 8 years of the last administration, it's not surprising.

So good luck with that.

Editorial in today's paper...

On Thursday, troops in Baghdad lowered a flag to signal the end of American military operations in Iraq. Combat troops are departing, but the U.S. will remain intimately involved in the country it invaded in 2003. A verdict regarding the operation has not been delivered.

After it toppled Saddam, the U.S. assumed an obligation to erect a new nation. Initially, it was unprepared for the task. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld came off as supercilious. The armed forces fought heroically on behalf of an uncertain mission.


America has a paid a significant price in dollars and in lives. The troops on the ground behaved with a determination greater than that seen on the home front. This has happened before. The military deserves better civilian leadership. The lack of planning for a post-invasion Iraq permanently will blemish the Bush administration's record, even if Iraq emerges as a Denmark along the Euphrates. Our expectations for Iraq's future are restrained, yet we are not prepared at this moment to judge the war a mistake. Regardless of its enduring outcome, the invasion resembled a humbling experience.


President Obama's withdrawal from Iraq gives him ownership of the war's aftermath. He will be blamed if Iraq disintegrates. The charges against him have begun. The withdrawal may be premature, but the American people have lost the appetite for suzerainty. After Mao and the communists prevailed, the question "Who lost China?" influenced U.S. politics. If Baghdad descends to the depths, American politicians will ask, "Who lost Iraq?".... wasn't aware we won anything.

Iraq: Taps | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Check the link below for full piece...Last para, the word suzerainty is used...sounds like one of yours...lol...found several definitions and still

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/r...ps-ar-1550241/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Check the link below for full piece...Last para, the word suzerainty is used...sounds like one of yours...lol...found several definitions and still

Never heard of it! But from those various definitions, I would say, no, the Republican party at least most certainly hasn't lost their taste for being the God-Given Suzerain of the world

It was disgusting to hear John McCain stand on the Senate floor the other day and accuse this President of virtually treasonous acts for bringing our troops home. Maybe he's just lost his friggin' mind, finally. I seem to remember years of blanket, "support a wartime president or YOU are treasonous!"

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

Never heard of it! But from those various definitions, I would say, no, the Republican party at least most certainly hasn't lost their taste for being the God-Given Suzerain of the world

It was disgusting to hear John McCain stand on the Senate floor the other day and accuse this President of virtually treasonous acts for bringing our troops home. Maybe he's just lost his friggin' mind, finally. I seem to remember years of blanket, "support a wartime president or YOU are treasonous!"

That only applied to G. Dumya Bush's presidency....also you weren't a Patriot, didn't support the troops, and hate America....heard it all...