Is Iraq Worth It?
by Motte Brown on 11/27/2006 at 4:30 PM
We've never blogged on Iraq, but the recent surge in civilian deaths has me pondering its future and ours more than ever. Last week, suspected Sunni insurgents killed 215 Shiite Muslims in the slums of Sadr City, one of the deadliest assaults since the war began. The Shiites responded by attacking six Sunnis leaving prayer, burning them alive while Iraqi police stood by and watched. This surge in sectarian violence has most Americans now wondering whether toppling Saddam Hussein was worth it.
In just three years, American sentiment for the war has gone from 70 percent approval to 70 percent believing it was a mistake. I've certainly questioned it. But then I remembered why most American's supported the war in the first place -- overwhelming concern for our national security on the heels of the worst terrorist attack on American soil. And if you are having trouble remembering what the war in Iraq has to do with the war on terror, here's a brief summary:
In October 2002, the U.S. Congress gave Bush authorization to use military action in Iraq when it became clear that the United Nations Security Council would not enforce Resolution 1441, which called for Iraq's disarmament in accordance with the 1991 treaty that ended the first Gulf War. Iraq's non-compliance, as well as proof that it had given money and sanctuary to known Islamic terrorists, was viewed as an increasing national threat in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On March 23, President Bush gave Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave the country or face war.
It's difficult to reconcile these noble beginnings with the mess we're in now. And with Iraq on the verge of all-out civil war, things look like they're going to get worse before they get better. The prospect of more American military and Iraqi civilian deaths with no end in sight has many calling for immediate or phased troop withdrawal. But will a "phased redeployment" make this nation more or less secure? That is the question Bush and the Democrats will have to wrestle with in the coming months.
As Clifford May noted in a recent article on Nation Review Online, there are no good options left in Iraq -- only bad ones and worse ones. Let's hope the "bad ones" at least have the effect of making our nation more secure than it was before the war.
1. Kari said the following at 4:49 PM on Nov 27:
1
I believe your assessment of the war scenario is inaccurate. Iraq is not on the verge of an "all-out civil war"; Muslims of varying militant stripes are trying to annihilate anyone they disagree with. It remains fundamentally a religious problem. An Islamic problem. A terrorist problem.
To withdraw from Iraq would be a monumental mistake that would probably cause the collapse of Iraqi freedom, the replacement of the current government with a terrorist regime, and send a very clear, and very wrong, message to the middle-east; "Democracy is too weak to survive". To ensure the success of Iraqi freedom what is required is to wage a traditional war; to expand beyond Iraq, cut off the funding going to the terrorist groups at large in the country wrecking havoc (we're looking at you, Iran), and continue to militarily support the Iraqi people.
We have won in Iraq. We are now trying to rebuild the country and offer sustainable alternatives to Sharia law and a terrorist regime. There should not be a "expiration date" on assisting democracy. If you think it's bad in Iraq, try looking over to Eastern Europe where democracy is fighting for its life with bloody consequences. The death toll is suddenly put into perspective.
2. Leah said the following at 5:25 PM on Nov 27:
2
To Kari- even if the war is "a religious problem. An Islamic problem. A terrorist problem", this doesn't mean it's not a civil war. Iraq is controlled by Islam. It is steeped in terrorism. For the different factions within these groups to be at war means the country is at war with itself. This is civil war.
I agree that American troops shouldn't pull out now. America got itself into this, and therefore should finish it. However, it does need to do something different, because Iraq IS on the verge of civil war.
3. Jacob said the following at 5:55 PM on Nov 27:
3
I think a compelling argument can be made that Iraq doesn't have the cultural mores necessary for self-goverment. In the West, we have a tradition of sacrifice and the laying down of one's life or rights for the good of other people. This is seen in the oft-forgotten Battle of Thermoplyea, in which 300 Greeks held off 100,000 Persians for several days, fighting to the man to give the rest of Greece time to rally. Of course, there is the ultimate example of sacrifice in Christ. Islam is about submission, not sacrifice. It's about doing all the right things to earn yourself your righteousness before Allah, not about giving yourself for others.
That said, I think pulling out now would only make matters worse. There is a very real absence of leadership in the world right now, and I pray that God will raise up a few who will be able to stand for what is right.
4. John M. said the following at 7:29 AM on Nov 28:
4
Motte,
I guess I have a question. I hope you won’t take this the wrong way, because it really comes from true curiosity. Why does the situation in Iraq matter to you? Are you a veteran? Do you know someone in the military? As a taxpayer, of course you should be concerned about paying for it, but it’s only costing the average American a few bucks a month, so that’s probably not it. I know it’s tiring to see the same bad news week after week, but that can’t be it either. Help me understand.
5. Jon said the following at 8:39 AM on Nov 28:
5
It's worth noting that the Shiite attack that Motte is blogging about didn't happen -- this attack was fabricated by the media.
