4,000

[filkertom]

Anybody out there think five years of this was worth it?

ETA: Mosaic.

Comments

[fionn320.livejournal.com]

I didn't think it was worth it more than five years ago when the drumbeat against Iraq started up. Haven't changed my mind. I'm not sure how to fix it, but no, it is not worth it. Add in the tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and "worth it" isn't even worth mentioning.

[mouser.livejournal.com]

If you can actually tell me what "it" was...

[bosswriter.livejournal.com]

In a word - NO. My first thought was to divide the hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent in the five years of Bushco's private little war by the 4,000 American troops who gave their lives thus coming up with a dollar amount per death, but then realized that that would be way too impersonal and would actually cheapen the lives of these soldiers.

I can only say that I hope whoever is elected this fall - has the guts to get us the f*** out of there and let Iraq work it out for themselves.

[starmalachite.livejournal.com]

This is one time I really hate having been right about something all along.

But the sheep are finally looking/waking up. I actually heard my dad on the phone telling one of his hunting buddies that "Bush really screwed up." (Not that he'll ever say it to me, of course.)

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

I still remember roaring with laughter in 2002 at the clumsy posturing of Scrappy Doo and the War Party. How stupid did they think people were, anyhow? America was going to vote Republicans out of office in droves and make Bush a lame duck halfway into his first and only term. Good God, it was ludicrous, and everyone was going to see through it.

And I'm still trying to figure out a useful lesson to take away from it, you know, something I could actually use to make it come out different next time.

[lisa-marli.livejournal.com]

I NEVER thought it was worth it. Unfortunately, I'm some one old enough to remember our last Bad Adventure into telling another part of the world what kind of government they want. Didn't think this one would end up any better. Well, less loss of life and A LOT more $$$$$$$$$$. Still s*cks.

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

All the people who actually knew something about war were against this 6 months before Bush went in. How do you scream into a deliberately deaf ear? How do you turn a sociopath's mind? Why are people so fucking scared of being called Reds (oops, "terrorist enablers") by dragging this putz into the dirt like that fake Saddam-statue photo op?

My nephew's lining up to be in the next 1000 -- he deploys this month.

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that whenever I click on links about mothers, or being a mother (one of Tori Amos's songs reccied by someone on my flist did it to me the other day) then I instantly flash on mothers of those soldiers, and I start crying.
I'm not one myself, I haven't lost someone in my immediate circle.
It doesn't matter to me.
I've talked to soldiers on transit here, it's extremely real to me.
The level of agony and grief out there is incredible.
That's not even *talking* about the people we've maimed and murdered over there.
Hell, it's not addressing a dozen other Darty Little Wars that the sociopaths aren't dealing with instead, when they could do something in relatively cheap ways--places like Darfur or Burma.

[baphnedia.livejournal.com]

Wonderful. For all our wars, this is one of the least deadly - and I'm going to say 'damn fine job on the men and women who've endeavored to keep the number so low'. Not just because I'm going back there.

Do I think it's worth the expense in lives, money, collateral damage as things stand now? HELL NO.

However, I'll be twice as pissed at the peace activists if they manage to pull the plug instead of turning Iraq into something that became worth it. Maybe I didn't spread the word that total participation over there could make a BIG difference, and instead of breaking the will to fight, inspire cooperation to make not only a better Iraq, but a better world. However, it falls on deaf ears. DO NOT LET US DIE IN VAIN. The distinction I found between WWII, Korean and Vietnam vets? The latter two never got to succeed in their war. It screwed with their heads violently.

I can and will not wind up like that. There is a solution to the international situation where no apologies are necessary, staring at some of us in the face, and the few of us who know how to fix the problem are never heard. Nobody will hear us out, and it breaks my heart. Everyone else would rather fight about whether to be over there or not.

*sigh*

If only there were a goddamned audience who'd listen, then take appropriate action. I've gone as far as I can - to include communicating with the White House myself on this, never to see a damned change.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

How do we "turn Iraq into something that became worth it"? The longer we stay, the worse it gets. It's not our country. We can't make it what we think it should be. It was never our decision to make. The longer we stay, all we'll get is more evidence of how wrong it is to persist.

