Does Anybody Care About Victory in Iraq?
by Motte Brown on 08/07/2008 at 4:00 PM
There has been a lot of good news out of Iraq the past few months -- al-Qaeda has been virtually destroyed, violence levels are at their lowest in four years, and the Iraqi government has solidified. And the latest is that anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is disarming his Mahdi Army.
Many times I've been tempted to write about the progress. But my sense is that nobody really cares anymore. So I thought I'd write about that instead.
Even if we do leave Iraq with irreversible victory, I'm convinced the anti-Iraq war crowd will always be about being anti-Iraq war. The "war is lost" politicians and like-minded citizens will spend their time diverting everyone's attention away from victory to the intelligence failures, war-strategy failures, and the cost of the war, both in lives and money.
Not that these issues are illegitimate. They're absolutely worth considering. But I don't think most of the "Bush Lied, People Died" opposition really want an honest discussion on the "was it worth it?" question. Because that would open up the possibility that it was worth it. And that is an untenable prospect for them.
But no matter how many see-no-good, hear-no-good, and speak-no-good Americans there are on the Iraq war, it won't change the good that can come from a stable, democratic Iraq. And the truth that we're likely a much safer nation now than before.
Consider this possibility: What if our national security has a little to do with forecasting, sort of like the price of oil. If nothing else, the Iraq war has "forecasted" to our enemies that we won't "cruise missile" our way out of committing troops when we're attacked. And our decision to stay the course when things were at their worst has "forecasted" our resolve to complete the job no matter what.
Does anyone remember what our response was to the first Trade Center bombing in 1993, the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000? No? Well, that's sort of the point.
Success in Iraq won't be easily qualifiable. And the "worth it" question will be debated for years. But at the very least, the absolute minimum, it is right to claim victory when it happens, acknowledge the good, and learn from the mistakes.
1. BDB said the following at 4:51 PM on Aug 7:
Um...all of us with friends in Iraq care quite a bit that we appear to have acheieved victory. Let's hope this leads to a lasting peace.
Soon after Gulf War II, the History Channel did an interesting documentary. They dug through information in the aftermath of World War II, and found lots of examples of sabotage and old Nazis that kept resisting after the end of hostilities.
From a military point of view, the fact that there was an insurgency in Iraq was not really a surprise. It was a mistake by the Administration to suggest that everything would be quick and painless. Anyone who read The Prince knows that for 500 years, we've known that if you conquer a people in a way that is easy, it is very difficult to govern.
But for the sake of friends who are (and might be) deployed, I'm really glad the surge worked.
2. Texas Craig said the following at 5:12 PM on Aug 7:
I think you raise some valid questions. There will likely always be people who are unwilling to acknowledge any good that comes from the war in Iraq.
But, at the same time that you ask that question, there should also be an honest acknowledgment from those in favor of the war that it MAY NOT have been worth it.
The problem I see is that people get entrenched on both sides. While I do not accuse you (Motte) of doing this, many of those who would demand that anti-war folks acknowledge the good that may come from the war will themselves never acknowledge that it may have been a terrible mistake. It seems that an honest discussion should involve both sides being willing to "eat crow," so to speak.
For me, it will take much more than a stable democratic government in Iraq to justify the war. Rather, only if it proves to effect true change in the region over the long haul would it be worthwhile to me. Otherwise, what have we done other than set up a lone free country in the midst of a pretty oppressive region. Well, to some degree, the U.S. has been doing that for the last 100 years, only to see it fail after 10 or 20 years (Cuba, Iran, etc.) when radicals take back over. Is that really success?
Moreover, if that is a success that justified the war, then does that mean we should attempt the same with North Korea, Iran, and other countries that may have, or be on the verge of possessing, nuclar weapon capabilities. If not, then why?
These are interesting issues to debate, and it would be nice to see an open, thoughtful discussion from both sides. Unfortunately, people usually get anchored in their views and refuse to dialogue, instead shouting at each other or using ad hominem attacks.
As a last point, I do strongly disagree with the statement that:
"If nothing else, the Iraq war has "forecasted" to our enemies that we won't "cruise missile" our way out of committing troops when we're attacked."
First, if the enemies that we are talking about are terrorists who commit suicide to hurt us, our resolve probably matters little to them. They have no fear of death and their goal is simply to take as many of us with them as they can. In that regard, forecasting does nothing to stop them.
If we are not talking about terrorists, then who are we talking about? We are not fighting a cold war anymore against the Soviet Union. Does anyone on here genuinely believe that Iran or North Korea would attack the U.S.? Are there any nation states out there that we genuinely fear being attacked by such that we need to exercise an intention to "carry out the job."
We still are the strongest country in the world, with the strongest military. Our current threats are generally not military in nature from other nation states, but are economic or terroristic--two areas where a "show of strength" does nothing to help us.
Anyway, that my $.02.
3. Jethro said the following at 5:12 PM on Aug 7:
Motte,
What threat did Iraq actually pose that we're now safer from? It's already been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Saddam never had WMDs. Nor did he have any ties to Al-Qaeda.
Now sure, you could argue that he might have tried to build WMDs in the future, but so might any country in the world. We can't attack them all. Can we?
4. April L. said the following at 5:19 PM on Aug 7:
Yes. I care.
Thanks for this post.
5. Jade said the following at 6:15 PM on Aug 7:
I certainly hope this war has been worth it after the lives lost and ruined and all the money spent; unfortunately, the question of whether we should or should not have gone there in the first place is irrelevant now that we’re five years down the road. I hope the political and military leaders in the United States can learn from what went wrong in the planning and early days of the war to prevent needless wars in the future.
I think the question "is it worth it" posed here is too narrowly focused on is/was the war worth it to Iraq. The question should be, is it worth it to the United States. The Taliban is/was in Afghanistan and that war has been moderately successful although that country is now a haven for drug trafficking and production and is still not a place most Westerners would feel comfortable visiting for summer break. As for Iraq, any full spectrum analysis of the “worth” of the war would be delinquent if it didn’t take into account the billions of dollars the US has borrowed, mostly from China, to finance the war. Iraq’s oil profits for this year alone are projected to be around $80 billion but the US taxpayer is still funding the military operations and reconstruction of Iraq. That really bothers me.
