Iraq war: from bad to worse

Murdoch

Murdoch

Half-way Through My Half-life
Orderite
Daily I read many information sources, such as MyDD, a blog. The following is a particularly poignant post:

MyDD said:
The Consequences of Iraq
by Chris Bowers

More soldiers have already died in February of 2005 than in February of 2004.
More soldiers died in January of 2005 than January of 2004.
More soldiers died in December of 2004 than December 2003.
More soldiers died in November of 2004 than November of 2003.
More soldiers died in October of 2004 than October of 2003.
More soldiers died in September of 2004 than September of 2003.
More soldiers died in August of 2004 than August of 2003.
More soldiers died in July of 2004 than July of 2003.
More soldiers died in June of 2004 than June of 2003.
More soldiers died in May of 2004 than May of 2003.
More soldiers died in April of 2004 than April of 2003.
March looms.

Source for above statements. The same goes for wounded soldiers.

Daily coalition fatality rate before Saddam Hussein's capture: 2.03
Daily coalition fatality rate after Saddam Hussein's capture: 2.55

Daily coalition fatality rate before the transfer of power away from the CPA: 2.09
Daily coalition fatality rate after the transfer of power away from the CPA: 2.86

And that's not all. With the human cost steadily mounting, even after milestones are passed that supposedly will make things better, the head of both intelligence agencies agree: the war in Iraq is fueling the growth of terrorism worldwide:
The Iraq insurgency continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent source of recruiting for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials said before Congress on Wednesday. "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism," he said. "They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."(...)

"Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment," Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate panel. "Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world."
And the insurgency is growing in strength:
Jacoby said the Iraq insurgency has grown "in size and complexity over the past year" and is now mounting an average of 60 attacks per day, up from 25 last year. Attacks on Iraq's election day last month reached approximately 300, he said, double the previous one-day high of 150, even though transportation was virtually locked down.
And our military readiness has been significantly reduced:
Stretched thin in Iraq, the U.S. military would have trouble responding as quickly and effectively as commanders would like if it had to go to war in Iran or North Korea, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress Wednesday.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, said a sudden military crisis in one of those two nations -- both of which are resisting U.S. demands that they give up nuclear programs -- would likely force the Pentagon to remobilize reserve and Guard components that have rotated home from Iraq to rest.

In addition, because of the current strain on U.S. forces, it would take longer for U.S. troops to respond to a crisis in Iran, North Korea or some other major conflict than U.S. battle plans call for, Myers told the House Armed Services Committee.
But don't' forget, despite all of this, suggesting that our current policy in Iraq is more destructive than productive is borderline traitorous.
Click to expand...

Do people think Iraq is getting better or worse, and was it worth it? IMO no.

Link to MyDD
 
Whether or not it was worth it depends entirely on the outcome, which is, at the present, indeterminable. Despite all of the conjecture that floats around on the internets.

Do I think its gotten worse? Not sure. When new signs start pointing towards possible failure (aside from the usual car bombings and whatnot) I'll start saying so. Yet, we've made much progress as it is. Its only natural that amidst this progress, the "undesirables" would be stepping up pressure and attempt to throw a spoke in the wheel of Iraqi self-governance.

When things start looking good, insurgents will only try harder.
 
Clear and to the point Bradylama! It all depends on the outcome. Maybe Iraq will turn back into a dictatorship lead by the insurgency that will support terrorism once the US leaves. Maybe the nation will suddenly become so peaceful and productive after the US leaves that the country becomes indisputable proof that the USA intervention led to good things and would bolster its support among the arab and/or Muslim world.

Its impossible to tell really since the "decent" Iraqi's that value whats going on arent taking part in the attacks and arent getting on the news.

Regardless like any place this sort of nation-building takes years...usually a whole decade.

I guess just stay tuned...

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
From one evil to the next. Throw away the iron handed dictator and the terrorist start up again. As I reckon, despite all, Saddam and Osama were not friends, as far as I knew Osama was a threat to Saddam...

And what of Saddam? Exile, execution? The wily bastard was very good at staying alive, his life is living proof of that... And since the Middle East views US as the enemy, the infidel, and US policy has never helped this image. Think the Shaw and what Iran is now.

Saddam?

In the end it should be up to Iraqi's the insurgents have hurt their people far too much to gain support. Fire bombing American's is one thing, firte bombing your own people to get the American's sort of defeats you point.

Nothing worst than fear, but the IRaqi's must determine their own destiny, anjd I suppose after the last uprising, the one back during the Gulf War, Saddam had brutally put down the uprising; thus they feel some fear. Funny how the insurgents had no balls when Saddam was in the seat.
 
Let me tell you, this war smells more and more like Vietnam to me every day that passes. Why? Well... :

1- American causalities keep piling up.
2- No mater how many enemies the US forces kills they keep coming.
3- The war begun in 2003, we are in 2005 and it seems that is not near an end yet.
4- The US is training iraqi troops to defend the elected iraqi government so the US troops can go home like they did in Vietnam with south vietnamese troops who were eventually defeated by north vietnamese troops.
 
