Thread: Conflict in Iraq Officially Comes to an End

Originally Posted by Eredar Warlock

Funny, as the violence seems to have picked up since the U.S. left.

Suicide bombings increased rapidly with the U.S.'s presence in the country. Why not salute them on the way out with big news on american television, showing how little effort was put into fixing the country, the goal we heard when it was apparent that they didn't have any nuclear weapons...

Look's like the Conflict or war with Iran is just starting.

US missiles 'hit Iranian village'

The Iranian news agency IRNA reported today that a U.S. missile hit an oil depot in the southwest village of Abadan on Wednesday.

US missiles 'hit Iranian village' | Mail Online

Originally Posted by MizuTaipu

This war/country rebuild should have ended a long time ago...

Nonsense--for one, the "country rebuild" is still not over, all unilateral declarations and actions aside; but at any rate, there's no country I can think of so similar to Iraq circa 2003 that could be stabilized and/or "democratized" in similar time (and even countries with more democratic history and tradition might be harder to found with democratic foundations, or reunite--and it could be argued that such states have historically existed, do currently exist, yar).

As the "Iraq War" only consisted of conventional warfare for a phase (and that phase did indeed end quickly), there's only one phase of the war we could actually have reasonably expected (in hindsight) to end quickly.

Originally Posted by Jack Tschitt

And so ends another episode of The US Drags on a War for Way Too Long than it Should've.

I'm glad Saddam is out of the picture, but I mean really, we captured him years ago. Only now the war is ending?

Last things first, deposing Saddam was essentially the easiest thing in the world, just as deposing Qaddafi ourselves (we essentially suffocated him, not "actively" deposing him, acting instead as "militarized humanitarian middlemen") could have been. Even then, even if were established that we went to war on correct premises, there would of course be an aftermath after all our actions.

Next, the US wasn't "dragging on" a war--no matter our premise for being in the country, we were in the country: if we had interest remaining in remaining in the country, we should have remained. (That could also merely entail having troops levels of around ten or so thousand in the country remain today.) As well, I've seen no notable face (not that any player in this instance necessarily has any notable face) actually declare defeat (though in cases where those such as we are fighting are being fought, I don't think "defeat" would ever be uttered--if anything, sentiment of defeats and victory by all parties would be just one metric of defeat and victory, and defeat and victory themselves would have to be measured by metrics)--it's at least a bit odd though, to see one party in war unilaterally declare it to be over (such usually amounts to propaganda). (Lest it should be thought that I'm an anti-Obama partisan or ideologue, I'll be the first to bring up Bush's "Mission Accomplished" blunder, which of course was a declaration of victory, although it should also be mentioned that the invasion itself was spectacularly successful as a military operation--though that, of course, was essentially conventional warfare. [It still was incredibly premature given the state of Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion.])

It should also be noted that it's incredible political capital to be able to end/"end" (both in ways real and imaginative) a war, and that there is incredible desire in peoples for their wars to be as quick and successful as possible (if not one, then of course the other). Quickness and success are, however, in many instances, rather contrary to each other, though there are of course many instances where "quickness" translates into "'success'-power." Ultimately though, I'm saying that the desire of one can be against the desire of the other.

Originally Posted by Netto Azure

At least this war of choice is over.

That's all I have to say.

"Our choice," at any rate, shouldn't be the only metric of victory, success, or end. That said, it's not so much the "War in Iraq" so much as "Iraq" that must be stabilized--and really, there are many Iraq's in the world: we just haven't entered so spectacularly into them (we have indeed participated, and are indeed participating, in them). There is interest and concern in Libya, which has an aftermath in some ways rather like that of Iraq, in Syria, which has a ruthless strongman holding on to power, in Iran, which is kinda like Iraq pre-invasion, except the UN and its watchdog agencies can be vastly more sure of it developing nuclear (i.e., WMD) capabilities--and the list goes on.

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

Now we must focus on getting our economy back on track.

Who, exactly, hasn't been focusing on the economy, or getting it back on track? It in large part determined the outcome of the 2008 election (not necessarily the election of the President, but the makeup of the House and Senate), and, it could be argued, the 2010 election; economic updates are ever in the news, and economic issues and standing (f persons, candidates) seem to be out large and frontal in this election cycle.