Sadly, Iraq does not have the greatest track record with democracy and government accountability. Thousands of years of tribal, extremely hierarchical, and corrupt authority cannot be undone despite the best intentions of some political leaders and the best efforts of the US military. Time will indeed tell the worth of this war, but at what cost?
6. Tris said the following at 6:18 PM on Aug 7:
The only victory that can occur in Iraq will not be victory for the US. The Founding Fathers never intended the US to be the world's policeman getting bogged down in the affairs of any country it wants to. If the Iraqis do not want democracy who are the to force them to accept it, doing so doesn't sound very democratic to me. And if Iraq ever does become a stable democratic power after a "US victory" what next? They will vote a radical Muslim into office. Remember the "liberation" of Afghanistan. As soon as they adopted a democracy they declared it to be an Islamic Republic where converting from Islam is punishable by death.
The US MUST WITHDRAW from Iraq. The blood of one American soldier is worth more than the whole number of Muslim Iraqis. The US is financially bankrupt. This endless policing action is driving the country into bankruptcy. The Soviet Union was also destroyed by the bankruptcy they created from their occupation of Afghanistan.
Even if Iraq did have WMDs the US should not still be there. When the Israelis have to go into Lebanon to kill terrorists anddestroy their assets they leave after they accomplish their mission. They do not stick around to bring "peace and democracy" to a population that hates them. The very prescence of a non-Muslim in a Muslim land is disgusting to them. Staying behind to "help them out" is suicide.
However, the US is not as smart as Isreal and has pursued a campaign of nation building. This is socialism in action. Our own goverment is stealing OUR tax money to build infrastructure for the Iraqis (who later destroy it because it is built by/with infidel support) while at the same time our infrastructure is in need of repairs and our country is enduring many financial hardships (thanks to the UN-Constitutional Federal Reserves).
It is time to return to the Constitution and end the warfare/welfare state.
7. Mallie said the following at 6:25 PM on Aug 7:
Well, we ought to care. I just finished a book called America Alone by Mark Steyn, and he makes the case that creating a stable nation out of Iraq is imperative to the national security world wide. Even a lot of conservatives think, "Well, that's all the way over there. It's none of our business." But the terrorists are sure interested in us, namely destroying us. And if we create a power vacuum in such a volatile area, they would be all to happy to set up camp and plan another 9/11. We owe our lives to success of the brave soldiers who have combatted not only against our enemy, but the naysayers from their own homeland. Thanks Motte
8. Chris said the following at 6:32 PM on Aug 7:
Motte Brown:
And the truth that we're likely a much safer nation now than before.
How so? That is, what was the threat and how has the war eliminated/reduced that threat, and was it the best way possible?
Take, for example, Reagan's use of SDI. As a rather liberal guy, I'd agree that he effectively used that to help crush the Soviet Union under the weight of its own military complex. (Not the only reason it fell, but a big contributor.) A major superpower with the ability to nuke us into oblivion eliminated without a shot. Pretty good outcome.
What were the strategic threats to our security that have been eliminated by creating what Iraq is today?
If nothing else, the Iraq war has "forecasted" to our enemies that we won't "cruise missile" our way out of committing troops when we're attacked. And our decision to stay the course when things were at their worst has "forecasted" our resolve to complete the job no matter what.
What, then, does our half-hearted effort in Afghanistan, which actually sheltered the leader of the villains of 9/11, say about us?
Also, as Texas Craig pointed out, this means nothing to terrorists. If anything, they want us to get into as many Iraqs as they can get us into. Classic guerrilla warfare seeks to bleed your enemy dry. I doubt anyone would claim we could sustain this type of response to terrorist attacks for years and years. Are we in for another 5+ years of major deployments after the next terrorist attack? Bin Laden's ultimate dream is an attack that causes the US to finger yet another country, invade it, and spend years in nation building (or abandoning it so al Qaeda and the like can set up shop).
You'll notice my many disagreements with your claims. I will not acknowledge any "good" in Iraq because to do so is to say that the ends justify the means, pure and simple.
9. Ted Slater said the following at 6:48 PM on Aug 7:
Jethro (#3), you've mischaracterized why the U.S.-led coalition went to war before. I answered you then.
Oh, and yes, Saddam *did* have WMDs. To say that he "never had WMDs" is to be ignorant of the facts.
And yes, Saddam's administration *did* interact with al Qaeda, enjoying some collaboration. Though the media have been reporting otherwise for years, the truth remains that Saddam was a friend of terrorists and a supporter of their tactics.
10. JB said the following at 6:51 PM on Aug 7:
How would one even begin to assess whether the war is "worth it?" On the one hand, there are many areas where the facts still aren't clear. How much danger did Iraq really pose before the war, for example? Would they ever have acquired WMDs? To what extent were they materially supporting terrorism? How many people died in the war (somewhere between 80 and 160 thousand, last I checked)? Will Iraq ever really become a stable democracy? Did the war in Iraq dissuade more terrorists from attacking the West or did it inspire more to sign up?
And, on the other hand, how would we compare the results of the war even if we knew what they were? How many deaths of innocent people can be justified by the deposition of a brutal dictator? How many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians are worth the prevention of another terrorist attack? Even with perfect information, we would likely never agree on the answers to those kinds of questions.
The current level of violence in Iraq is just one data point that is meaningless without a larger factual context and a coherent system of valuation, both of which we lack. Calling the war in Iraq a victory based merely on the number of people dying now is, I think, a very myopic way of approaching the question.
11. Melody said the following at 6:57 PM on Aug 7:
I appreciate the info on Iraq. By the way, the war may be more justified than we will acutually ever know. There were WMDs discovered, but of course the media who have been against the war from the beginning did not let that out. It seems to me they are so set against President Bush that whatever he does can only draw negative media attention, regardless of how good it is. That gets maybe a short news clip, if any and only if it is discussed by people who are at the least skeptical if not outright disrespectful of our president. At lesat that is the way I see things.
