Would a stable democracy in Iraq have been worth it?

[Nick]

1. Unilateral American/UK action that fractured international relations for virtually a decade (at best)
2. International mistrust of America/UK
3. Lies about WMD's which make a mockery of democracy in the USA and UK
4. Decision making by Tony Blair despite overwhelming public opposition to the Iraq invastion (possibly crippling the labour party in the next election (and the Republicans in theirs too).
5. Increased numbers of anti-western fighters with more reasons to wage more attacks like the WTC disaster
6. Increased support for Al'Quaida worldwide
7. 700,000 people killed (almost as many as Saddam himself).
8. Completely ignoring the fact that this selective invasion wouldn't have happened in Zimbabwe/North Korea, because lets face it, they dont have oil.
9. Global cynicism of America's interpretation of "freedom", which is now virtually destroyed by hypocrisy.
10. I'm talking a realistic Middle East "democracy", ie one like Iran's at best.
11. Decreased civil liberties at home (that's just another little one thats managed to be snuck in).


Not that I expect a stable democracy in Iraq in the next 20 years, but hypothetically, if it did happen, would it even have justified the occupation?

You can give serious or retarded answers, but it is one of the biggest issues of our times, so it may be worth discussing in some reasonable detail.

Personally, I think, obviously not.

[Spang]

Oh come on, there had to have been atleast one good thing to come out of this occupation!

[Boogahz]

...You can give serious or retarded answers, but it is one of the biggest issues of our times, so it may be worth discussing in some reasonable detail.

um, you mean like all of the other times you asked and ignored responses that didn't agree with your view? Also, the thread says "would a stable democracy in Iraq have been worth it?" Are you asking if it would be worth trying if we knew in advance that those 11 points would have to take place?

[Nick]

I can accept that I have my fair share of one liners, but coming from you that's pretty laughable. What the fuck do you contribute beyond snarky one liners?

The topics fairly obvious, figure it out for yourself brainiac.

Edit: Re-edit!

[Boogahz]

I can accept that I have my fair share of one liners, but coming from you that's pretty laughable. What the fuck do you contribute beyond snarky one liners?

The topics fairly obvious, figure it out for yourself brainiac.

harhar!

I had no problem with the thread, and that is why I only quoted the one part. You act as if this discussion has never happened here. Do you not remember being called a troll for posting bullshit that knew nothing about? Go dig up the surge thread. You added nothing at all to that topic, which you created, beyond calling people idiots for not agreeing with you.

[Nick]

The assumption that I know nothing about the Iraq war really would only come from an American. I would have been calling them idiots for being idiots, the fact they disagreed with me was a secondary issue. Way to confuse basic logic.

[Boogahz]

The assumption that I know nothing about the Iraq war really would only come from an American. That's a tragic reality.

You apparently had no idea what the point of the surge was.


Again, I only had issue with the comment about the discussion seemingly not existing here.

In response to your actual question, in hindsight, no, I would not think it was worth it. IF I knew all of that would take place, I would have made several other plans. That's the main issue I have had with Iraq. The path was laid out before the borders were crossed. Very little has changed since then...but you know what they say about hindsight...right?

[Nick]

You apparently had no idea what the point of the surge was.

Um. no?

Thanks for answering the question though.

[Sueven]

Well, for the sake of this answer, let's say that the progress which has recently been occurring continues uninterrupted, and results in a stable democracy in 3-5 years, and it happens in a manner that leaves most Iraqis, Brits and Americans happy, and keeps the three nations on good terms.

1. Unilateral American/UK action that fractured international relations for virtually a decade (at best)

Doesn't bother me much. No wars have been fought and no serious enemies made over the issue. The chilled relations would begin to thaw with a clear success in Iraq.

2. International mistrust of America/UK

Mostly the same as the previous answer. A stable democracy in Iraq, in conjunction with a responsible administration in Washington, would make worlds of difference in restoring that trust. A serious, long-term lost of trust would be a cripplingly big deal.

3. Lies about WMD's which make a mockery of democracy in the USA and UK

Not something I'm happy about, but I don't think it's fair to say that they make a mockery of democracy in a manner in which democracy has not already made itself a mockery hundreds of times over.

4. Decision making by Tony Blair despite overwhelming public opposition to the Iraq invastion (possibly crippling the labour party in the next election (and the Republicans in theirs too).

I don't know enough UK politics to comment intelligently on how the changes in political coalitions as a result of the Iraq war have altered the political landscape, and whether that's a good or bad thing. In America, it's a good thing-- the failure of the Iraq war caused a shift in the direction of the Republican party, and considering how unadulteratedly awful it was when dominated by neocons and social conservatives, this is something to be happy about.

5. Increased numbers of anti-western fighters with more reasons to wage more attacks like the WTC disaster

This is kind of a short run / long run issue. If a stable democracy were to develop in Iraq, it's likely that the long term result would be fewer anti-Western fighters. I don't mind sacrificing short term security in exchange for an increase in long term peace.

6. Increased support for Al'Quaida worldwide

Same as previous answer. Al Qaeda's actions in Iraq constitute a serious gamble for them as well, one which could backfire. If Iraq were to turn into a stable democracy, I think it's fair to say that their strategy would have backfired and harmed them more than helped them.

7. 700,000 people killed (almost as many as Saddam himself).

Obviously a bad thing. It's difficult to tell how bad, exactly. Assuming the continued spread of globalization, Iraq would have been eventually forced to transition away from authoritarian rule. We don't know how that would have happened and how many deaths it would have involved. Obviously, 700k is a lot and there's a pretty decent chance that an organic change in form of government would have resulted in significantly less deaths, but it's not a guarantee.