For more information on this, see this post: http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmE4MjM2NDRlODBlYWUxMzBkOWE4ZDkzMWY5YmIyNGM=
How bad is Iraq, anyway? Is it possible that the situation in Iraq isn't as bad as the media is portraying? Is it possible that the situation is worse?
6. Motte said the following at 8:52 AM on Nov 28:
6
John M.
National security is every citizen's concern.
Jon,
Thanks for pointing that out about the fake report of the Shiite attack. I hadn't seen that.
7. Robert J Espe said the following at 9:20 AM on Nov 28:
7
Well, here are some rational reasons for washing our hands of the whole thing:
The money is a no brainer, especially considering our current national debt.
More importantly, I have many friends in the National guard, and their units are being repeatedly activated for this war. Every time it happens, some of them die, and the rest of them have to put their lives on hold (careers, families) for two years. Add to that, the drain on the local economy when you pull 300 young people out of it.
I know people will say it is what they signed up for, but they signed up to defend their homes and families in their own state (as a last resort, you notice it is the national "guard"). The guards were never supposed to be part of the regular army, and taking them away from their communities and families doesn't make me any safer. It does leave wives without husbands, and parents without children.
I expect lots of people to disagree with me, but I don't expect America to save the world. I would prefer that we secure our borders so that we can live safely with our family and friends.
8. Jake said the following at 9:51 AM on Nov 28:
8
It's true that most Americans supported the war out of concern for our national security after 9/11. But that was a time when, embarassingly, a majority among us believed that Iraq was responsible for the attacks -- something there was never any reason to believe.
It's true that the UN felt Iraq was not in full compliance with Resolution 1441, but as we've now seen, it had no WMDs. Yes, it may have desired to have them and may have given some funding to terrorists, but there are other nations that have been much worse offenders on those counts -- why didn't we invade Iran or Saudi Arabia instead?
It's disheartening to see that so many Christians still believe not only that it is right for the US government to try to spread democracy abroad, but further that Christians actually have a moral obligation to support that effort.
Kari all but acknowledges that Islam is not compatible with democracy, yet still calls for building democracy in Iraq. In order for this to work, then, the vast majority of Iraqis would have to cease being Muslims. Is that a realistic goal for our government to try to effect?
9. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:24 AM on Nov 28:
9
Regardless of how one feels towards the war in Iraq now, there are a few facts I'd like to bring up:
- At the time, the evidence of weapons of mass destruction (or its development) was not heavily disputed
- The war (specifically fiscal commitment of the President sending troops) was overwhelmingly approved by Congress
- Iraq still has a significant number of deaths, both civilian and military
- Iraq has a new government, the population of Iraq and the U.S. has mixed feelings about our remaining there, and
I would also like to point out that polls are often fickle and vary widely depending upon the current situation. Immediately after the military portion most Americans (and Iraqis) thought the war was worth it. Then there was a dip. Then a rise after we caught Sadam Hussein. Then a dip. And so on and so forth...
My whole point is that I agree there is no "good" way for this to end. Both sides, Sunni and Shiite, don't particularly like us there. For the violence to dimish significantly would need to result in a significant troop increase, marshal law, and for the U.S. to essentially take control for awhile. This is what we did with Germany and Japan after WWII. With Germany, we gave people 30 days to turn in all weapons. After that, anyone with a weapon could be shot on sight. In Japan, we wrote their Constitution (which said that Japan no longer has the right as a sovereign nation to wagve war) and Gen. McArthur was the official leader for a time. Full and total occupation would be necessary. How long? Well, it's been over 60 years since WWII and we are STILL in Germany and Japan. But this won't happen.
Since we are unwilling to pay the price either in lives or politically the only realistic option is to use our last trump card to get the sides to negotiate: Either work out a deal, or the U.S. leaves immediately and completely. Although both sides loathe us, I believe both sides want us there to some extent. The exisiting Shiites to help with the insurgency and Sunni insurgents to prevent an unabated genocide.
When we first got into Iraq, I knew that the military portion would not be the problem. It would be the roadside bombers and insurgents. War now is much more a fight of wills than of arms, and honestly, the U.S. is not that strong in that category (ever since WWII we have not truly "won" any conflict we've been in). We expect "clean" victories with very few casualties. And today's media isn't helping things. If we saw realtime coverage and statistics of how WWII went, I doubt we would've stayed the course there either. Images from Normandy and Iwo Gima would certainly make it seem like we were losing (we lost 28,000 marines in the battle of Iwo Gima alone. That's roughly 10 times the number we lost in this entire war).
For national security, I think the only way we are safer is that we now are aware how vulernable we are on our own soil. I don't think a pullout of Iraq will necesarily increase terrorist actions, but I don't believe it will deter them much either.
10. John M. said the following at 10:52 AM on Nov 28:
10
Motte:
“National security is every citizen's concern”. I’m a veteran, and I really have to tell you that most people in the military would consider this a pretty lightweight statement. I think they would say that national security is primarily the concern of those who wear a uniform and put their lives on the line. The role of the average citizen is to pay the (relatively inexpensive) bills, and to vote for Commander in Chief. Beyond that, most service members place civilian opinion way down on their priority list, somewhere after what’s for lunch. Again, it's just really difficult for us to understand why it's even a concern.