Lloyd Biggle said it years ago: "Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny."

The distinction I see between WWII and the Korean and Vietnam vets is that the latter were fighting in a war we should not have been fighting.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Whether we stay 1 more day, or one more decade, Iraq will still collapse into civil war the moment we leave. Iran and Syria - you know, the neighbors - will see to that. The Sunni and Shite gunmen will see to that. Al Sadr, who is only biding his time, will see to that.

There is only peace when all parties want peace. Of only one group in a region wants war, then there will be war.

And yes, 4000 dead for a 5 year war is paltry in comparison to other wars. Heck, more people die in Auto crashes every year (>50,000) in the US.

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

4000 dead for a 5 year war is paltry in comparison to other wars. Heck, more people die in Auto crashes every year (>50,000) in the US.

Could somebody break that down to deaths per person/hour spent? After all, if (pulling numbers out of thin air) four thousand people die in the course of five hundred thousand person/hours in Iraq, and fifty thousand people die in auto crashes in the course of seven hundred fifty million person/hours worth of driving, there isn't much comparison.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Number dead in US in vehicle accidents in 2005 - 43,510
Number dead in US in vehicle accidents in 2006 - 42,642, the lowest number in 5 years.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810791.PDF

Number died in 2003, 42,643
Number died in 2002, 43,005
Number died in 2001, 42,196
and on and on...

http://www.saferoads.org/federal/2004/TrafficFatalities1899-2003.pdf

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

Useful, but not what I was asking for. Although, now that I think about it, it's probably nearly impossible to figure out how many hours people spend on the road in a year.

The point is, if you point at raw numbers, more Americans in the 15-24 years old range committed suicide in 1998 (http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html) than had died in Iraq at the five-year mark. So obviously, suicide is more dangerous than war...except that there's no information comparing the number of people in that age group in 1998 versus the average number of people in Iraq. Were there five times as many people of that age in the U.S. in 1998 as compared to the average number of servicepeople in Iraq over the last five years? More? Less?

Numbers are meaningless without context.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Hours in operation would be pretty meaningless in this context. Teh person serving in Iraq isn't in danger for 2 hours a day, as an example. So you'd have to compute the deathrate as a percentage of the population. What percent dies driving each year (0.0426M / 300M) versus dies in Iraq ( 704 / 132,000)?

0.000142 traffic fatality rate by population
0.005333 Iraq duty fatality rate by population

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

So, by your figures, Iraq duty is about thirty-seven times as dangerous as driving. Is it harder to toss it aside with "Heck, more people die in auto crashes" when it's looked at that way?

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Key word is ACCIDENT. Iraq was deliberate. People try to avoid car accidents. BushCo didn't try to avoid this war (as opposed to Vietnam) and in fact proceeded with this war without making a decent effort to get the facts straight.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Yes, by all means, keep putting money into the slot machine. Otherwise, all those coins will have been lost for nothing.

No, wait. That's not really an accurate metaphor. Gamblers might conceivably win back what they've lost. We can't.

[tomreedtoon.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't know. For all that waste, we should have learned something, so that it wasn't all in vain. Knowledge bought, even at a horrific cost, is still knowledge.

It would be great to believe that "we won't get fooled again," but that's no assurance that the next generation can avoid being fooled again. On a local scale, there's a lot of well-meaning folks who would like to stop bullying in schools, but haven't a clue about what that would take. So what can they do if the bully is running the country?

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

In itself? No. Not in the least. Not even if you win. If winning is even possible at this stage.

But...

If it brings home to the American people how broken their system is, that a tiny group of rich bastards can buy their way into power and do what they please for eight years and no-one can do anything about it?

Then maybe, just maybe, it won't be a total waste of precious lives and suffering.

