The original reasons for the war were supposedly WMDs, democracy and anti-terrorism. The likely real reasons for the war were likely regime change (now admitted), effective control of a large oil source and putting a large military presence in the Middle East to cow various other troublemakers like Syria and Iran.

There were either very few or no WMDs, the verdict is still out on whether Iraq can maintain a democracy and terrorism (outside the U.S.) is stronger than before. We did change the regime and kill Saddam, we do have effective control over Iraq's oil and we do have a large military presence which has cowed Syria but not Iran.

The cost, in lives and dollars have been tremendous but not overwhelming (except in deficit terms because we are borrowing much of the cost rather than taxing it). The lack of a draft means that many people deplore the war but don't feel so strongly about it that they want to topple the government. Witness CNN, where the recession quickly replaced the war as "Issue No. 1" on their election coverage.

The true costs are likely to be more long term. The Armed Forces of the United States have been strained by the lack of resources and manpower provided for the job in hand (comparatively) and the prospects of a stable democracy in Iraq remain poor, as the Sunni/Shia/Kurdish split remains strong not only politically but militarily, even in the Iraqi Security Forces. To keep things from getting out of hand, we will need to leave substantial forces (40,000+, including considerable air power assets) in bases in or very near Iraq that can serve to keep the Iraqis from falling into overt civil war.

Al-Qaeda itself may be weaker (although that is also debatable), but the number of Islamist jihadists has definitely grown as a result of the war. Most of them are not going to go away when the war is over: they will try to destablize muslim countries and carry out terrorist attacks in Europe and North America. As for Iran, if they can evade a massive military strike by the U.S. of A., they are within reach of having a much greater influence over about half the middle east (Palestine/Lebanon/Syria/Iraq). This will worry the Saudi/Gulf state Sunnis and increases the likelihood of a proxy civil war in Iraq.

In other words, the war in Iraq has NOT been worth it.

And I have to ask this yet again. If we control their oil, why in the hell are we paying 3.50 for gas? One would think that if we control it, that prices would drop some. But the opposite is what is really happening.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

I agree with much of the last post. The Iraqi (mis)adventure has been a total and utter disaster. 'Democracy' can never be introduced at the point of a gun, and the people of Iraq will resist the illegal invasion of their country by the US-led invaders until the last drop of blood of every Iraqi man, woman and child has been spilt. The invasion has opened a pandora's box - its consequences will be felt by future generations. It's the single most disastrous foreign policy decision in a century and will be the precursor for further conflict in the region. Thousands upon thousands of more Bin Laden's will be created further down the line with terrible consequences in terms of the perpetuation of the cycle of terrorism, counter terrorism and war.

Our major cities will feel the main brunt of what we have unleashed in Iraq - resulting in increasing amounts of suicide bombings. Iraq isn't improving, despite what the propaganda eminating from the Whitehouse claims to the contrary. The country is going from bad to worse. The financial cost of this disaster is currently 1.2 trillion dollars and rising. The human cost in terms of shattered lives is even more depressing: 4,000 US troops have died with many more injured, some 1.2 million Iraqi's have been slaughtered, 7 million injured and 4 million displaced out of a total population of 28 million. Infant mortality is increasing and life expectancy decreasing. The country is broken and is not being fixed or rebuilt.

The invaders objectives are to bleed the country dry of its resources and create another staging post for its imperialist objectives. The only feasible option is for all occupying troops to leave with immediete effect. We are the problem and not part of the solution for peace in Iraq. We must rid ourselves of this illusionary mindset which is predicated on the idea that 'we', the enlightened Western culture are somehow obliged to impose 'democracy' on 'them' - the blighted medieval savages. It is precisely this misguided imperial mindset that has been the curse of all oppressed people's who historically have suffered at the hands of their colonial masters.

