Conflict in Iraq Officially Comes to an End

[DerMißingno]

Article (not quoting because title pretty much says it all)

Do you think the United States accomplished its goals? Do you think we should stay longer? Do you think we've stayed too long? How do you feel about the state of Iraq as we're leaving? Do you think Iraq is better off now than it was before? Do you think it was worth the cost in money as well as human life? Discuss your thoughts.


Every time something like this happens, I always think back to 2003, when we first went there. Back in those days, the reasoning for going to war was to find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Anyone else remember that? Later on when they didn't find any they had to come up with some other reasons involving spreading democracy and whatnot in order to justify staying there.

 

[AlexK2013]

Part of me doubts it, but I'm just glad that all that senseless fighting's come to an end...for now.

 

[Big Lutz]

Do you think the United States accomplished its goals? In terms of ousting Saddam Hussein, passifying the terrorist threat, and creating a Democracy. I believe all those goals were accomplished.

Do you think we should stay longer? A bit longer in training the Iraqi forces and securing the Iran and Syria border would have been nice.

How do you feel about the state of Iraq as we're leaving? I believe it is in better shape than it was four years ago, right now the Iraqis are better off than they have been in decades.

Do you think Iraq is better off now than it was before? No doubt

Do you think it was worth the cost in money as well as human life? Like the last one no doubt, in terms of wars this was a relatively light one. Were mistakes made? Yes. But right now Iraq is a thriving democracy in the Middle East, instead of in a nuclear arms race with Iran that kills any and all dissidents.

 

[Stormbringer]

Peace is always better than War unless the cause is righteous. We had no business in Iraq, and I'm glad we are finally giving up.

 

[MizuTaipu]

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

 

[Big Lutz]

At 7:38 AM Iraqi Time, 2:38 AM CST the last convoy of troops passed the Kuwaiti-Iraqi Border.

The War is now Over.

 

[LuckyMyu]

Do you think Iraq is better off now than it was before? No doubt

Really? As bad as Saddam and his government was, at least people could walk down to the market without being blown up by an IED.

The war made life vastly worse for the Iraqi people. I would rather have a stable dictatorship than a feeble "democracy" with the general anarchy and sectarian violence Iraq now enjoys.

 

[Big Lutz]

Really? As bad as Saddam and his government was, at least people could walk down to the market without being blown up by an IED.

Yeah all they had to worry about was being picked up by one of Saddam's son's rape or execution squads. Or dying of hunger because of the sanctions. Or disappearing all together in one of the mass graves that still litter the Iraqi desert.

The war made life vastly worse for the Iraqi people. I would rather have a stable dictatorship than a feeble "democracy" with the general anarchy and sectarian violence Iraq now enjoys.

For a time yes it made it worse, but its hard to argue that the Iraqi people are worse off now, not only with the end of the terror attacks, but with the end of a dictatorship that gave their country absolutely no future. And lets not forget that not only was Saddam a genocidal mad man, but his son's were poised to take power, sons who would pick up women off the street, rape them, and then have them executed for adultery.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

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?

 

[GengarEatBanana]

But right now Iraq is a thriving democracy in the Middle East, instead of in a nuclear arms race with Iran that kills any and all dissidents.

Thriving? Um, maybe that should be rethought. Minus oil production the lack of development in other sectors has resulted in 18%–30% unemployed and a depressed per capita GDP of $4,000 in Iraq, and even with the oil revenue Iraq still generates about half the electricity that customers demand, leading to protests during the hotter summer months. That doesn't really sound like 'thriving' to me.

Even so we should stop argueing. This forum isn't the place for that and if you wish to debate something do it instead in Nicoleta's Campaign Bus if you have access to it.

 

[Netto Azure]

At least this war of choice is over.

That's all I have to say.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

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

 

[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!

 

[Eredar Warlock]

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!

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

 

[DerMißingno]

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

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.

 

[Bulletproof Scales]

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...

 

[Orange Islands]

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

 

[League]

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.)

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.

 

[DerMißingno]

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.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

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.