12. BDB said the following at 7:24 PM on Aug 7:
Jethro (#3) wrote:
>>It's already been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Saddam never had WMDs.<<
(Cough) NEVER? I believe there are relatives of a bunch of dead Kurds who would take strong exception to that statement.
13. Caleb said the following at 8:43 PM on Aug 7:
You can argue both ways on if the war was worth it or not. But no matter what the outcome of that is, we went into Iraq and to back out now shows the world that we really don't mean what we say. At this point we really need to stay in and finish what we started (weather or not it was a good thing that we started it.) We have made some amazing progress but the media doesn't show that progress to the public.
14. JJ said the following at 11:59 PM on Aug 7:
Well, I'm sorry but the initial reasons for going into Iraq proved illegitimate. Now, i do not think it was intentional on the part of our leaders, but it was most certainly a mistake. As someone pointed out, our country is now vulnerable from an economic standpoint as well. Yes, the region has been more stable in recent months (depending on which numbers you look at) and thank God for that, but it still doesn't erase the cost of being there in the first place.
15. Mrs. B said the following at 5:44 AM on Aug 8:
Victory is definitely something to celebrate, but I hope we also clean up after ourselves. I work with refugees from Africa and have more recently had some Iraqi refugees join my class, and according to their stories (and those of soldiers I know who fought there) there is a lot of rebuilding to do (homes, hospitals, etc.) before it can become what I think we're all picturing when we hear about a democratic Iraq.
My hope is that we won't simply say "Ok, we got all the bad guys. Now have fun with your democracy!" but will guide and build up their country and communities as a true testament to the freedom we've been fighting for.
16. obewan said the following at 6:15 AM on Aug 8:
I would caution against prematurely declaring victory. Tough questions still need to be answered like how many years we will need to keep a standing army in Iraq. 10? 30? 50? 100?
Also, we should not declare victory until all sects in Iraq have reached agreement on oil revenue sharing. The oil fields will not be safe until that happens. Many large oil firms do not want to invest in the Iraq oil field infrastructure due to fears of sabotage.
Finally, I agree with Jethro. Where was the threat to the U.S. that required a $1 trillion investment and thousands of U.S. lives and many more Iraqi lives and a bloody civil war that was not present before we invaded?
I don’t agree that achieving ‘retribution’ against acts of terrorists will deter them from future attacks. In many cases it will only make them stronger. We are better off investing in things like the Homeland Security agency and securing our borders and working through diplomacy to achieve better understanding.
17. Paul said the following at 6:18 AM on Aug 8:
Motte,
Yes you're right, there are a lot of important questions to ask, and we should be able to take each question and answer it honestly and independantly of the others.
So I hope I can be permitted to believe that the result of the war will be a far more stable Iraq, but that it was neither legitimate nor the only way to free the country of Sadam.
18. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:26 AM on Aug 8:
Knowing the effect that some of the Bush Administration's intelligence had on the people that were privy to it, I'd say I don't need to know details.
Especially when I know that some of the people exposed to such information are level headed, grounded, intelligent people who have extensive experience in security matters.
Personally, I'm glad that there's been victory. Yeah, maybe it coulda been handled better. Hopefully someone will go in and document the last 7 - 8 years quite thoroughly (and fairly) so that future generations of military leaders, presidents, congressmen, and advisors will know better what kind of threats to respond to and how to respond to them.
19. Kit said the following at 7:29 AM on Aug 8:
As Boundless's 'resident liberal,' I'll add my two cents.
I have many friends who have been shipped to Iraq, and a boyfriend in the military who hasn't yet been deployed but is going over next year. I will never undermine their sacrifice for our country, and if I end up with my man in the long haul, I will support him as a military wife. I support them, and I care about victory. Since we've gone in, we have to complete the job.
It doesn't mean, however, that it was the best thing to do initially. Going to war with Iraq when they were not responsible for 9/11 and claiming 'fear of terrorism' when they didn't do anything was wrong. Declaring war for the hidden issue of control of foreign oil is wrong, too. The issues are much deeper than do they have WMD or not. Maybe they do. But so do we.
The issue is that we invaded a country who didn't directly attack us, overthrew their dictator (one of the good things! This is wonderful!) and then attempted to replace their deep-seated government with democracy, something they are going to have a hard time adjusting to. Government is directly related to culture. Their culture, and therefore their style of gov't, goes back THOUSANDS of years longer than ours and is rooted not only in culture but also religion; in a very real way it's tied to their identity. What right do we have to declare that our form of gov't is 'better?' It very well may be, but we have done it by overstepping our bounds. Victory is good, but we have to be careful how we do it, or we will end up with more enemies than allies.
20. Elle said the following at 7:56 AM on Aug 8:
Tris:
You said:"The blood of one American soldier is worth more than the whole number of Muslim Iraqis."
Are you serious?!?!?
21. Shannon said the following at 9:20 AM on Aug 8:
I have a father who is a retired air force officer. I have friends who are army, marine, and air force. I have seen my father sent to hard places. I have seen my friends sent to hard places. The universal among them? They feel that they were doing what needed to be done.
The truth is, whether or not this war was right or a mistake will only be able to be judged by the next generation who reap the consequences, whether good or bad. In the mean time, we can sit around and argue about it or we can decide what needs to happen now.
I want us to be home too, but I do not want to see us walk out and leave a vacuum to allow another Saddam Hussein in power. What about our Christian love for our brother? War is messy and dirty and God is certainly not "anti-war" in general (in fact, does He not use war as his metaphor for his wrath against this earth??). If we walk away, another person takes power and rules with hatred. Saddam Hussein killed his own people for even thinking differently. The luxury we have of criticizing our government was strictly not allowed on penalty of death. He once sent a man home in a body bag to his wife because this man asked if Saddam should not just let the inspectors in to appease the US. His sons raped and tortured women in their backyards...
This war has had mistakes (it always will), but maybe, just maybe, women getting a voice, maybe, just maybe, PEOPLE getting a voice is worth it. I hate tyranny. No, we're not the world's policemen, but we're there now, so we need to see it through.
The media is biased and I suspect that many details are left out. Even still, I love the idea of freedom for others. What if the French hadn't taken the risk with us during our Revolutionary War? They didn't enter for noble reasons and they certainly sacrificed...