All kinds of people who think that their organisation should control Iraq.... besides since US has the most oil in Iraq the war will be moving to Iran slowly. It's all about money anyway, not democracy (since it begins to faint away in US how can US bring democracy to some other countries?)
 
Lt. Col. Gonzalez said:
Let me tell you, this war smells more and more like Vietnam to me every day that passes. Why? Well... :

1- American causalities keep piling up.
2- No mater how many enemies the US forces kills they keep coming.
3- The war begun in 2003, we are in 2005 and it seems that is not near an end yet.
4- The US is training iraqi troops to defend the elected iraqi government so the US troops can go home like they did in Vietnam with south vietnamese troops who were eventually defeated by north vietnamese troops.
Click to expand...

5- Nixon gets re-elected.
 
Only, who's going to invade Iraq when we leave?
Click to expand...

How about all iraqis that disagree with the stablished government with the support of middle east anti-american factions not to mention terrorists. You know, most iraqis did not liked Saddam, but who said they did liked democracy and a democratic government.

If you think that you have defeated all opposition by just defeating Saddam's armed forces and killing some guerrillas you are just fooling yourself.

5- Nixon gets re-elected.
Click to expand...

Are you comparing Nixon's re-election with the re-election of bush?
 
I have to agree with some of the points raised earlier, Bradylama and Vault Dweller- it depends on the outcome, and that's a matter of decades.

Will democracy take root? Will democratic traditions begin to spread? And most of all with our strategic access to oil be jeopardized or secured.

That said, in terms of costs of war- we've been at it in Iraq and Afghanistan for a few awhile, the death toll is less than 2,000 American dead- which I think the US population would have accepted in the initial phase of the war.

In terms of moral and diplomatic costs....
- You have new alliances between Iran and Syria and Russia,
- China building up it's naval strength,
- N.Korea and Iran rushing to get the bomb, divisions in the Atlantic Alliance which has been central to US long-term strategic interests for the last 50 years.
- The US moving to a war economy.

Honestly, if you take a short-term view, it looks like the US is getting tough on the Middle East. If you look at this in the long-term, it's more disturbing.
 
I still think there'd have been better ways to get the Iraq democratized in the long run.

OTOH, I wonder whether there was any need for a democratic system in the first place. We (as in, the rest of the world) didn't really have any reason to intervene as the Iraq was hardly about to take over the world or start a religious crusade -- far from it, Hussein was very focussed on his own country and staying alive and in power.

I think there would have been ways to get Hussein off his throne without a war if that was really neccessary (he didn't really commit any war crimes as of lately so there was no imminent reason to intervene). Assassinations, attempts and coups d'etat have been successfully applied by various countries (including the US) to replace the heads of governments throughout history and I guess that MIGHT have been possible in Iraq as well, had it become neccessary.

As for the war -- well, I don't think the leadership had any idea what exactly they were up to when they decided to invade Iraq. Post-war Iraq isn't post-WW2 Germany. There aren't loads of cheering liberated people fighting for American bubblegum.
The cardhouse the US so nicely blew to pieces with "surgical" bombing raids and military force was more than just a traditional tyranny -- of course the people were oppressed, but at least their oppressors had some structure, now they are facing random terrorist attacks and losing access to vital resources like drinking water whenever someone blows up the pipes again.

I don't think the Iraqis have any reason to be cheerful about their new "freedom" at the moment. Maybe when the terrorist attacks have stopped, but not quite yet.

I don't think the invasion of Iraq was entirely unjustified and pointless, but I do think it wasn't exactly the most intelligent way to liberate the Iraqi people -- which suggests that the liberation itself wasn't the only motivation.
 
far from it, Hussein was very focussed on his own country and staying alive and in power.
Click to expand...

How easily people forget ambition.

The reason Saddam focused on his own country was because he was forced to by UN sanctions and the threat of American military might. Which, by the way, caused several times more deaths from starvation than the amount of people killed so far in the occupation.
 
The Vault Dweller said:
Maybe the nation will suddenly become so peaceful and productive after the US leaves that the country becomes indisputable proof that the USA intervention led to good things and would bolster its support among the arab and/or Muslim world.
Click to expand...

Yes, and maybe Rambo-Mary Poppins will fly from one African country to another, stopping genocide, famine and a rampant AIDS epidemy.

Come on, wars are not fought For Freedom. They're fought for money, and power. Also, war is not a means, it's an end. What else do you need to enforce your Shiny Ironfist Patriotic Power, other than a flacid, brainless, frightened nation, kept on a state of perpetual war, with an invisible enemy,(that theoretically could be your very own neighbour OMFG!1)?


Show a lil' gore on TV.
It's the marines motherfuckers! Blowed up! By a goddamn trap bomb!
We want you so angry.
Foaming from your mouth in the depths of your living room.
So we can send everyone to war.

Somewhere else.
 
Sorry Wooz. I was just trying to come up with a positive and negative alternative. Believe me I think the chances of such a thing happening are very low...

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top