11. Motte said the following at 11:26 AM on Nov 28:
11
Mike,
Great insights. Thanks for sharing.
John M.
I do sincerely thank you for your service to this country. But I really don't understand your point. The citizens of this country, through democratic processes, have much to say about foreign policy and national defense. Thats what a representative government is all about.
12. John M. said the following at 11:58 AM on Nov 28:
12
Motte,
“The citizens of this country, through democratic processes, have much to say about foreign policy and national defense”.
I guess I perceive debate in the civilian community as a primarily an academic exercise. It’s true that Iraq policy is the concern of every citizen, rather the same way that the salaries of janitors at NASA are a concern. But that’s something that affects me so little that I spend almost no time thinking about it. I really can’t see why Iraq is different.
I notice that whenever one says one is a veteran, everybody starts saying “thank your for your service”. While most of us appreciate such sentiments, the best way the citizens can thank the troops is by voting adequate defense budgets, encouraging their kids to try a military career, and stop displaying those silly magnetic ribbons on their cars (I trust no-one here does that!)
13. Jonathan said the following at 5:39 PM on Nov 28:
13
The media know they set the agenda in America. Where the cameras focus, politicians pay attention. The media hates Bush so they'll target the headlines to embarrass him.
Think about Darfur. If the media were really concerned about human lives, the cameras would flood into Sudan. Same thing in Chechnya, where over 160,000 people have died in the last 10 years. It's all political and there's no pretending it's not.
14. Anne said the following at 9:25 PM on Nov 28:
14
Clifford May might just have it right regarding bad choices and worse ones in Iraq.
Also, regarding national security and whose concern it is:
I can appreciate the frustration felt by men and women in uniform when civilians like myself try to tell them how to achive security. However I ask that they understand my desire to be safe in my home, and places of work and recreation. This is what national security is in simplest terms, the mantianing of the safty of civilians carrying out their ordinary lives of paying bills and voting. We care about national security because without it our lives and livelyhoods are at risk.
15. Jake Linn said the following at 9:32 PM on Nov 28:
15
I would agree that, immediately, Iraq is primarily the concern of soldiers and civilian military leadership. However, think about the reason we get into this war -- because we (the people, represented by the Congress) felt that Iraq was a threat to the country as a whole, and that something needed to be done to end that threat.
In addition, should we lose this war, and should it have far ranging consequences beyond just the takeover of Iraq by who knows who, that will ultimately affect the country at large, including the civilian population. Wars are immediately the concern of the military, but as they're fought on behalf of the civilian community, it would seem that the civilian community has a vested interest in their outcome.
As far as the cash cost of the Iraq war goes -- yes, it affects each person relatively little. On the other hand, a lot of money is a lot of money, however you split the cost. The government could be doing a lot of other things with the money, including giving it back to us, if it weren't spending it on Iraq. Not that I think Iraq is a bad use of money, necessarily -- if victory can be won, then the American people and the Iraqi people alike deserve to have our governments spend whatever is necessary to achieve that victory -- but $100s of (billions?) is a colossal amount of money, and if its ultimately being thrown away, that's not a good thing.
16. Jacob said the following at 6:08 AM on Nov 29:
16
Is there a price-limit when it comes to fighting evil? Are we only allowed to spend so much? Evil must be fought against, even if we're not winning. This is true conservatism and the the spirit of Western Civilization. Edmund Burke, a true statesman, famously said that the only thing necessary for evil to suceed is for good men to do nothing. How many people died fighting Fascism and Communism in the 20th Century? Millions. Is the foe we face today any less deadly?
This isn't about how things seem to be going today. The point is that there is a very real struggle going on. Are we committed to fighting evil, or only fighting evil when we know we're going to win?
17. Sherry said the following at 8:30 PM on Dec 2:
17
Losing in Iraq is not an acceptable option.
John M. could not understand the concern for national security. It is written on our hearts from years of Bible teaching. Jesus sacrificed his life to show love for the community. Christians care about the safety of our loved ones.
We should stay in Iraq until the new government is secure. Otherwise, Iraq would increase support for terrorism. A secure democracy in that region would weaken the enemy, keeping America relatively safe. Speaking of danger, look out for the media bias. James 3:1-12 describes the destructive power of our words. The media mouth has weakened our national security. When will that end?
18. John Pappas said the following at 6:55 AM on Aug 4:
18
We have no business in Iraq. Back than our business was with Afganistan and Bin Loden. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Afganistan did. That was the objective in those days. Iraq was the worlds issue not all ours. If the world didnt want to do anything about it than it should have been left to the iraq people to fight for their freedom. Bin loden should be at the end of a rope. Not Sodom. Bush Impeachment in order. When the ship runs aground you blame the man stearing the ship. John Vietman vet.