Just a thought.
22. Tris said the following at 9:53 AM on Aug 8:
Yes Elle, I am serious.
The blood of one American soldier is worth more than the whole number of Muslim Iraqis. One should not throw pearls before swine, one should not reason with unreasonable people, a civilized western power cannot make an uncivilized barbaric people civilized.
If one really wants to "win" in Iraq the only measures to implement are Nazi and Soviet style measures. I.e.- for every American soldier that is hurt or killed a thousand Iraqi civillians are to be killed. This is the only way to win against such an insurgency. But, first that would be evil. Second, do we really want to become the very thing we say we are fighting against.
23. Jim H. said the following at 9:53 AM on Aug 8:
Kit #8
I would challenge the notion that cultures cannot be changed for the better. Japan after WW II is a perfect example. They went from a "code of Bushido" society with emperor worship and visions of imperial grandeur to a flourishing, peaceful democracy.
I am not saying this one example means that Iraq will turn out the same way, but to suggest that cultures can never be changed for the better is demonstrably false.
24. Marilyn said the following at 10:03 AM on Aug 8:
Yes, I care. Yes, I remember the US response to the many earlier terrorist attacks.
We cannot walk out until the job is finished; doing so would allow Iraq to fall into worse conditions than they ever had, and also disparage the sacrifice of every soldier (and soldier's family) who lost a life there.
As one who lost two beautiful cousins to war and as the mother of a proud American infantryman who served in Iraq's most dangerous region, I know the pain and fear of war. I hate war. It is ugly and destructive. But as long as the world is filled with sinful men (read: humans) war will be a fact of life. I am grateful for all who make the sacrifice to keep us safe and free, even when so many of us hate them and the fact that we need them.
For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many.
You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.
For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. Matthew 24:5-7
25. Kit said the following at 10:19 AM on Aug 8:
Tris, I agree wholeheartedly with your position on the war. But I do take offense at your comment about the blood of a soldier being worth more than a thousand Muslim civilians.
What makes our civilians worth so much more than theirs? I can see your point, possibly, if you hadn't used civilians as an example! Kill civilians for the sins of a few? That's like saying it is okay if the Japanese come over here and kill a bunch of American civilians because we bombed Hiroshima during WWII. It's completely illogical.
Can you compare the value of a human life or judge a person on their religion?
Absolutely not. It would also solve no problems. We need to meet with leaders to help us through this, not have more bloodshed.
26. RB said the following at 10:20 AM on Aug 8:
We are the leader of the 'Democratic' world. Even though we obtain less than 20% of our oil from the Middle East [Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar] Europe, Japan, and the rest of our world depend on this region for their energy needs. We produce huge amounts in the US and get lots more from Mexico, Canada and Venezuela.
China, our only legitimate competitor in the world now that Russia is broken, is making increasing demands on world oil to meet their needs. Their economy is booming and they have 2 billion mouths to feed. If the 'democratic world' does not control the middle east, China will be forced to expand their military and establish a presence in the area. They are already big in Africa.
And, if we can't show the rest of our 'Democratic world' that we have the will and the means to 'control' the area, they will buddy up with someone who does have the will and power ['means']. Trust me, that would be far worse.
27. stanley said the following at 10:22 AM on Aug 8:
Thank you Tris. Hitler would be proud of you. Just substitute "Aryan" for "American", and you could be in his cabinet.
28. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:25 AM on Aug 8:
The question of "Was it worth it?" will not be answered until long after President Bush has passed away (which the outcome by the way will define his legacy. He will either be seen as "brilliant and courageous despite the opposition" or a "failure who made a huge blunder in policy").
How many people thought the Civil War was worth it soon after its conclusion (answer: not a huge majority)? Or as mentioned spending billions and billions of dollars on a Cold War that might have never ended?
I always knew that if we went in Iraq, the victory would not end with the military. It would be with a stable, thriving country that has a government that's different than all of its neighbors (save Israel). But that might not be seen for a number of generations.
It's easy to say, "We shouldn't be spending so much money on rebuiling Iraq" and to some extent I can understand. But realize too that we chose to spend billions on essentially rebuilding Germany and Japan from the ground up after the war and that has been one of the best investments in geopolitics we have ever made. I'm not saying the two situations are equivalent, but I am saying that one must look beyond simple mathematics. What might we be saving (in both lives and dollars) if Iraq did become a stable, thriving democracy in the region? What if this averted future terrorists attacks on American soil? What if this discourages extreme Islamic ideology? True, a lot of things that might never happen. But what if they do?
Having said that, I think the question "Was it worth it?" is not the right question to ask. The right question is, "What would be the short term and long term impacts of our two options (stay or leave) and which is in our country's better interest?" That should be the focus of the debate.
29. Michelle (of Kansas) said the following at 10:53 AM on Aug 8:
I agree with Marilyn (#24), who said, "We cannot walk out until the job is finished; doing so would allow Iraq to fall into worse conditions than they ever had, and also disparage the sacrifice of every soldier (and soldier's family) who lost a life there."
Even if it was a mistake that we entered the war (which I'm not entirely convinced that it was), it doesn't matter at this point.
There has been a lot of talk from presidential candidates about pulling the troops out, and bringing them home. America is begging for it, saying we shouldn't have been there in the first place.
But so what?
We'd be accepting defeat. How often is a mistake rectified by giving up? Yes, people are dying, even the innocent. But that's why we're calling this a war!
30. John D. said the following at 1:06 PM on Aug 8:
Some very good points have already been raised.
Jade (#5) said:
"As for Iraq, any full spectrum analysis of the “worth” of the war would be delinquent if it didn’t take into account the billions of dollars the US has borrowed, mostly from China, to finance the war."
Boundless readers who are interested in the care and raising of children should ask themselves whether it is right to stick the next generation with the cost of our foreign wars (trillions, in the long run, of borrowed communist Chinese dollars).
Also, Shannon (# 21) asked:
"What about our Christian love for our brother?"
