The waste of Iraq

Of course, this is not a sad truth about our partial withdrawal, but about our starting this war. What I don't understand is how things can be so screwed up there after 6 years. Where is all the money going...theirs and ours. Couldn't something have been done? If anything, Giraldi understates the mess we made.

Let’s answer the proverbial and perennial question: “cui bono” ? Who benefits ? Who gets paid ?

There were several sets of people who benefited from the Iraqi Conquest War. First and foremost, al-Qaeda wins. The longer the organization was able to stay active and viable in-country after the invasion, the more power it could exercise and the more prestige would accrue to its senior cadre.

The second set was the Cheney/Feith/Project For A New American Century faction in the US. They had an opportunity to take charge of an important set of policies and show what they could do. They parleyed that into high positions of power and influence.

The various contractors involved may have benefited economically, but were not particularly politically benefitted at all. Like any other opportunists, they saw a possible profit situation, and took it.

The prime “beneficiary” of this war, however, was George W. Bush. Let’s recall the situation at the time. The September 11 murders put immediate and overwhelming pressure on that President to be seen not just to be doing something, but something effective, in retaliation. Remember that, for ANY President, continued power and tenure in office depend on being able to show competence in at least some areas of his portfolio. Since bin Laden was in Afghan territory, the first logical act would be (and was) to go after him there. However, Bin Laden completely outplayed Bush in that he was not only able to pull off the murder plot, but also avoid getting captured. He hung one on Bush, especially after the missed opportunity of Tora Bora.

Bush had to have something to show for his efforts in the region, or else Kerry (or whoever the opposition would put up in ‘04) would have probably defeated him. Iraq was simply the most convenient target of opportunity; a relatively weak (militarily speaking) regime, led by an easily-demonized dictator with whom previous Administrations had had a bad history. Iran was too big and too powerful to defeat easily at the end of a long logistics chain. North Korea could not be easily connected to 9/11. To the “trained minds” in the White House, the choice was clear.

In the end, however, it was a case of the flies conquering the flypaper. American leadership cadres will be stuck having to deal with the area for decades. Meanwhile, foreign-policy problems far closer to home (Mexico) and posing a greater threat to American interests (Red China, Venezuela) go unaddressed.

Thanks, guys. Thanks a lot.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Great ironies of the most recent War in Iraq:

1. Half of the Christians in Itaq have fled the country. note: there are fewer Christians now than there were a decade ago.

2. Women have lost significant ground since the fall or Saddam Hussein. Brutality against women has actually gotten worse.

Tony D.

What's the old saying: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You seem to have a reasonable grasp on history. Too many don't and are doomed to repeat, often with tragic results.

In 1953 we used the CIA to support a coup to overthrow the leadership in Iran and install the Shah into power. After 26 years of oppressive rule, supported by the US, the Iranian revolution overthrew the Shah's government and installed a hard-line Muslim theocracy.

In 1963 we used the CIA to support a coup to overthrow the leadership in Iraq, and the Ba'ath party took control. Five years later Saddam Hussein rose to the top of that party as the result of another coup. By 1980 we were supporting Hussein in his war against the hard-line Muslim theocracy that was in place in Iran.

Now, nearly 30 years later, theocracy is still the rule in Iran, and looks to be gaining control in Iraq. We are looking at the strong possibility of the two Shiite dominated governments cooperating in ventures in the region.

Yep...the neocon policies of the Bush administration have been quite successful in making things much safer for us in that region.

If water and electricity were bad even during Saddam's latter days, it is probably a result of the war/sanctions/bombings the US had been engaged in since 1991.

Allow me an "I told ya so!" moment here. I hope that those who supported the war and have since come to regret that support have learned something. What I remember from the buildup to the invasion was "conservatives" telling me I was a bad American, a "useful idiot," a bad Christian, liberal, etc. because I knew that war was a huge mistake. I think I recall Rod carrying on about how the pope needed to shut his mouth (although it could have been another conservative RC - sorry if I'm not remember that right).

It is good, Rod, that you came around on your views at some point. Yes, you spoke out for the war at first. But at least you had an open enough mind to examine the facts as they unfolded and then, after reviewing the situation, to change your opinions. You are to be commended for having the strength of character to admit you were wrong, change your public views, and stand the heat for it.

We can only wish our leaders at the time had done likewise.

As per Congressman Ron Paul(derided as Doctor No), the latest "supplemental appropriations" bill foreign aide-

The emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends:

"$660 million to Gaza

$555 million to Israel

$310 million to Egypt

$300 million to Jordan

$420 million to Mexico

$889 million to the United Nations for so-called “peace-keeping” missions

$1 billion overseas to address the global financial crisis outside U.S. borders

$8 billion to address a potential pandemic flu, which he said could result in mandatory vaccinations “for no discernable reason other than to enrich the pharmaceutical companies.”

Perhaps most outrageous, Paul said, is the $108 billion loan guarantee to the IMF."

Why? Do we ever learn? Aren't we broke?

Who benefits?

Obviously the Shite majority in Iraq is the primary long term beneficiary of the war. Time will tell if it was wise to bring another Shite government to power.

However, if this were the 19th century Balance of Power British diplomacy at work, they would certainly have done the same thing. Sunni Islam was far to strong compared to its relative numbers and position. The potential is there to use the Shites in Iran and Iraq (and eastern Saudia Arabia) against the Sunnis, and the Kurds of Iraq and Iran against the Sunni Arabs and Turks.

Another major beneficiary of both Iraq wars was the American military-industrial complex, which got to test out its latest weapons and tactics and logistics programs in two large scale campaigns. These campaigns also conveniently allowed an opportunity to expend older munitions and equipment and get newer ones to replace them. The performance of the weapons and equipment is undoubtedly a great sales campaign for the manufacturers as they attempt to sell these products home and abroad.

The harm to the American taxpayer seems questionable. Actual payment for the war has been made by foreign US bond buyers, enriched on paper by American consumer purchaes, and these buyers have been accepting essentially a pittance of 2-4% for their money being loaned, even as the US has quickly inflated the actual value of the principal away (the dollar has lost 75% of its value vs. major commodities in the past 6-10 years). In other words, Americans got foreign goods plus a war and a neo-colonial empire for the pittance price of 3% per annum on loan. Not a bad deal financially.

From the point of view of actual American interests, the Iraqi adventures, like all of the wars of the 20th century, did nothing to further the actual interests or defensive position of America as a country.