Elected officials have interest vested in making the economy better--and if even you think that there are those in American politics who have interests contrary to the economy: well then, how does the War in Iraq affect such at all?

Ultimately, I take it that you mean that the cost, financial, of the Iraq War, was huge, and economically-draining. In fact, it wasn't, ultimately over its entire life comparing to Obama's stimulus money.

Many estimators (i.e., liberals, in their being opponents of Bush) like to figure in the interest raised on money borrowed to pay for the war's cost--but all deficit spending has such penalty, and all such similar items with similar cost would accrue a similar interest.

Since the Iraq War didn't subtract any from any economic focus, and, it could be / has been argued, hasn't significantly subtracted from our economic stores, well...

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Scales

Suicide bombings will decline, the iraqi people will die less frequently in reckless gunfire, for now. Iraq is still an unstable mess of a country, fixing it was a lost cause, so "comes to an end" is a bit odd to claim. Unless the U.S. won't react at all to anything that follows.

But enjoy the fabricated happy end while it lasts!

Who knows, the honeymoon and euphoria ("the fabricated happy end") might already be over.

But "fixing it," if you mean "stabilizing Iraq" (and eventually democratically founding it) was never a lost cost--minimal American presence would have gone a long way, both in promoting American interests in the country and region, and in determining the future course of the country, which, of course, falls under American interests.

Originally Posted by TheMysteryno.

Well it looks like the "thriving democracy" that the United States has built in the middle east will be put to the test, doesn't it.

Who or what are you referencing? I hope you're referring, at any rate, to someone's assessment of Iraq as we leave it, and not to anyone's goals when it was being entered, or to anyone's goals as their goals changed. (Things [possessions, missions, duties, etc.] are favored differently in different hands, after all--and the Iraq War changed hands.)

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Scales

Suicide bombings increased rapidly with the U.S.'s presence in the country. Why not salute them on the way out with big news on american television, showing how little effort was put into fixing the country, the goal we heard when it was apparent that they didn't have any nuclear weapons...

I don't think you can say "little effort was put into fixing the country"--many people of different stripes and levels and authority did put plenty of effort into the effort. And again, as I told the poster one quote above, the mission has changed hands.

As well, the designation "WMD's" refers in many cases to, but is only to, nuclear weapons. (It also includes chemical weapons [which Saddam did have some history using] and biological weapons.) I also doubt that we would've launched conventional war against a standing nuclear power, so I think it is safe to say that we warred on assumption, or premise, of Iraq having programs to develop such things.

Originally Posted by League

Who or what are you referencing? I hope you're referring, at any rate, to someone's assessment of Iraq as we leave it, and not to anyone's goals when it was being entered, or to anyone's goals as their goals changed. (Things [possessions, missions, duties, etc.] are favored differently in different hands, after all--and the Iraq War changed hands.)

If you're talking about when I said "thriving democracy," I was mocking this post, which describes the new Iraq as a thriving democracy in order to help justify the cost of human life and wealth that came with the conflict.

In short, I'm not sure if Iraq is better off or not, but the idea that it is a "thriving democracy" is a dishonest embellishment.

Originally Posted by League

Who, exactly, hasn't been focusing on the economy, or getting it back on track? It in large part determined the outcome of the 2008 election (not necessarily the election of the President, but the makeup of the House and Senate), and, it could be argued, the 2010 election; economic updates are ever in the news, and economic issues and standing (f persons, candidates) seem to be out large and frontal in this election cycle.

Elected officials have interest vested in making the economy better--and if even you think that there are those in American politics who have interests contrary to the economy: well then, how does the War in Iraq affect such at all?

Ultimately, I take it that you mean that the cost, financial, of the Iraq War, was huge, and economically-draining. In fact, it wasn't, ultimately over its entire life comparing to Obama's stimulus money.

Many estimators (i.e., liberals, in their being opponents of Bush) like to figure in the interest raised on money borrowed to pay for the war's cost--but all deficit spending has such penalty, and all such similar items with similar cost would accrue a similar interest.

Since the Iraq War didn't subtract any from any economic focus, and, it could be / has been argued, hasn't significantly subtracted from our economic stores, well...