Shannon, see what Tris said at post #6. The Founding Fathers never intended us to be the world's policeman. Yes, Saddam was a bad guy; so is Mugabe, so is Kim Jong-Il, so are the Chinese who are hosting the Olympics (and President Bush) even as we speak.
It is not our duty to go abroad and straighten out every country with a tyrranical leader, nor can we afford to do so any longer, with our unpayable national debt and our military stretched to the limit by repeated tours of duty in the desert.
Faithful adherence to our Constitution, with its limited powers, is better than confusing individual Christian charity with Wilsonian interventionism, or foreign aggression disguised as altruism.
31. Vanessa said the following at 2:45 PM on Aug 8:
I care!!! To walk out now would be incredibly disrespectful to our military that have worked so hard for victory. It'd be a slap in the face for them- like walking off the court in the last quarter when you're winning 98-97.
Talk about a waste of money! It'd be like flushing millions down the drain.
Thanks, Motte, for your willingness to tackle this! Our troops need our support- and they don't want to leave until the job is done (just ask any one of them)!!
32. BDB said the following at 8:27 PM on Aug 8:
By any chance, did anyone else notice that Libya gave up its WMD program right after the U.S. Invaded Iraq? They gave up all their nuclear centrifuges, opened up everything to inspection, and even explained how they did it and who they bought the stuff from. There's been a few articles with the details. It's fascinating reading. And it's a big reason for the $10 Billion settlement with the Pan Am 103 victims.
The openness of the Libyans shows dramatically how Saddam was still extremely uncooperative and in violation of the terms of the cease fire from Gulf War I. That's what should have been made plain in the run up to Gulf War II: the reality that Saddam would rebuild his weapons stockpile as soon as the U.S. Got bored and looked the other way.
Look up the Libya articles from the last 5 years to see what has been happening there.
33. Boston Matt said the following at 1:02 AM on Aug 9:
Tris...I think you should look at your Bible again. While any soldiers death is a horrible thing stating that an Iraqi death isn't "equal" is ridiculous and barbaric. I hope for your sake your like 12 because I expected more from an adult/college/teenager.
General Patreus is a national hero and it is because of his leadership that progress towards victory has happened(which didn't result in barbaric cleanings to accomplish).
On a side note, how lame is it guys to post and say "I'm a boundless liberal". Just make your point.
34. cn said the following at 1:12 AM on Aug 9:
There's rumors amongst the Israeli people that the WMDs were seng to Damascus.
Of course, I don't know for sure, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
35. Farmer Pete said the following at 7:14 AM on Aug 9:
Craig (Post No. 2) The world's most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, stated quite clearly that his intention was to provoke America into a war because he was quite sure that America was soft, lacked resolve, and would crumble - morally - in the face of quite small losses in combat. You are quite wrong, terrorist DO care about America's resolve.
All..........
As for the motivation for this war?
Please note that intelligence is not sure and certain. Intelligence is frequently based on analysis of incidentals and educated guesses, some of which lead to contradictory conclusions. Those who have to make decisions - such as America's leaders - have to balance any number of intelligence reports in the light of an uncertain future and the only certainty is that there are enemies, and someone, somewhere, will die. That is the nasty truth of living in a sinful world.
The choice facing Bush was not merely whether or not to go to war in Iraq, but what losses the US was prepared to accept before it went to war somewhere. A balance had to be struck between the certainty of a few thousand American military deaths of the conflict was fought overseas on a ground of America's choosing, and the possibility of hundreds of thousands of deaths amongst American civilians if the enemy managed to smuggle a WMD into a major American city. Such an outcome is not certain, but it is more likely if you do nothing , than if you go to war against an enemy who has sworn to do his possible to hurt you as much as possible. What price are you willing to pay to prevent this?
This is also the answer to those who think that the US is being a "policeman" and that - to be consistent - it should attack every other unlovely nation. This is not possible and should not happen, but this is not a reason to avoid war with the most immediate and obvious threat when it is apparent.
As it is, having a functioning democracy in the Middle East is not a bad thing. It shows up the proposition that Arabs cannot cope with democracy to be the racist lie that it really is, and it stands as an example to every people in that area who are oppressed by a totalitarian regime.
It has also cost Al Qaeda considerably in people, leaders and resources. Does no-one think it odd that there has not been a significant terrorist attack on the US mainlkand since this shivoo started?
Respectfully yours......... Peter
36. Jo said the following at 10:46 AM on Aug 9:
Tris, I'm still not sure we're understanding you right, but if we are, you're very very wrong.
RB (#26):
"We are the leader of the 'Democratic' world. ... Europe, Japan, and the rest of our world depend on this region for their energy needs ... if we can't show the rest of our 'Democratic world' that we have the will and the means to 'control' the area, they will buddy up with someone who does have the will and power ['means']. Trust me, that would be far worse."
Wow, so much arrogance in this statement that I don't even know where to start. Thank GOODNESS we have America around to look out for us little guys...
37. lewsta said the following at 1:02 PM on Aug 9:
The fact that some still believe Hussein NEVER had WMD's shows a serious lack of a desire to ferret out and know the truth. Read the terms of the surrender/end of the first Gulf War. It was well documented that Iraq had WMD, how many, of what type, and where they were. At least the ones that were known. (there was no proof there were not others). These were to have been destroyed as part of the "peace" agreements, and documented. Ten years on, most had NOT been destroyed, and there was plain evidence more were being acquired. The UN had levied sanctions against Iraq for failure to tend to this niggly matter, threatening forced inspections (saddam repeatedly refused the access he had agreed to as part of the truce)I have seen satellite photos showing large convoys of trucks, or a type not before seen in Iraq, leaving that country for Syria. Whilst their contents was not certainly known, the speculation was that those vans contained much of the known stock of Hussein's WMD's. NEVER had WMD's? Read your history. ALL this was documented prior to the present administration's taking office.
