Christopher Hitchens’ Washington Post column entitled “Iraq Was Worth the Price.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/10/AR2008031001594.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, March 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm and is filed under iraq.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The American voter populace will soon decide if it was worth the cost. Lines are clearly drawn. McCain is arm in arm with Bush, while the black and the babe come up with their own prescriptions, the war and the economy will be the big issues on Nov. 4. Nevertheless, change, if any, will be slow. The ole guns and butter banter.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
And what do you mean “was” worth the price? That’s as if it is resolved and is in the past tense. No no no no no no no, the costs go on like water through a sieve. A sieve is a narrow empty space that water flows through between two obstructions, usually rocks. Similar to strainers, water is forced through the sieve, resulting in higher pressures which forces water up and creates turbulence.
Watch it flow here: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
March 11th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Perhaps the last people you’d want to hear from about whether it is/was worth it. What’s all this past tense stuff? This thing is far far from over. Surge may be succeeding, but Iran knows better. We’ll be in there longer than we have been in Deutschland, if only for strategic purposes, like what has kept our presence in Germany. Note the range of figures for the kill rate:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five years after U.S. and British forces swept into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, many Iraqis are asking if the violence and upheaval that turned their lives upside down was worth it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080311/ts_nm/iraq_war_dc_3
The human cost is staggering — anywhere between 90,000 and 1 million Iraqi civilians killed, according to various estimates; nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead; while 4 million Iraqis are displaced.
On the bright side, Iraqis are rid of one of the 20th century’s most ruthless dictators. They held free elections and have a new constitution.
For Iraqis, deciding if the invasion was worth the sacrifice depends partly on their sect and ethnicity and where they live.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
What does hard right bloggie think of the Brookings Institution?
March 12th, 2008 at 2:56 am
I see Brookings as kind of occupying that space much like The New Republic - lefty by declaration but populated by lively minds that consider things from the big-trend perspective. Such organizations even have little tendencies within them that give rise to real freedom-love. Much of the early thought that gave rise to neo-conservatism came out of such entities. Of course, Commentary magazine is the most obvious example of that. Let us remember that Fred Barnes was on the editorial staff of TNR. Joshua Muravchik used to write about Latin American Communism ther eback in the day.
So, to fairly directly answer your question, when I see that a think piece originated from Brookings, I at least look it over and hold off on any inclinations toward dismissiveness.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:57 am
OK, well, that being said, here goes, from USA Today, today. I think it is a balanced treatment of the War issue:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080311/cm_usatoday/realityandtheiraqwar
Reality and the Iraq war Tue Mar 11, 12:16 AM ET
By Michael O’Hanlon–a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington.
“To be sure, it is understandably hard for Democrats and other administration critics to believe that a war fought so badly at first could take a turn for the better. We are not used to such things in the modern era. Arguably, one has to go back to the American Civil War to find a parallel, and even that is a poor analogy because President Lincoln’s performance in that war was clearly far better than President Bush’s has been in this one, to put it mildly. That said, if Democrats cannot get beyond their viewpoint, they could suffer badly in the fall as a result. Even more important, the nation could suffer as we waste an election campaign refighting the debates of 2002 and 2003 rather than looking to the future.”
Perhaps you will call the author and me mere “reasonable gentlemen?”
-
March 12th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
No, I’d call him a guy with a pretty clear big-picture perspective on the Iraq situation.
How’s that for generous?
March 13th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Can’t help refighting the debates of 2002 and 2003. Cheney and Co. were either lying or they are incredibly, well, dumb. I can’t believe the latter. Too smart for us, they got us in there. Dumb!
A Pentagon-sponsored study of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the 2003 invasion shows that no direct operation link existed between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. The Bush administration claimed such a relationship to support its arguments for invading Iraq, though the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on the issue. The study of the documents reportedly was completed last year by a federally funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses.
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/mar/gjeltenexecutivesummary.pdf
March 13th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Oh, and Vive Le France! Thanks Dick! That was a Bush presidency we endured.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337410,00.html
Speaking at the launch of a Forum for New Diplomacy in Paris, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the United States will never be the country it was before the Bush presidency and would have to work to repair its reputation, especially since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
“I think the magic is over,” Kouchner told the International Herald Tribune. “It will never be as it was before.”
