...And so began the Iraqi Civil War

Remove all ads!

linky

If anybody was looking for a sign that the "Shiite" has hit the fan, I think it's safe to say this is probably it.

Conservative war supporters often use the "What, so you would you prefer it if the evil tyrant Saddam was still in power?" strawman as a means to counter criticism of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. Of course, no one wants to say that they would prefer Saddam - which is why it's often such an effective (if intellectually dishonest) counter-arguement. But if we have a few months (hell, years) more of this Shiite vs. Sunni carnage to look forward to, it makes you wonder what lengths people will go to to convince themselves and others that our adventure in Iraq was still of any significant benefit and not a complete disaster.

It's getting to the point where I'm thinking yes - Iraq WAS better off with Saddam Hussein in power. There, I said it.

Hussein was (and still is) an evil, crazy old bastard. But before the war, he was contained. He talked a big game, but in the end could not have walked the walk. His ties to Islamic terrorism were vague at best, and he kept it from establishing any significant foothold in his country during his rule, out of a need to protect his own self interest. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, quickly eclipsing bin Laden as al Quaeda's legendary bad boy, was a fringe element operating in an area of Iraq outside of Saddam's direct control - yet still, contained to some measure. Hussein tortured and terrorized his own people. But how can anyone say the people are any safer now? Death squads didn't move from neighborhood to neighborhood pretending to be police and executing men by the dozens.

So at this point, I honestly can't see how invading Iraq was anything but an utter failure which created far more pain, chaos and distruction than it was intended to solve. And what's more - what will it take for war supporters - even up to Bush himself - to admit they were wrong? To honestly evaluate the current situation and strategy and admit that a completely new approach is needed?

Those last two questions were 50% rhetorical, of course - but they should be questions on the minds of anyone who had a hand in making the war happen - which includes those who were for it.

 

From Bill Maher: Upon hearing this, Bush called for the immediate invasion of the country of Sectaria.

On a more serious note: The world was NEVER safer with Saddam removed from Iraq. Almost as soon as that happened, Iraq became a breeding ground for terrorists. So by and large, the world was LESS safe with Saddam out. It appeared initially that at least Iraq was better off without Saddam, even if the world as a whole was not. But then we replaced his rape and torture rooms with Abu Ghraib torture, and given the continuing violence there now, I'm not sure that Iraq itself is even better off now. Like the wise Rabbit has already pointed out, the chance of a typical Iraqi citizen getting killed in Iraq right now is probably a lot higher than it was during any part of Saddam's reign.

 

I've stayed out of the Iraqi debates here on the boards thus far. Actually, I've stayed as far away from them as possible, partially because it's not really my thing, but mostly because I'm already exhausted from the arguments I've had about these sorts of things in RL.

However, something about "I told you so" feels really good to say (in a sick, twisted way). It's a sad thing, but it's a true thing. So, I'll say it, just because if I were to say it here in uber-conservative Abilene, Texas, I'd probably get tarred, feathered, beaten, lynched, and lynched again. And burned in effigy. Never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with the statement that my old pal Deathbunny put up there. It really was better...

 

It doesn't even appear that there will be any democracy by the time all this over...what a waste...

[ March 01, 2006, 01:30: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

In my case, I'll say that knowing what I knew at the time, I would always have supported the invasion. I never imagined--and quite literally could not imagine--that anyone could envision invading a place like Iraq without a solid plan for the post-war in place. And I was wrong.

It's been painfully obvious for upwards of a year, more like two, that the reconstruction effort has been a series of disasters.

We will not succeed in stabilizing Iraq under the Bush administration, and by the time we have a new one in place, the damage will likely be irreversible--if it isn't already.

 

I agree with Taluntain-this is sad. It is sad that so many people could predict these consequences. Not only on the board, but across. What makes it especially sad is that so many people, including high school students, have been predicting the consequences of the war in Iraq and realizing the stupidity to invading a country without a concrete plan for reconstruction and troop removal, while our dearly beloved president was either unable or unwilling to come to the same, logical conclusions.

 

I'm in the same boat as AMaster - if I had it to do over again, I would have made the same decisions, knowing what I knew. I was reluctant to support an invasion on the timeframe allotted, but hey, I didn't think my nation's leaders would drag us to war on the basis of lies and shoddy intelligence. They'd lie for a election, they'd lie for political benefit, they'd lie about the economy and finances, but I never thought they'd lie for a war.

Of course, I couldn't have known that there was no exit strategy, no contingency plan, no rebuilding and reconstruction program architecture. I assumed my leaders - and yours - were at least semi-competent. I shall not make the same mistake again.

 

Karl Rove: "Damn, this doesn't look good... Quick send W to Afghanistan so it looks like we're doing something!"

 

Bion - I agree, and it's so obvious it's pathetic.

 

Need I remind you of the good that has come from civil wars in the past? The USA was founded from a rebellion that could be called a civil war, as was modern France, to mention another. Now I'm not going to say these governments are perfect, but they're a lot better than they were. Sometimes conflict is neccessary to provoke progress, and yes, sometimes that means people die and we take risks. Do I think this will last forever (as Saddam's dynasty may have)? No. Will things ever settle down completely over there? Not until the world ends. This violece is like the birthing pains, they must be gotten through in order to birth a new nation. Our job is to see that they are gotten through as quickly as possible, and see that the end result is as good as possible. I say our job, however, simply because we started the process. It is therefore our responsability to see it through.

 

yes, but the wars mentioned were fought with a purpose in mind, in the US it was to drive out the british, in england it was to control parliment, but this is no ordinary civil war, these people are fighting simply for the sake of it, they dont want to control the country they just want to kill and distabilise the region, that is not a civil war with any good outcome. and as for seeing it through as quickly as possible? what can we do? the mere sight of american or british forces enrages them.

 

I shouldn't post here

Taliban regime after civil war in Afghanistan?
General Franco after the Spanish civil war?
Stalinism after the civil war in Russia?

What actually after the civil war in Yugoslavia?
What actually after the civil war in Burundi?
Love and peace in Somalia after some civil wars?
Clear cut frontiers in Algeria?
Mullahs in Iran after some civil upheaval?
A first-class renovation of the inner-city of Belfast?


I don't think that civil war is automaticly a big step forward for humanity.

Edit: Oh, how could I forget: Chairman Mao!

 

You're joking, right?

 

Well, he said "dynasty". I think he's assuming that Saddam's children, grandchildren, etc., would continue ruling Iraq for a long, long time to come. Obviously, Saddam himself was already getting old, and he'd have to die eventually.

 

The Sunnis and Shiia are killing each other because they are Sunni and Shiia - no other reason. These are also a culture of people who put probably the highest price on honor and revenge as any culture in the world. It's not uncommon for someone to take revenge on a slight that occured generations before.

So, yes, NOG - in some form or another, this WILL last forever. Saddam's dynasty never could have. In fact, I would say the only truly wonderful thing to come out of this war is the fact that we killed Saddam's eldest sons, Uday and Qusay - who were easily as tyrranical as their father. Beyond that, it wasn't worth it.

 

Right... so when are you going to remove Bush from the white house?

 

Tom Tomorrow posts a cartoon from 2003...

 

Iago - We should also mention Vietnam and Cambodia, where millions died. The Iraq War supporter's note to self: "Iraq is not like Vietnam" - "Iraq is not like Vietnam" - "Iraq is not like Vietnam." Just keep repeating it guys....

 

And how, exactly, would we do that?