As to what has been going in in Iraq these past two years, the media is shamefully misleading the masses. Get, and read, a book called The Moment of Truth in Iraq, Michael Yon. He is an independent photojournalist who has spent about three years with US and British military units active in Iraq, and what HE reports, having personally seen and heard, is amazing. Yes, the Iraqi people desparately desire peace, and they are finally "getting it" that it will not come until THEY, the Iraqi people, take reponsibility and deal with the terrorists (mostly foreign operatives) trying to perpetrate their misdeeds in their midst. The vast majority of civilian casualties in the last five years have been at the hands of al Quaeda and related terrorist cells operating in Iraq to destabilise it. They fear, far above everything else, Iraq becoming a peaceful, independent, self-governing nation working out her own problems. And they think nothing of murdering peaceful law-abiding Iraqi civilians, a practice the Iraqis are finally ending by turning against them. The Iraqi military and police forces are maturing, taking initiative, learning from the high moral standards daily demonstrated by US troops who sacrificially serve Iraq.
Anyone who thinks al Quaeda was not involved in Iraq's Hussein government needs to research the documents discovered in a Baghdad police station, quickly abandoned as US forces overran the city during the first invasion. These plainly show a complex plan, organised by none other than Hussein himself, laying out hundreds of links and contacts, chains of command, etc, giving instructions to survivors of his government on how to work with al Quaeda operatives already in Iraq before our invasion to harry and make ineffective any gains made by the US forces attempting to drive out the Baathist government set up by Hussein. Ah, but you won't find mention of THAT in the liberal press. Oh, and anyone who actually is gulllible enough to think we were after Iraq's oil, I've got a great deal on a bridge back in New York.... come ON. If we were after their oil, we'd be seeing it flowing across the atlantic to Galveston. simple truth is, we've so far received less of their oil after the invasion than we'd done before. Records exist of how much oil we import from what nations. Find them. If you dare.
For one, I care very much how we finish in Iraq. The worst thing we could do, now we've commenced, would be to conduct ourselves as we did in Viet Nam when we abandoned those people, contrary to our sworn word, to their fate at the hands of the Viet Cong. Truly a blight on our honour and integrity that must not be repeated. And certainly not on our present Commander in Chief's watch. It would be a shameful and cowardly close to his term, and yet another blight on our national integrity. Read Yon's book, then rethink whether we should stay the course. We are in a position to finish well. Will we muster the courage to do so? Will be choose our next Commander in Chief with this in view? Or will we, again, cut and run, as we did in Viet Nam?
38. John D. said the following at 3:55 PM on Aug 9:
Many readers seem to have misunderstood what Tris (post 6) meant when she said "[t]he blood of one American soldier is worth more than the whole number of Muslim Iraqis."
I presume that what she meant by that was "it's not worth expending the life of one American soldier to straighten out the chaotic sandbox known as the Middle East." I'm sure she did not mean to imply that Americans are more valuable in the sight of God than any other people.
Also, lewsta (post 37) wrote that
"Oh, and anyone who actually is gulllible enough to think we were after Iraq's oil, I've got a great deal on a bridge back in New York.... come ON. If we were after their oil, we'd be seeing it flowing across the atlantic to Galveston. simple truth is, we've so far received less of their oil after the invasion than we'd done before."
Actually, it could be argued that the oil companies who are the Bush administration's natural constituency are benefitting by KEEPING Iraq's oil from flowing freely. More easily available oil leads to lower oil prices. Continual instability and reduced supply, on the other hand, tends to cause oil prices to stay high.
39. Karen said the following at 4:15 PM on Aug 9:
I haven't read all the comments, but here's something to consider. Early in the year, our church had two middle-eastern missionaries speak in our church. One was from Iraq. This man spoke eloquently in praise of President Bush on behalf of Christians in Iraq, who are now MUCH freer to practice and promote Christianity than they were under Saddam's regime of evil. Is it worth people dying for others to come to Christ? What if God is using man's fallibility to allow some sin-blinded Iraqis to turn to Him? Would it be worth it then? No matter what we think of the war, praise God that He can save people through means like this.
40. Tim said the following at 6:32 PM on Aug 9:
Ted #9
I would like to respond to your second claim contending that Iraq did have WMD's (this claim is linked to a Foxnews.com article).
The facts of that report cannot be ignored; Saddam Hussein's Iraq did have WMD's....500 of them. But, these WMD's WERE NOT the ones that were used to justify the war. Just read this quote from the article by a senior Defense Department official:
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
It is possible to discern from this quote, and other facts within the article, that these WMD's were ones that maybe got lost in the shuffle following the Gulf War. Maybe Saddam had them hidden away during the war and forgot about them. However, it is also possible he knew where they were and had devious plans for them. I don't know. The truth is: NOBODY KNOWS! BUT, to assume that Hussein was going to, or might have used, these 500 WMD's is no justification for going to war.
Honestly, on a whole other topic, I am saddened how the Iraq war has so easily been associated with Christians in this country. Too many well known Christian organizations and leaders have been vocal in their support of the war. I honestly think this war has hurt our witness.
There is one question I ask myself all the time:
Would God be pleased with this war and how so many Christians have supported it?
41. Texas Craig said the following at 9:19 PM on Aug 9:
lewsta (#37):
It is hard to say that we should have stayed in Vietnam, when we had been there 9 years already by the time we withdrew. Moreover, Vietnam is now a thriving country, so things did not turn out that poorly for it in the end, nor for the region because it is not a threat to any surrounding countries nor is it a threat to us. Moreover, the U.S.S.R. has dissolved, and the U.S. has grown to the the world's superpower 30 years after pulling out of Vietnam, so it didn't turn out too badly for us. All in all, it is hard for me to accept thoughts that we should have stayed in Vietnam. Given how things worked out, it is hard to see what good would have come from us staying.
Again, just my $.02.
42. Texas Craig said the following at 8:55 PM on Aug 10:
So, Iraq's foreign minister is now demanding the U.S. have a very clear timeline for withdrawing from Iraq. It seems to me that, if we mean what we say when we say want to establish democracy in Iraq, we would respect the duly elected and/or appointed officials of Iraq and establish a timeline as they have requested. Otherwise, we are pretty hypocritical as a country, saying one thing (i.e., "we want democracy for Iraq), but then doing another (i.e., except when it conflicts with what we want to do).