If steps are taken, in the next presidential term, to make sure this two-term atrocity can never happen again*, then maybe the soldiers who died in Iraq will really have given their lives to save the United States of America from terrorists, from enemies not foreign but domestic.

That would be truly heroic.

*Unless, of course, the people really will it. Democracy, when it works properly, allows for that possibility.

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

Nope :(

[unclekage.livejournal.com]

Five years and 4000 lives. But WE ARE WINNING!!!

There hasn't been a suicide bombing in Baghdad since...er....

The number of US Soldiers killed has fallen dram...uff...

Iraq's people are happy and live free of fear from..um...

BUT WE ARE WINNING!

[louisadkins.livejournal.com]

Don't forget:

DO EVERYTHING I SAY, OR YOU ARE A TARRARIST! ./bad accent

./Fear ./Fear ./Terror ./Terror

[maiac.livejournal.com]

"Anybody out there think five years of this was worth it?"

Oh, sure. Bush. Cheney. Rice. The majority of Republican politicians. CEOs and stockholders of Halliburton and its subsidiaries. Erik Prince and his Blackwater mercenaries (except for the dead ones).

But nobody with a brain and a conscience thinks it's worth it.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Not really, no. But the fact that the surge is working means we need to give it a little time to complete the task. Me, I say a year more is sufficient to kill the roots of the insurgency. And the fact that the extra soldiers on the ground is working is proof that we put too few boots on the ground, something I bitched about till I turned blue. No, going into Iraq was a stupid move. But making a stupid move and then compounding it with a stupid "we can do it on the cheap" mantra, just meant a higher death toll for everyone.

In the end though, the results will be the same, whether we stay one more year or 10 more years. As soon as we leave, the civil war will be on, Iraq and Syria will invade under the guise of "restoring order", and Iraq will cease to be. It's another Vietnam, made sadder by its being invented by a Vietnam vet. But I guess one can't expect fighter jocks who never went to Vietnam because they were too busy helping their political party win reelection to learn any lessons from the war.

[fionn320.livejournal.com]

Bush is not a Vietnam Vet. Yes, he was signed up to be a reservist during that time, but from what I've gathered, he didn't even show up for drills most of the time. He never served on active duty, and never went to Vietnam. Calling him a Vietnam Vet is a slap in the face to those men and women who did serve, most of them unwillingly.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Exactly my point. I'm tweaking the spin his folks put on him, unfortunately to great effect. My father is a Vietnam vet - he was in the "brown navy" and only tells a fraction of his horror stories. Yet he's completely in the Bush camp because Bush is a "fellow vietnam vet". We have almost come to blows several times because it is MY opinion that if you are going to piss off all your allies and the rest of the world, make the invasion count and take out IRAN, which is the source of all the radical Islamofacism.

Even a boy scout knows to take out the biggest bully first. But like I said, Bush didn't learn anything, because he was too busy campaigning to learn anything.

[darrenzieger.livejournal.com]

Your subject line is inaccurate. 4,000 is the American death toll. The death toll among Iraqis -- you know, the folks we're there to "liberate" is in the vicinity of a million, possibly much higher. Not even pretending to care about civilian casualties (or even, for that matter, those among our allies) is one of the many reasons we're so well liked internationally.

Anyway, the only way it might all be "worth it" is in the meta-sense that the expense of funding the war -- the main reason Greenspan kept the Fed's primary rate so insanely low, artificially pumping up the credit economy, making the current banking crisis inevitable -- has, among other factors, substantially hastened the collapse of the American Empire and the end of the U.S. as a superpower. As much as life in the wreckage is going to suck for those of us living stateside, I consider this a positive development.

Of course the flip-side of all this -- and the final irony -- is that, having crippled our vast economy, starving our vital infrastructure to feed a bottomless need for military spending, we have come full circle from the Reagan administration's alleged triumph over the Soviet Union -- the conventional wisdom being that by forcing them to keep up with our insane military buildup, Reagan brought about the economic, then political collapse of the Soviets (the conventional wisdom is, of course, full of shit).

But the irony doesn't end there.

