The Butcher's Bill: 4,474 American Lives...

[RobDownSouth]

The Butcher's Bill from the Iraq War: 4,474 American lives lost....

Somewhere between Three to Five Trillion Dollars were spent...

Was it worth it?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Nope!

 

[KRCummings]

Can't be answered right now. The immediate and appropriate reaction is no but things like this are not always immediate. Not every war is WWII where we can see right away that it was the right thing regardless of cost. There's a chance history will see it as worthwhile but it'd be tough to get over the initial reasons for going in.

 

[busybody..]

In retrospect, no

Everyone is an Einstein in retrospect

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The Butcher's Bill from the Iraq War: 4,474 American lives lost....

Somewhere between Three to Five Trillion Dollars were spent...

Was it worth it?

All wars tend to extract an enormous cost of human lives, massive suffering, and a shitload of money.

In your view, considering all the wars we've fought and in whatever context you'd like to frame it, what would make a war reasonable along this linear scale of "worth" that you apparently have in mind?

Is the very survival of the republic the minimum justification for war in every case? Is there ever a justifiable situation where we go to war proactively to keep a bad situation from getting worse, geopolitically speaking?

What calculus do you use to produce an acceptable cost/benefit ratio for war?

 

[busybody..]

What calculus do you use to produce an acceptable cost/benefit ratio for war?

If it can be used to SHIT on an R=BAD

If a D can look good=GOOD

Any udder question you needa AXE?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Since we were supposedly there to help them and all that, don't forget to add Iraqi lives to that butcher's bill.

 

[great lover]

The Butcher's Bill from the Iraq War: 4,474 American lives lost....

Somewhere between Three to Five Trillion Dollars were spent...

Was it worth it?

Freedom comes with a price.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

In your view, considering all the wars we've fought and in whatever context you'd like to frame it, what would make a war reasonable along this linear scale of "worth" that you apparently have in mind?

A need beyond financial assets. It is not our job nor our place to go around restructuring nations/governments just so a few contractors can get rich to the detriment of the nation as a whole. Iraq was an entirely unnecessary scam.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Freedom comes with a price.

Did you read that off a bumper sticker? Name ONE singe freedom we defended by OCCUPYING Iraq for 8 years?

 

[semen4her]

Can't be answered right now. The immediate and appropriate reaction is no but things like this are not always immediate. Not every war is WWII where we can see right away that it was the right thing regardless of cost. There's a chance history will see it as worthwhile but it'd be tough to get over the initial reasons for going in.

You Americans will find a way of glorifying it, of this I am sure.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

You Americans will find a way of glorifying it, of this I am sure.

Only the ones who watched it happen on TV/interwebz

 

[RobDownSouth]

All wars tend to extract an enormous cost of human lives, massive suffering, and a shitload of money.

In your view, considering all the wars we've fought and in whatever context you'd like to frame it, what would make a war reasonable along this linear scale of "worth" that you apparently have in mind?

Is the very survival of the republic the minimum justification for war in every case? Is there ever a justifiable situation where we go to war proactively to keep a bad situation from getting worse, geopolitically speaking?

What calculus do you use to produce an acceptable cost/benefit ratio for war?

In polite society, it's considered a tad gauche to answer a question with a question. This is Lit, though, so I'll answer yours.

In your view, considering all the wars we've fought and in whatever context you'd like to frame it, what would make a war reasonable along this linear scale of "worth" that you apparently have in mind?
Wars, by most definitions, are seldom, if ever, "reasonable". My question "Was it worth it?" was a colloquial expression designed to see who here felt the war was justifiable in terms of lives and money lost, as opposed to some sort of "cost/benefit analysis".

Is the very survival of the republic the minimum justification for war in every case? I tend not to speak in terms of absolutes. I'm sure if I said "every" case, someone here would come up with some sort of anecdotal abberation that would "prove" me "wrong". Having said that, though, I'm of the opinion that a clear and identifiable threat to the Republic must exist for our nation to go to war. The Iraq war did not meet this standard. The proverbial books were cooked.

Is there ever a justifiable situation where we go to war proactively to keep a bad situation from getting worse, geopolitically speaking? Not sure what you mean here. If you are talking about so-called "peacekeeping missions" (Korea, Bosnia, etc) I believe they should be examined on a case-by-case basis, with the emphasis on the ultimate impact on American interests.

What calculus do you use to produce an acceptable cost/benefit ratio for war? In the absence of a clear and present danger to America, there is no applicable "cost/benefit ratio". The so-called Powell Doctrine (i.e. "go big or go home") worked well in Kuwait, but had mixed results in Iraq. Obviously, when the immediate safety of the Republic is threatened, cost/benefit analyses fall by the wayside, yet most countries realize that wars must be paid for and generally raise fees and taxes (or float war bonds and loans) to pay for their wars. Very very few countries (Nazi Germany and Bush-era America) ask their children and grand-children to pay for their adventurism.

Now that I've hopefully addressed your questions, perhaps you address my original question: Was it worth it?

 

[trysail]

Was it worth it?

Neither you nor anyone else will ever know the answer to that question.

 

[bronzeage]

All wars tend to extract an enormous cost of human lives, massive suffering, and a shitload of money.

In your view, considering all the wars we've fought and in whatever context you'd like to frame it, what would make a war reasonable along this linear scale of "worth" that you apparently have in mind?

Is the very survival of the republic the minimum justification for war in every case? Is there ever a justifiable situation where we go to war proactively to keep a bad situation from getting worse, geopolitically speaking?

What calculus do you use to produce an acceptable cost/benefit ratio for war?