He added that, although it will take time, the new president will have “many means to re-establish the image” of a country whose reputation is suffering.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I ask once again: so it would have been alright to let Saddam continue to scam the oil-for-food program until sanctions completely crumbled and he was able to resume his WMD program?
Also, you know the BN position on “America’s image in the international community”: doesn’t amount to diddly.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I know, big tough guy attitudes here. Show us some more shock and awe which sad precedent shows us leads to the shocking and the awful, the sorrow and the pity, at least for the other poor bastards dying for their country we invaded.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
It’s easier to digress into talk about “tough guy attitude” than it is to directly answer my question, I guess.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I never heard talk of the oil-for-food scam as a rationale for an unprecedented preemptive strike by the mightiest military on the planet at that time and still, by the grace of tax dollars and a Pentagon with no term limits and continuous funding, more or less. We jumped the gun there, big time, and though international sentiment means nothing to you in your armchair central command post, this is a whole wide world we live in, one that your free market zeitgeist has tied us into intimately, even to the detriment of taking care of business here within our shores, so methinks, if for no other reason than that we would want our big shots to be able to “play ball” “over there you might want to think about what others think, especially if it lines your coffers, i.e., pads your stock portfolio. We were told that Saddam had a nuke program; now you tell us we had to prevent him from resuming one. Given the fear of nuke proliferation in other jurisdictions, would you have us preemptively striking them too? I don’t think you’ll get too far with that prescription now. It’s been tried, with horrid results. Even the majority of your own countryman are aghast and against it. Dost thou careth about them either? Likely not. You call us freedom-haters and bemoan, if not detest, what you call “reasonable gentlemen.” It is clear that it was unreasonable, though empty reasons were given, to attack Iraq, when and how we did it. Forever fie upon Wolfey, Rummy, Cheney and their ilk. I think we’ll see that sentiment seconded to multiple powers in the next election, especially since McCain, who I like, is now seen arm in arm, smiling and joking with Bushy>
March 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Recommended reading for armchair diplomats, sandbox generals et al: first novel from a retired Commander, USN:
http://www.amazon.com/Bathtub-Admirals-Jeff-Huber/dp/1601640196
“This is a witty, wacky, wildly outrageous novel that skewers just about anything you’d care to name, from military budgets to political machinations to America’s success as the self-appointed guardian of the world. It is a remarkably accomplished book, striking just the right balance between ridicule and insight.” —Booklist
March 16th, 2008 at 1:08 am
More recommended reading from the alleged freedom-hating front, guess it depends on what bushes you shake:
http://www.amazon.com/Daydream-Believers-Grand-Wrecked-American/dp/0470121181
America’s leaders have gone from hubris to waking fantasy, according to this caustic critique of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Kaplan (The Wizards of Armageddon) argues that the Cold War’s end and 9/11 persuaded President Bush and his advisers to unilaterally impose America’s political will on the world, while remaining blind to the military and diplomatic fiascoes that followed. Rumsfeld’s “Revolution in Military Affairs,” a doctrine touting supposedly omnipotent mobile forces and high-tech smart weapons, convinced Pentagon officials that Iraq could be pacified without a large force or a reconstruction plan.
Eschewing Kaplan’s favored approach of fostering international security through alliances and consensus building, Bush assumed that “by virtue of American power, saying something was tantamount to making it so.” The particulars of Kaplan’s indictment aren’t new, but his detailed, illuminating (if occasionally disjointed) accounts of the evolution of the Bush administration’s strategic doctrines add up to a cogent brief for soft realism over truculent idealism.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Iraq Was (more like Is) Worth the Price? The Vicar of Christ on this earth for 1.2 Billion doesn’t think so now, if he ever did before:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080316/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_palm_sunday
The pope also denounced the 5-year-long Iraq war, saying it had provoked the complete breakup of Iraqi civilian life. “Enough with the slaughters. Enough with the violence. Enough with the hatred in Iraq!” Benedict said to applause at the end of his Palm Sunday Mass in St. Peter’s Square. He recalled Rahho’s death as the Catholic Church opens Holy Week, the most solemn week in the liturgical calendar in which the faithful recall the suffering and death of Jesus Christ.