That the Reagan "revolution" and the rise of the "Reagan Democrat" set the stage for the depredations of current administration, not just philosophically, but even more significantly by causing the Democratic party to flee madly up its own, well, ass, never to return -- is enough by itself.

But just look at who's ready to step in and pick up the pieces (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13629)....

Russia’s president Vladimir Putin will sail into the Gulf as a broker for peace thereby contrasting nicely with the self proclaimed “War President.” Putin will get a very real chance of supplanting the U.S. as the world’s only superpower as he negotiates new trade agreements with Iran and its close friend, Iraq. Russia’s oil wealth, combined with the net production of Iranian and Iraqi oil, will represent a huge portion of the world’s oil reserves. Approaching $4 a gallon today, the price will rise until American economic security is severely diminished.

Republicans, when they deregulated business to clear the way for faster and easier profit, predetermined the nations decent into financial hardship. Bush with his enormous tax cuts and war on borrowed money has kicked loose the already shaky underpinning of the U.S. economy. Putin will bargain with advanced weaponry and consolidate Russian, Iranian and Iraqi oil to bring a new dynamic to the world’s oil market and, as is always the case, there will be winners and losers when the dust settles. The U.S, unfortunately, is hardly in a winning position.

This is the dilemma faced by would be, U.S. presidents. A new consortium of oil wealth will suddenly begin dictating who gets how much and at what cost when the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and Iran fills the vacuum the U.S. left behind. Bombing Iran is out of the question. The first thing Iran would do is sink a few tankers in the straits so marine traffic could neither come or go. World depression anyone?

[full article] (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13629).

[wizwom.livejournal.com]

I agree - except I have difficulty with the term "empire."

And empire directs it's client states absolutely. There is no shred of doubt that the client state has exactly the foreign policy that the empire decides it will have.

And I just don't see that, in fact, I can't even consider which countries you think would make up the empire, unless you consider the federal government the empire, and the various states and territories as the client states. But, generally, there is no foreign policy of the State of Illinois, they do not recognize other world states, they do not exchange ambassadors, they don't do anything except send the occasional trade delegation. They don't have customs officials or a border which is more than a line on paper.

Even in the most draconically controlled client states behind the iron curtain, they maintained their own borders and the semblances of being a state - ambassadors, border guards, their own currencies.

[darrenzieger.livejournal.com]

agreed...meant to say "imperialism," which can be viewed as more of an attitude than a political construct...maybe "hegemony?"

Semantics aside, the sooner the U.S. is forced, by economic and military reality, to play nice with the other kids (i.e. recognize the sovereignty of other nations), the better.

On the other hand, we'd better hope that the PNACzis don't manage to hold on to power post 1/20/09 - having the troops home frees them up for use against home-grown dissidents (posse comitatus notwithstanding, as is the case with every other law, regulation or constitutional standard protecting the American people from the Federal government under the Bush administration).

[wildcard9.livejournal.com]

I heard something on talk radio last Thursday that I have to agree with. I am for going in but against staying there. The arguement is thus: the President said there was a clear and present danger that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that they were going to use on us. Much as I did not want to see the invasion, I have to agree the President was not only within his right but was fulfilling his responcibility as commander in chief in that situation. But as soon as we stopped looking for WMD's, that ended our reason for being there and we should have pulled out immediately.

And to answer your question, not it was not worth the lives lost or lives ruined of those who came home injured (either physically or mentally). This "war" should have ended when we found out that we had bad intel and stopped the WMD search. Now we are only making more long-term enemies instead of protecting ourselves against a specific one.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

the President said there was a clear and present danger that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that they were going to use on us

This argument would hold a lot more water if there had ever been the slightest shred of solid evidence to support it.

I can understand being _wrong_ about this sort of thing. But the evidence that we have strongly indicates that the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq and then started manufacturing an excuse to to so. It was not a matter of "bad intel". The rank and file in the intelligence agencies gave us no reason to believe that there were WMDs, based on the fact that all we had were a few unconfirmed reports from unreliable sources (that were in at least some cases inconsistent with known facts) to suggest that they might be there.

