The Iraq War Poll

[Viking]

What is there to hunt in Iceland?

Mainly Ptarmigan, but also Goose and Reindeer.

[Neil]

terrible consequences diplomacy wise.

Really?

[Sheilbh]

I'd say the strategic loss for the US was in blood and treasure. 

Not to be callous but in the middle of the current crisis the waste of treasure seems particularly ruinous.

Wouldn't Iraq be even more susceptible to Iranian domination if the Arab spring had arrived while Saddam still reigned?

It's impossible to say but it could have been. 

Assuming the Green movement still happened I can't see the Iranians responding too well to a 'people power' uprising anywhere near them.  They like their revolutionary forces to be on a leash (Hezbullah, various Iraqi groups and, until recently, Hamas) rather than genuinely uncontrolled revolutions.  They've not really supported any of the Arab revolutions so far beyond token statements, even in Bahrain their influence was pretty limited.

I think it's more than possible that Saddam would blame the Iranians, no doubt in alliance with Israel, the US and al-Qaeda for any revolt.  That's the standard procedure for Arab tyrants.  But I think it's also popular that you'd see both the elite trying to play on sectarian differences to maintain power and, to some extent, a revolt against that from the people - Egypt's had examples of both in terms of sectarianism and the Copts.

It's also too soon to tell.  None of the Arab revolts - with the possible exception of Yemen which is an odd case - have seen a total power vacuum of the sort that happened in Iraq.  In each case the revolution either took so long that opposition forces were able to build some institutional framework (Libya) or elements of the state took over (Egypt and Tunisia).  I don't know if that would or could have happened but I think the chances of groups like the Mahdi Army or Badr Brigade emerging or the provocations to sectarian civil war would've happened.  That strengthened the sectarian identity in Iraq and played into Iran's hands.

One of the interesting things in the other revolts is their nationalism.  I wonder if these revolts will be the start of Arab nationalism tied to the states.  They all clearly draw inspiration from one another but the reference to 'nation' is the secular word not the Islamic one and the chants seem to me a step away from Nasserist Arab nationalism to a more particular form of nationalism: 'lift your head for you are an Egyptian/Libyan/Syrian.'  That could have been the dynamic in Iraq.

Personally I think it's hard to imagine a situation in which the Iranians have more influence.  They brokered the deal that created the current coalition government.  They've got intimate ties with the leadership of several major parties in Iraq, most of them in power.  I don't think that necessarily would've been the case without the war.

In my view it's a Pyrrhic victory that demonstrated that the US can overthrow third world dictators and at enormous expense, over several years build some sort of structure resembling a state.  That's it.  And even now when Iraq's out of the news the average monthly civilian death toll is somewhere between 100-150.  If you take population into account that's worse than Pakistan.

[Tonitrus]

The US military doesn't seem to have a problem finding things to do.

The Navy is always ready, and the Air Force doesn't really get much wear and tear on personnel.

Joystick blisters from driving drones? 

We're REMF's.  Only our  SpecOps, pilots, and sometimes security police generally get in harm's way.

[Berkut]

Was just reading about some studies that have shown that overall global violence in the last 40 years is at a fraction of what it was at any other point in human history.

Pax Americana? Pax Western Liberalism?

[grumbler]

-a proper sovereign country is not allowing a neighbor launching large-scale military operations against it's citizens.

This is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.  There are, by this definition, damn few "proper sovereign" countries.  Not that anyone rally thinks Iraq is a "proper" country in pretty much any way.

-the stability of Iraq, or their prone-ness to Iranian influence cannot be properly judged while the American military is there, since all players know full well to lay low until they leave.

But you have judged it anyway?  That means your judgement is, by your own assertions, not "proper." 

Also, I think Iraq was a piss-poor choice for this forceful spread of democracy thing because it would lack cohesion even if being a stable democracy. It has 3 major groups which doesnt really want to have to do anything with the other two. You cannot build a successful nation on big divides.

Possibly true, but not relevant.  It isn't like the Coalition won a contest and got to pick any country they wanted to invade as part of a "forceful spread of democracy."  One can certainly argue that the invasion was a mistake, but it is absurd to argue that the invasion wasn't a mistake, but that a more cohesive country should have been targeted.

Agree that you cannot build a nation on big divides, which is why Hungary should be broken up.

[Neil]

Was just reading about some studies that have shown that overall global violence in the last 40 years is at a fraction of what it was at any other point in human history.

Pax Americana? Pax Western Liberalism?

Neither.  Pax Teller-Ulam.

Still, eventually the pressure cooker will erupt.

[Viking]

We're REMF's.  Only our  SpecOps, pilots, and sometimes security police generally get in harm's way.

In the Norwegian Military Dog Handlers are part of the Air Force. And, apparently, the most popular duty for draftees.

[Tonitrus]

We're REMF's.  Only our  SpecOps, pilots, and sometimes security police generally get in harm's way.

In the Norwegian Military Dog Handlers are part of the Air Force. And, apparently, the most popular duty for draftees.

Hell, I'd love being a dog handler.  But then I'd have to be a cop, and still get lucky.

[Camerus]

The costs for the US were enormous, and it's still unclear exactly what the long-term benefits will be.  In other words, it's still too early to tell, but if I had to bet, I would go with 'not worth it'.

[Gups]

Was just reading about some studies that have shown that overall global violence in the last 40 years is at a fraction of what it was at any other point in human history.

Pax Americana? Pax Western Liberalism?

Is that Pinker? I like his argument (as reported in reviews- I haven't read his book yet) generally but think that the studies quoted are a bit mangled. It's problematic to compare the fall of Rome, with deaths occuring over a period of two centuries, with WW2 and say the fall of Rome was proportionally (given the size of the world's population) a bigger disaster.

[Berkut]

Was just reading about some studies that have shown that overall global violence in the last 40 years is at a fraction of what it was at any other point in human history.

Pax Americana? Pax Western Liberalism?

Is that Pinker? I like his argument (as reported in reviews- I haven't read his book yet) generally but think that the studies quoted are a bit mangled. It's problematic to compare the fall of Rome, with deaths occuring over a period of two centuries, with WW2 and say the fall of Rome was proportionally (given the size of the world's population) a bigger disaster.

I don't really know that it is an important distinction though. The point is that overall the world is a less violent place to live, not whether one particular episode of violence was more or less a disaster than another.

I am much more bothered by what looks to me like the predisposition in the west to dismiss such results, because we seem so married to the idea that intervention is always bad, that active attempts to "spread democracy" is always going to fail, or that US power can only be defined in the negative, or at best dismissive terms. Beyond it being annoying from the standpoint of being an American with offended pride, it is stupid because it means we are actually promoting less of what is actually working.

Democracy really is better than not democracy. Iraq really is better off today than they were under Saddam. The western way of organizing society and government is objectively superior to the alternatives for the people governed, and yes, it is in fact entirely possible to use force in some cases to remove non-democratic regimes. Certainly not in all cases (of course), but there are too many examples of current, prosperous democratic countries that became that way through some form of intervention.

We can get lost in all the details, but to a great extent I think we often end up missing the forest for the trees. Iraq is a great example of this. Bush is so hated that it doesn't matter what happens in Iraq, it MUST be seen as a failure.

[Razgovory]

Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

[Ed Anger]

Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

They got a Burger King.

[Viking]

Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

They got a Burger King.

Green Zone /= Iraq