The issue of the elected Iraqis' assertion of authority will test the integrity of our country's leaders. For me to acknowledge even a short-term "victory" in Iraq, our leaders will need to show respect for the sovereignty of Iraq. It looks like our opportunity to do so will come sooner, rather than later. Let's see what we say in response to their demands. An unwillingness to respect their desires makes us not a liberating force, but an occupying one. At that point, we become the Soviet Union circa the 1980s.
43. Mike Miller said the following at 7:26 AM on Aug 11:
I have to say that I care because for the last 3 years I been in someway a part of Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).
One of my reason for caring is because a pull-out of Iraq could make another war at a different time just like Afghanistan. The wrong person gets in charge and they start to support terror again. We help the Afghans become free for Soviets but instead of helping them rebuild we left them alone and now we are involve in another war there. The deaths in Afghanistan, in this conflict, could have been avoided if we did it right the first time. If the US finishes this war and help rebuild, I feel a chance of going to war is slimmer. That would avoid more deaths in a later conflict.
I also think that the anti-Iraq War hippies need to realize that Bush made a decision being told that was the right info. I can say that I did not agree with Bush but I support him and will back any decision he has/will make.
Another reason I care about the war in Iraq is because those Army guys dieing are brothers. As an Air Force member, I might make fun of the Army boys but I have a deep respect for what they do. We are all part of the Department of Defense and we all defend our Nation. We all do it with pride and I believe that every Military member would gladly lay down his life for this great Country.
44. obewan said the following at 7:41 AM on Aug 11:
The blog said:
>>And the latest is that anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is disarming his Mahdi Army.<<
The latest I read in a press release on Friday was that he is interested in the scheduled U.S. troop withdrawal proposed by Iraq’s president. Iraq’s president is suggesting a drawdown that would have U. S. troops out by 2010-2013.
In that article, Muqtada was quoted as saying the violence may continue if the U.S. does not withdraw by the proposed deadline.
We don’t want to be seen as being soft on terrorists, but on the other hand, we need to take a serious look at what good a prolonged presence will do there if we are not wanted any longer.
45. Joseph said the following at 2:28 PM on Aug 11:
Thanks for this post Motte,
Being in Iraq as I write this and having almost full access to news today I have frequently wondered the same thing. I have yet to met a brother in arms over here that does not want to leave, most of it due to being here for so long and for so many times (most soldiers I know who have been in for more than 3 years are or have served 2 1-year deployments), then there is the missing of family aspect.
I think too many people are in this mindset of "get out now" to solve the short term, yes we have made amazing progress, as much as I would like to tell everyone how much progress has been made, the empiracle data is classified due to its sensitivity.
Perhaps the most frustrating factor being here while watching the politicians go back an forth, it seems less and less important of what has/will be accomplished and moreso on who takes the new residence at 1600 Penn Ave.
46. Matthew said the following at 7:45 PM on Aug 11:
Christopher Hitchens is no friend to Christians (and sorry this is late, it just came out), but he is one of the most brilliant political minds that leans left today and he is now proudly trumpeting victory in Iraq on a well-known liberal newsish site, Slate.com. So here's someone else very prominent supporting what you have to say...
47. Farmer Pete said the following at 12:03 AM on Aug 12:
#42 Texas Craig.
Commentary from Iraqi political observers is that this "demand" is not the position of the Iraqi Government as a whole, nor a reflection of the position of the Iraqi public, as a whole.
It is supported only by Shiites, not by Sunnis or Kurds. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that either it is an ambit claim, preliminary to negotiation, or it is about certain members of the government wishing to shore up their positions within their own factions.
That such things happen is a fact of middle-eastern politics (why not?, it happens far closer to home...)and as such, the outcome is far more likely to reflect what is being said behind closed doors than what is being shouted from rooftops.
It would be most naive for any of us to think otherwise.
Almost as naive as confusing a policy disagreement with our allies with a lack of victory over our enemies.
Respectfully......... Peter
48. Tris said the following at 12:17 AM on Aug 12:
Reagan sent troops to Lebanon but later recalled them despite saying we would never retreat. He rightfully stated that we do not understand the "irrational politics of the Middle East".
"Rebuilding Iraq" would be like rebuilding Yugoslavia. People have compared the neo-conservative (ANTI-conservative) occupation to post WW2 Germany but this is not a good example. After American tanks rolled into Germany you did not have Catholics slaughtering Protestants, Bavarians didn't attack Hesse. There was a little resistance to the Allies but none of it even comes close to whats going on in Iraq. The differances between Germany and Iraq is that Germany was ethnically homogenous and a western CIVILIZED country. Iraq is NOT ethnically homogenous and has a barbaric violence loving culture.
Could you imagine if a foreign power got involved in the American Civil War. They would be hated by both North and South. Yet this is what post-liberty America is doing to Iraq. I remember marches in which the Iraqis had banners that said "Thank you for getting rid of Hussein but if you do not leave you will become our enemy also." Wow occupying a country that doesn't want you there and destroying your own economy and dollar to finance it sure are a Christian thing to do. You say you want to support your troops; by placing them in harm?
Muslim fanatics are happy they are there because they can kill them in their own land. Anything you build for them they will tear down because they cannot bear the shame of having an infidel build something for them.
Don't underestimate the hatred Muslims have of non-Muslims even if they are helping Muslims. Muslims have no quelms about deceiving and murdering non-Muslims if it works to their advantage. They might accept your help but they will still hate you because you are an infidel.
49. Texas Craig said the following at 12:52 PM on Aug 12:
Farmer Pete (#47):
I guess it depends on which "political observers" you want to listen to. Moreover, I guess if you choose to accept the reports and information that you like, and then discount that which conflicts with what you might prefer, then you can justify any position you might prefer.
Every polling I have seen indicates a majority of the Iraqi people want us to withdraw. But, if someone doesn't like that answer, they can easily dismiss the polling as unreliable. Similarly, those same people will gladly accept reports of "victory" in certain areas, while discounting reports to the contrary elsewhere. Thus, as long as we can pick and choose that which we want to give credibility to, it makes it difficult to have a discussion.
But, I respect your right to disagree. Ultimately, only time will tell whether it was worthwhile to engage in this war. Our children and history will be the ones to measure its success or failure.