Sure, Saddam had some illegal weapons--those rockets. Which we were forcing him to dismantle when we went ahead and invaded anyway.

(And no, in any case, Bush was not within his rights. There was no declaration of war, and the prevailing legal opinions appear to be that our invasion was not covered by existing UN resolutions, either.)

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

the President said there was a clear and present danger that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

I believe that somebody in the administration also said, "We know exactly where the WMDs are, but we can't tell the UN, because then the Iraqis will move the WMDs." (Something like that - I'm paraphrasing, but the meaning holds up.)

That phrase is what convinced me that GWB didn't have any real information.

As I saw it, if they really had detailed info like that, what was to stop them from putting each location on a piece of paper, sealing each piece of paper in an envelope, and hand-delivering each envelope to a helicopter pilot with a cargo of UN weapons inspectors? The pilots would then open the envelopes, take off, and head for the location of the WMDs. Time to move the evidence? Two hours, tops. Handled properly, there wouldn't have been more than ten minutes.

This is not a new concept. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealed_Orders) So why all the talk, and no action that would have worked? The only answers I can come up with are either that somebody talked bigger than the White House could support, and the White House didn't say "oh, he's exaggerating," or that the evidence wasn't really there.

let's not forget the other 29,000+

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Tom, I know that you didn't mean to leave the US wounded out. But in some ways I feel worse about them than I do the dead.

We're doing a lot better job in saving those who are wounded than we did in Vietnam...so the survivors are often more severely maimed.

Perhaps worst of all: for the rest of their lives, many, if not most, of these soldiers will curse the government for having sent them to Iraq, the people who subsequently tried to deny them the chance (however illusory) to make their sacrifice Worth Something (by winning and then bringing peace), or both.

That's something that the anti-war folks--such as myself--hate to admit: the fact that we oppose the war and want our troops out as soon as possible _is_ a drag on morale, at least for some. It's got to be discouraging, if not frustrating, if not enraging, to be told that your sacrifices, and those of your buddies, are largely in vain...especially considering that you also know that you know a lot more about what's going on than almost every civilian with an opinion. And to be told that you've suffered and killed for a mistake.
What we _should_ be saying is that we know that we're hurting morale, but that it's only because we're doing the best we can to keep from making things worse.

Hell, my grandfather (naval aviator in WWII and Korea) had nightmares for years afterwards...and at least he had better reason to believe that he was doing the right thing.

Re: let's not forget the other 29,000+

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

In no way do I want to leave out the wounded. They are getting well and truly hosed by our government -- not getting the care they need, not getting the pay or benefits they were promised, not getting the rest they must have to be cohesive units, and most of all being sent in to an endless, aimless mission.

Nor do I forget the Iraqi people -- the hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, the millions of displaced.

Our armed forces are doing their jobs: following orders to protect our country and our interests. The problem is that they, and we, were sold a bill of goods.

I do not believe it is hurting morale to tell the truth, especially in the interest of not wasting our military and diplomatic power. That's been one of the most-used excuses by BushCo, and it's got one little problem: Given that the whole thing is founded upon lies, what happens when the truth comes out to all and sundry?

And, what you say we should be saying is pretty much exactly right.

Re: let's not forget the other 29,000+

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Of course you're right to bring up the Iraqi losses as well. (Not to mention those of the other coalition members.) It's been a bad deal all around.

I think that you and I are on basically the same page re: morale. But just to clarify: I think that it really _can_ hurt morale to tell the truth. But while morale is important, it is not always the highest consideration, and the hope of preserving it should not be used as an excuse to stifle dissent.

Re: let's not forget the other 29,000+

[fionn320.livejournal.com]

I am a postal carrier in Sacramento. There are six Army and Air Force reservists who work in my station. Since this began five years ago, all six have spent at least one tour in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Every single one who has come back from Iraq has publicly stated to everyone who will listen that we've made a huge mistake going in there, and are perpetuating that mistake every day we spend over there. They have been fortunate that none of them have been killed or physically injured, but the Army master seargent who delivers the route next to mine still has nightmares two years after returning.