It doesn't matter what calculus one uses, as long as the "did we win or lose" correction factor is properly applied.

 

[sethp]

It don't think it was worth it. There was really no reason to do it other than big oil. We weren't really asked to go in either. There wasn't an organized resistance asking for help like in Libya or Syria and they weren't threatening to destroy Israel like Iran is. Was Saddam a bad man who tortured and killed thousands that needed to go? Yes. Did he have weapons of mass destruction? Well he used Chemical weapons on the his own citizens and chemical Weapons are weapons of mass destruction. Still I wonder if the occupation had to last this long, if we couldn't have focused our efforts elsewhere. Look at Libya for one example. There are some parallels. We didn't occupy Libya we worked with the rebels there. A lot of questions eh?

 

[great lover]

Did you read that off a bumper sticker? Name ONE singe freedom we defended by OCCUPYING Iraq for 8 years?

Yes and no. Did we or did we not create a more peaceful environment ?

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Yes and no. Did we or did we not create a more peaceful environment ?

Really, really not the point. There are dozens of other fucked up places but you don't see the us crusadeing for human rights there do ya? It was all about money, deny all you want but you know its true. Bottom line is that we have no right to go policing other nations internal affairs without an eminent threat to ourselves or our assets/allies. If we are not prepared to obliterate our enemy and seize their assets to pay our bills we have no place starting a war in the first place.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes and no. Did we or did we not create a more peaceful environment ?

I'm of the opinion that we replaced institutionalized violence (from Saddam's govt) with random chaotic violence. It then becomes a judgment call as to which form of violence is "preferable".

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Now that I've hopefully addressed your questions, perhaps you address my original question: Was it worth it?

It doesn't matter what calculus one uses, as long as the "did we win or lose" correction factor is properly applied.

In my opinion, the greatest mistake leading up to the war in Iraq was the Bush administration's reliance on faulty intelligence as to the scope of danger presented by Iraq's "stockpile" of WMD and it's alleged program to replenish that inventory.

While I understand the sentiment of those who believe "Bush lied, people died," I believe a more objective study of history shows that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular were guilty of a predisposition to believe the worst of the various assessments they were receiving.

Among those chefs who were "cooking the books," however, was Saddam Hussein himself, who refused to abide by the terms of full unimpeded access for UN weapons inspectors following his defeat in the first Gulf War. Saddam created and played a bluff which may have appeared foolish after the fact, but was not without some logical foundation given our (fairly recent) lack of interest in holding the North Vietnamese accountable for violations of the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam War.

As a result, it was Saddam's own actions subsequent to the agreements ending Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that ultimately resulted in these three particulars of the 2002 AUMF against Iraq. Readers will note that two of these findings had their nexus in Congressional legislation in the year 1998 -- two years prior to George Bush taking office:

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

In short, I believe these particulars alone made the war necessary and, by definition, "worth it" regardless of the "proper application" of the assessment of whether we won or lost.

By emphasizing a narrow set of facts that did not prove to be true, however, President Bush squandered whatever additional public support he might have obtained by focusing on a broader set of compelling circumstances.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Neither you nor anyone else will ever know the answer to that question.

It's not something to know, it's something to decide.

 

[richard_daily]

Neither you nor anyone else will ever know the answer to that question.

Well, isn't that convenient... Let's just have another war!

 

[Jagged]

We'll see what the people of Iraq do with the new freedom. They seem to take advantage of voting more than we do already which is pathetic on our part.

Went into Iraq and Libya gave up it's WMD's which could have been a major factor in their civil war. It's funny how nobody puts the enemy death total in their final assessment of the war. Not insurgents or terrorists or fanatics they're the enemies of all free people. Seems to me while they were fighting and dying in Iraq they weren't busy else where killing the innocent.

I think history will tell us whether it was worth it or not, but for some of you no answer will satisfy, so why bother. Some actually think the people who want to install a government of intolerance and repression are freedom fighters.

I'm glad the troops are going to be home for the holidays. I thank all for their service, and I will keep those still fighting overseas in my thoughts and prayers.

 

[phrodeau]

Freedom comes with a price.

I sure am glad we paid that price so that Americans can remain free. Saddam Hussein was hell-bent on destroying our nation with thousands of nuclear long-range missiles.

 

[EllieTalbot]

In my opinion, the greatest mistake leading up to the war in Iraq was the Bush administration's reliance on faulty intelligence as to the scope of danger presented by Iraq's "stockpile" of WMD and it's alleged program to replenish that inventory.

While I understand the sentiment of those who believe "Bush lied, people died," I believe a more objective study of history shows that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular were guilty of a predisposition to believe the worst of the various assessments they were receiving.

Among those chefs who were "cooking the books," however, was Saddam Hussein himself, who refused to abide by the terms of full unimpeded access for UN weapons inspectors following his defeat in the first Gulf War. Saddam created and played a bluff which may have appeared foolish after the fact, but was not without some logical foundation given our (fairly recent) lack of interest in holding the North Vietnamese accountable for violations of the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam War.

As a result, it was Saddam's own actions subsequent to the agreements ending Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that ultimately resulted in these three particulars of the 2002 AUMF against Iraq. Readers will note that two of these findings had their nexus in Congressional legislation in the year 1998 -- two years prior to George Bush taking office:

In short, I believe these particulars alone made the war necessary and, by definition, "worth it" regardless of the "proper application" of the assessment of whether we won or lost.

By emphasizing a narrow set of facts that did not prove to be true, however, President Bush squandered whatever additional public support he might have obtained by focusing on a broader set of compelling circumstances.

Exactly.