The previous post argued that we need to stay, at least in the immediate future because if we were to leave in the short term, inter-tribal violence would increase. This may be true - we cannot be sure of the consequences either way. But what we CAN be sure of, is that our continuing presence in Iraq will undoubtably entrench the level of violence further - that's the inevitable consequence of occupying other people's countries. History has taught us that the aftermath of withdrawing from foreign lands results in an initial increase in violent activity, but then this reduces in the medium term when those who were previously under the imperial thumb, gradually find their feet again and begin to organise their societies themselves for the benefit of themselves rather than have democracy fostered on them by outsiders. It has always struck me as the ultimate oxymoron to suggest that democracy can be externally imposed by the 'other' at the point of a gun - that's not how democracy works.

in my mind, the iraq war has always been about long-term benefits.
the threat from iraq wasn't that they were going to attack us. it was that they were going to help someone attack us.
the benefits of iraq, if there actually turn out to be any at all, will be in 5 or 10 years,
when hopefully iraq is a stable democracy,
and one less country we have to worry about helping people kill us.

three major things i would change looking back now:
1) don't disband the iraqi army.
do the best you can weeding out the bad apples, but don't just fire everyone.
all it did was create many thousands of militarily trained unemployed people who hate us.
and it meant starting from scratch with people who, if they were good soldiers, would've already been in the army.
security would probably be a lot better if the original iraqi army had been left intact.
2) the agonizingly long lead up to the war.
a year and a half.
1 and 1/2 years for our enemy to get ready for an attack they knew was coming.
one reason i know Bush isn't the unilateral-dictator everyone says he is.
if he were, we wouldn't have waited a year and a freekin' half to invade.
we would've had troops in iraq a couple of months after 9/11.
he spent way too much time trying to gather support from the international community.
3) don't stake so much on the iraqi people's desire for freedom and democracy.
they should want those things, but they don't.
or, at least, not enough of them seem to want it badly enough.
assume from the beginning that we're going to be fought from all sides, the people in between won't care one way or the other, and plan accordingly.
no roses and parades.

so five years out? 'no' , the war's not worth it.
yet

__________________

Hairy, I am going to have to ask you to back your numbers. Because some of them are contrary to what the Iraqi gov and medical services is telling us.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

We are safer, their are less terrorists in the world and we are helping a country that may end up being a great ally.

Safer ???

I do not feel any safer now than I did prior to 9/11 (from the viewpoint that our presence in Iraq has somehow reduced the threat of a terrorist act on U.S. soil).

We turned upside-down a sovereign nation which had not performed any overt, threatening act toward us -- nor did there seem to be an imminent threat of harm.

We have reinvigorated a grassroots terror campaign not only against (and between) various sects within the region, but also increased the threat to our armed forces, not to mention elevated the motive for a terror group to attack us on our soil.

Thousands of lives (some evidence supports a figure well over 150,000) have been lost, families torn apart, children orphaned, and dreams crushed. Indeed, Saddam was a ruthless dictator, but I still believe there could have been better ways to deal with him. So, not only do we mourn the loss of the people he killed, but now there are so many more...

We have spent billions upon billions of dollars (take a moment to carefully consider the magnitude of a billion dollars) which could have been better spent here at home, building schools so students can get out of trailer classrooms, improving our national infrastructure, fortifying our borders (without creating a fortress), developing alternative sources of energy, employing the National Guard to assist with our myriad national disasters (floods, fires, tornados, hurricanes), and perhaps - just perhaps - saving for a rainy day.

Is our presence helping to create democracy within the region? To the best of my knowledge, democracy once existed in the Middle East, in places like Iraq and Iran. What happened? My understanding is that western imperialism/interference ultimately caused fledgling democratically elected governments to fall into the hands of dictatorial regimes. I may not have it entirely correct, but my point is that democracy is not the type of thing that can be simply handed to (or forced upon) someone. It has to be truly desired, appreciated for what it is, and carefully nurtured.

As much as I hate saying this, since we've already foolishly rushed in without truly thinking about how we would leave, the very least we can do is not leave behind a mess.

__________________
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
-- Author Unknown

You must be basing your opinion from what you hear on the nightly news.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.