I was talking about how politics will focus more on the economy rather than multi-tasking with the war at the same time. Also, what about the Vietnam War? It was dragging on and plunged our economy into a recession in the 70s.

Originally Posted by TheMysteryno.

If you're talking about when I said "thriving democracy," I was mocking this post, which describes the new Iraq as a thriving democracy in order to help justify the cost of human life and wealth that came with the conflict.

In short, I'm not sure if Iraq is better off or not, but the idea that it is a "thriving democracy" is a dishonest embellishment.

It might be very wrong to call Iraq a "thriving democracy" (I definitely don't disagree), if only because any democracy it has is incredibly fragile. (It's democracy also isn't "founded" into the people--there is no history or tradition of any such thing over there.) That said, the gains made in Iraq, most especially over the last four years (beginning in 2007), have been very real--only now, it seems that it doesn't matter any more. (The gains made in 2007 to 2008 were especially real; meanwhile, the downtick in violence in the last year and a half or so might have been due to it becoming more or less clear that we were going to leave Iraq--in other words, insurgents made an exercise in patience [and that's not to belittle any gains made as our presence and the promise of our presence decreased] as our presence and the promise of our presence decreased.)

(The next two paragraphs are largely informed and influenced by this piece.)

Some though do make the most opportune and immediate defenses of causes [in light of their scrutiny, failure or lack of progress], when original reasoning can suffice for their defense. It is only in hindsight that we can declare that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs or WMD programs, but that is to take a very general view of things, and to make a general statement: Saddam for one did intend to eventually develop such things, once American pressure and international efforts and sanctions failed; as well, there is a further gift of hindsight afforded by our invasion of Iraq, that reveals stunning failures in the intelligence and international communities, and the failure of efforts made to contain Iraq, in addition to Saddam's personal fortunes.

Prior to our invasion of Iraq (both pre- and post-9/11, and especially the latter, when America was roused), there was bipartisan consensus that Iraq was a problem; and Iraq was an issue since at least George H.W. Bush (kinda obviously, Gulf War and all), and most certainly (as well) under Bill Clinton. As well, it should be noted that Bill Clinton's rhetoric regarding the threat posed by Iraq and Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs left the same impression of danger as any under Bush. Bush, meanwhile, simply put forward the ultimate credible threat of force (without which a country cannot make demands): a threat ultimately acted upon. (The link I've given also asserts that both Gore and Kerry might have invaded Iraq had they been elected, given their recorded statements regarding Iraq and its supposed weapons programs.)

Once in Iraq, well, we were in Iraq. There was then justifiable reason for remaining in the country, and a case for further and prolonged and changed efforts, and that being the fact that we had, at the very least, created a power vacuum--which of course, nature so abhorring, couldn't remain.

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

I was talking about how politics will focus more on the economy rather than multi-tasking with the war at the same time. Also, what about the Vietnam War? It was dragging on and plunged our economy into a recession in the 70s.

I've never heard it asserted that the Vietnam War was the cause of any economic turmoil (other than the possible rise of hippie culture it may have speeded)... at any rate, the Vietnam War co-occurring with any economic downturn doesn't necessarily mean it caused it. (I'm also pretty sure that in another thread you asserted that war of conquest could be the answer to our debts and deficit... I'll find the post if pressed on it.) At any rate (I say that often), I still hold that any focus to win the Iraq War (however one may define that) would not subtract from any economic focus of any elected official.

I ultimately didn't draw out my response to its ultimate conclusion, because ultimately what I responded to wasn't drawn out to its ultimate conclusion--I assume though that, with the financial cost of the Iraq War being perhaps no more, you were saying we could insert more governmental money into the economy. That could be debated on its own merits though.

Originally Posted by League

I've never heard it asserted that the Vietnam War was the cause of any economic turmoil (other than the possible rise of hippie culture it may have speeded)... at any rate, the Vietnam War co-occurring with any economic downturn doesn't necessarily mean it caused it. (I'm also pretty sure that in another thread you asserted that war of conquest could be the answer to our debts and deficit... I'll find the post if pressed on it.) At any rate (I say that often), I still hold that any focus to win the Iraq War (however one may define that) would not subtract from any economic focus of any elected official.

I thought that statement about war and conquest being the solution to solving an economical problem was true a mod from that same thread proved me wrong.