Benedict said (Archbishop Paulos Faraj) Rahho ’s (whose body) was found (Thursday) near Mosul dedication to the Catholic Church and his death compelled him to “raise a strong and sorrowful cry” to denounce the violence in Iraq spawned by the war that began five years ago this week. The Vatican strongly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. In its aftermath, Benedict has frequently criticized attacks against Iraqi Christians by Islamic extremists. Last year, he urged President Bush to keep the safety of Iraqi Christians in mind.
“To recognize God, we must abandon the pride that dazzles us, that seeks to push us away from God,” he said. To find God, he said, “we must learn to see with a young heart, one which isn’t blocked by prejudice and dazzled by interests.”
Ahh, Il Papa. But, as Stalin once remarked, “how many divisions has he got?” Now I presume Bush won’t come back with a “that’s-what-free- people-do”-type retort. He’ll probably lay it on the Iraqi people for not falling in line with his grand plan to liberate them. Perhaps he should just kill more, again borrowing from the Rumsfeld canon.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
You might like this guy’s assessment, it even cites conservative kill rates, although he acknowledges “other sources suggest much higher numbers.”
He goes on to add:
“But more than 2 million Iraqis have fled their country since 2003, and another 2 million are internally displaced refugees, out of a total population of 26 million.”
The financial costs of the war are staggering. And here’s the ole qualification: “estimates vary considerably…”
Five Years On, A Heavy Toll
by Pierre M. Atlas (Director of The Richard G. Lugar Franciscan Center for Global Studies at Marian College)
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803160349
The Bottom Line?
“Regardless of what we do next, the costs of the Iraq war have been profound. The candidate who wins in November will inherit the war and all its challenges. For five years, the debate over Iraq has been framed by the false choice of “stay the course” or “cut and run.” The next president will not have the luxury of such simplistic sound bites.”
March 17th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
But, hey, your Dick’s glad we went in:
BAGHDAD, March 17 (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday declared the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a “successful endeavour” during a visit to Baghdad, on the same day a woman suicide bomber killed 40 people.
“If you look back on those five years it has been a difficult, challenging but nonetheless successful endeavour … and it has been well worth the effort,” Cheney, an architect of the invasion, said after meeting Iraqi leaders.
Shortly after Cheney spoke, a woman wearing a suicide vest blew herself up in a cafe in the southern holy Shi’ite city of Kerbala, killing 40 people and wounding 71, police and health officials said. Bombs in Baghdad killed four and wounded 13.
John McCain is over there with him and he has just lost my vote. If he had not lined up arm in arm with the architects of this assholian adventure, I thought he might have been a hope for resolution and retreat with honor. It now appears clear that he will pursue Bush league policies internationally. Oh my God, what choices have we left here? I don’t care. He’s out of my pantheon.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Duh, now it’s why? UN oil for food scandals, or they coulda had a chance to resume their WMD program? Georgie Porgie went in anyway.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88402835&ft=1&f=1001
President Bush made a speech from the White House five years ago on Wednesday as U.S. and coalition forces were making final preparations to attack Iraq.
“Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men. Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” Bush said on March 17, 2003.
Of course, the weapons of mass destruction Bush spoke of never turned up.
Bush laid out the case against Saddam Hussein and his regime in the speech, in which Bush also expressed frustration with the United Nations and other countries that refused to support the coming war.
“The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities,” Bush said, “so we will rise to ours.”
By George, we rose to ours and look how low we sunk.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
So, pray tell, who now has your support in the race for residency at 1600 Pennsylvania?
March 17th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Like I say, God help us. Probably have to be Hillie. At least this sort of craziness didn’t go on during the previous Clinton administration. I cannot forgive the architects of this bamboozled Iraq war. Sure, they’re cleaning it up now. Should have done that four years ago. I will be quite interested in knowing who the candidates plan to surround themselves with.