50. BDB said the following at 2:55 PM on Aug 12:
Mike Miller (#43) wrote:
>>The deaths in Afghanistan, in this conflict, could have been avoided if we did it right the first time. <<
Isn't that the truth. 9/11 was spawned by the same guys who took over after ejecting the Soviets from Afghanistan. Like Mao Tse Tung and Ho Chi Minh, Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein, short-term military support for a group of guys resulted in some hostile enemies down the line.
You know, we have troops in the desert between Israel and Egypt, too. No one worries about them going there, because we've turned BOTH sides into allies.
51. Farmer Pete said the following at 7:30 AM on Aug 13:
#49 TxCraig.
I prefer honest commentators.
Last reputable study of Iraqi opinions that I saw showed that the majority of Iraqis wanted foreign troops out, AFTER things had settled down. That is a big qualification.
Ask any Australian of my father's generation whether it was always pleasant having large numbers of American troops in Australia in 1942. The answer is the same. Not always pleasant, and we were happy to see them go, but that did not mean that we wanted them to leave before the Japanese were defeated. One does not imply the other.
The results of that survey are consistent with the normal behaviour of people in the situation faced by the majority of Iraqis. That is why I find it credible. If it were not consistent with normal human reaction (and the Iraqis are quite human) then I would regard it with a much more jaundiced eye.
Regards......... Peter
52. Texas Craig said the following at 11:41 AM on Aug 13:
For anyone who wants to see what the polling of the Iraqi people is actually showing, you can check out this link:
http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=1704
It contains a summary and direct excerpts from the congressional testimomy given by University of Maryland pollster Steven Kull, director of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes and WorldPublicOpinion.org. He gave testimony to Congress less than a month ago. His discussion of what the polling shows is insightful.
53. Zusanne said the following at 2:49 PM on Aug 13:
Thanks, Motte, for this post. I was wondering the same thing.
It's interesting how easily discussion falls into name-calling and recycled talking points! Doesn't take too long for references to Hitler to be made, which is often unfortunate.
Doesn't anyone remember:
we're not in Iraq because we're the world's "police" or for oil or for connections to 9/11;
we're there because, after almost two decades and a dozen UN resolutions ignored by Saddam (remember the Gulf War when he decided that Kuwait was actually a province of his country and he wanted it back and he slaughtered thousands of Kurds just for fun--the UN was supposed to keep an eye on him and he kept playing games) the UN decided to step up (with a little encouragement from Bush--kinda like when Reagan became President and the hostages were released)?
By the way, the UN had a list of at least 14 weapons types he was NOT allowed to have (WMD was just one) and UN soldiers found ALL of them.
Saddam spent years in direct violation of UN orders. The UN (largely funded by the US, of course, because, well, we pay the greatest chunk of the bills) went in to take care of it. Finally. After years of playing his game (we're coming to check, no you aren't, yes we are, no you aren't . . .) the UN stepped up.
War is horrible. It is NOT justifiable in the sense that the end result makes it acceptible. War is, however, at times (because sinful people do sinful things), necessary.
The more I study the Middle East and their different faiths, the more I realize that Americans--and especially our media--have a lot to learn before we can even approach an understanding of the mindset of that part of the world. Our short memories and lack of information--wether self-inflicted or not--are keeping our conversations about these issues at the very lowest level.
54. obewan said the following at 11:20 AM on Aug 18:
#52.Zusanne had the following to say on Aug 13 at 2:49 PM:
“>>By the way, the UN had a list of at least 14 weapons types he was NOT allowed to have (WMD was just one) and UN soldiers found ALL of them. <<”
I realize the current war is water under the bridge, but every time this subject comes up I have to ask why?
If the UN Inspections were working, then why not let them continue? And I assume they did have some teeth because they did not find all 14 weapons in the final inspections done by Hans Blix.
Hans Blix asked for more time for the UN inspectors and his request was denied. I have to assume that the economic sanctions might have worked had WMD been found. It is certainly a better prospect than the rush headlong to war.
55. Motte said the following at 11:37 AM on Aug 18:
Obewan:
Here's why:
UN Resolution 1441 -- which was proposed by the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, and which was adopted unanimously by the UN -- reads in part:
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security...."
"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material...."
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.
So 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. On March 23, President Bush gave Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave the country or face war.
The first part of the previous paragraph is crucial, "The U.S. Congress gave Bush authorization to use military action in Iraq." Obviously, the majority of leaders in our country, all of whom we elected to make these decisions, disagreed that the inspections were working.
So, very simply, that's why.
56. obewan said the following at 9:04 AM on Aug 19:
Motte:
No one disputes that UN Resolution 1441 is why the US went to war. What is in dispute is whether that was necessary given that Iraq was in reality only guilty of ‘bluffing’. How could they be expected to ‘disclose’ something they did not have?
Zusanne made a misleading comment that suggested the Coalition forces found WMD AFTER the invasion.
“>>By the way, the UN had a list of at least 14 weapons types he was NOT allowed to have (WMD was just one) and UN soldiers found ALL of them. <<”
----#52.Zusanne on Aug 13 at 2:49 PM:
In reality, the WMD Zusanne refers to were located and destroyed BEFORE the US invasion. That proves to me that the UN inspections were working and should have been continued. Hans Blix requested more time for the inspections and was denied.
“The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Washington withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
As for our elected leaders ‘voting’ to support the war, many of them now say they would have ‘voted’ differently had the ‘real facts’ been disclosed.
57. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:22 AM on Aug 19:
As for our elected leaders ‘voting’ to support the war, many of them now say they would have ‘voted’ differently had the ‘real facts’ been disclosed.
And the ones we don't vote in - whose jobs don't rely on public opinion, seeing as public opinion drastically affects how our officials vote because they want to keep their job more than anything else - support a position that they never would have supported 7 years ago...because they have all the "facts".
Really, just because they will change their votes 7 years after the fact when Public opinion has changed after 7 years (the vast majority of Americans were all for the "War on Terrorism" in light of 9/11, even if it wasn't against the same country that had done the original deed) doesn't give them much credence.
They go with the Mob.