The drag on morale is not those of us who want our troops home safe as quickly as possible. The drag on morale is sending our troops into a country where we are a hostile occupying power, with no clear mission other than "bringing democracy", and no end in sight. The drag on morale is hearing the people in power talking about being in Iraq for 20, 50, 100 years.

The reservists in my station have all said words the effect of, "We don't know why we're there. They hate us over there. Saddam was bad, but the lights worked, women were safe in the streets, and the country was stable. We've really f*cked them over." NONE of them want to go back, but they will when they get their orders, and they know it is only a matter of time.

Re: let's not forget the other 29,000+

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I may not have made myself clear.

Obviously sending troops into harm's way with no clear mission (and no "termination condition") has an effect on morale.

And I believe that we should not have invaded (even knowing only what we knew then), and that we need to exit with all due speed.

I'm just saying that it's _also_ a drag on morale to explicitly tell the troops that we should not have invaded, that there's no clear mission, and that the current administration has no plan for getting them out. But, as I said to Tom, the hope of preserving morale should not be used as an excuse to stifle dissent with the current administration's Iraq policies.

[wizwom.livejournal.com]

Well, I doubt you will agree, but the reason for Iraq was two-fold:
1) To protect Israel. Bush was convinced (on sketchy evidence) that Iraq had or was very close to having nuclear capability and advanced chemical delivery systems, and that he would use them on Israel.
2) To focus the Islamic Terrorists on a local situation. It was assumed that with an obvious presence in reasonable striking distance, that we would be able to use our advanced remote intelligence (satellites and cell/land line monitoring) to identify threats and allow the destruction of them.

As a matter of fact, (1), the proximate causus belli, turned out to be partially true, and the production of chemical weapons have been stopped. The war with Iraq was won, IIRC, some 26 Americans died during it, mostly from friendly fire. The stated reason for the war was accomplished, and if not for reason (2) we would have left after about a 6 month training stint.

Now, as to whether it was wise to stay in order to incite terrorism, I say no. Terrorists weren't even the reason the planes hit the WTC, they weren't the reason the WTC was destroyed, and they were not causing any significant difficulty to the U.S. Here in the U.S., you can, and should, be jailed for inciting a riot. I believe that we can and should have left Iraq to battle it's own Counter-insurgency, and that that counter-insurgency would not have grown as much as it did if we had not been there as a perceived anti-Muslim lightning rod.

That said, extrication is problematical; our state department and highest leaders, right or wrong, have made promises to the government of Iraq, and I believe it is not a minor thing to stop fulfilling a promise. I think that they Pentagon, or Bush, may have a plan in place to use Iraq as a launching point for an attack on Iran, which, unfortunately, I expect Bush has personal reasons for wishing to do. I think if the U.S. attacks Iran, we will accomplish the war, but Pakistan will not sit idle. Which would be bad.

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

(1), the proximate causus belli, turned out to be partially true

Could you point me to something showing this? I've missed seeing any of it. I had heard about the expended shells with chemical weapons still in them, and about the protective gear, but that didn't cut it for me. I considered that equal to finding turkey bones and oven mitts in my mother's house on November 28, and assuming that she was going to bake a turkey that day.

[wizwom.livejournal.com]

The fact of the matter is that the WMDs that were used (against the Kurds, remember?) were generally destroyed, but not totally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

You know, that Google thing? Try doing it before acting belligerent.

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

The United States and the UK, along with other countries and intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he must be prevented from building any more. Inspections by the U.N. restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[1] but hadn't turned up any evidence of actual WMDs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in March 2003.

(bolded for my convenience)

I'm still not convinced.

[mstrhypno.livejournal.com]

In Afghanistan, if it had been an all-out attempt to get bin Laden, yes, but it hasn't been, so it's questionable.

But in Iraq, NFW.

Lee