8. Completely ignoring the fact that this selective invasion wouldn't have happened in Zimbabwe/North Korea, because lets face it, they dont have oil.

True, but I don't view it as particularly relevant to a judgment on Iraq (maybe in the meta-sense of 'it would have been more virtuous to invaded this other country which would have benefited more from the invasion').

9. Global cynicism of America's interpretation of "freedom", which is now virtually destroyed by hypocrisy.

Maybe to the extent that the rest of the world had a vastly inflated sense of America's moral superiority. Anyway, compare developments with respect to "freedom" in America in the last 6 years with concurrent developments in countries like Russia and Venezuela, and it becomes clear that painting this as an American issue is silly.

10. I'm talking a realistic Middle East "democracy", ie one like Iran's at best.

Oh. Well then never mind. You are aware that all elected officials in Iran answer to a group of clerics, chosen via religious dictates? It would be kind of like the U.S. government being forced to run everything past Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ted Haggard and Pope Benedict.

11. Decreased civil liberties at home (that's just another little one thats managed to be snuck in).

Another real problem, even though the restrictions are minimal. Their approval creates bits of precedent which could be manipulated to support additional, more serious incursions down the road.

So in conclusion: Using your 'like Iran' definition of 'stable democracy,' no. Using my sense of the best-case scenario that Iraq could achieve, yes (although I might change my mind if you could show me a compelling and well-supported thesis indicating that Iraq would have transitioned into globalization with significantly fewer deaths had they been left alone).

I don't think we'll reach my best case scenario though.

Can I at least get you to admit that the following statement:

The situation in Iraq is improving.

Is true?

[Nick]

Well, improving is a somewhat strong word to describe the situation in Iraq, yet there is evidence to suggest that the Iraqi people are turning against the insurgents (which is a good thing). "Pockets of less violence" is improvement I guess.

Also, despite it being the most disasterous year in American casualty terms, the last few months show military deaths, at least (debatably relevant) are decreasing.

That doesn't really justify the whole endeavour, as will be the hopes of some to try and prove.

Same as previous answer. Al Qaeda's actions in Iraq constitute a serious gamble for them as well, one which could backfire. If Iraq were to turn into a stable democracy, I think it's fair to say that their strategy would have backfired and harmed them more than helped them.

Definitely.

Mostly the same as the previous answer. A stable democracy in Iraq, in conjunction with a responsible administration in Washington, would make worlds of difference in restoring that trust. A serious, long-term lost of trust would be a cripplingly big deal.

I think you underestimate the the total loss of trust that has occurred.

Same as previous answer. Al Qaeda's actions in Iraq constitute a serious gamble for them as well, one which could backfire. If Iraq were to turn into a stable democracy, I think it's fair to say that their strategy would have backfired and harmed them more than helped them.

I doubt this. Given that most of the hatred for Americans doesn't come from inside Iraq, it comes from places like Saudi Arabia. Who won't give two thoughts to a stable Iraq, because they are already brainwashed enough to be hysterical zealots and will imagine the whole thing to remain corrupt (although in fairness, it probably would be so they can't necessarily be mocked for that single fact).

Maybe to the extent that the rest of the world had a vastly inflated sense of America's moral superiority. Anyway, compare developments with respect to "freedom" in America in the last 6 years with concurrent developments in countries like Russia and Venezuela, and it becomes clear that painting this as an American issue is silly.

You misunderstood my point (my bad, it was a one liner). No one is painting "freedom" as a solely American issue. America didn't invent Freedom. Obviously in comparison to places like Russia or Saudia Arabia (despite Chavez's lunacy I think Venezuela is a ridiculous example here when there are substantially worse examples). I'm talking about the soundbite of "Freedom", the recurring mantra of the US administration for the last 6 years. One which has proven to be hollow.

Oh. Well then never mind. You are aware that all elected officials in Iran answer to a group of clerics, chosen via religious dictates? It would be kind of like the U.S. government being forced to run everything past Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ted Haggard and Pope Benedict.

Yes, that was my point.

[Aslanna]

I wish I could come up with snarky one-liners.

[Boogahz]

I wish I could come up with snarky one-liners.

You need more Panda!

[Wulfran]

I'm not an American so I can't answer as one/for one.

My 2 cents is that in most ways the entire discussion is mostly moot. As Sueven suggested, if things in Iraq stabilize, then people will "get over" their feelings about the US. I don't think that it will be a quick process but the fact of the matter is, especially in the West, we have tremendously short memories when there is an economic advantage for us... and the US economy is the biggest at the ball and will be for some time. And our governments won't care about all the dead bodies that don't belong to them. Even the people of Iraq, should stability come and prosperity follow, will likely forgive the US and possibly thank them. Call me cynical but if you;re looking to suggest there will be long term ramifications for the US, I think they are mostly likely to be internal rather than external (i.e. the political fallout for the religious right in the US, confrontations between the courts/Dept of Homeland Security/Dept of Justice/etc over the constitutionality of some of the measures in place*, dealing with the long term treatment of the wounded and psychological casualties of the conflict, etc).

The big issue is how long it takes stability to come to Iraq and what form it takes. Given the increasing violence between the Kurds and the Turks, does the possibility of a 3 way division come more into play (as much as its been regarded as what The Powers least want to see) or not? I have a hard time believing the "Kurdish Dream" will come true, but how much will the world (but mostly the Coalition and NATO) accept from/allow Turkey in their clash with the Kurds who are straddling the Turko-Iraqi border?


*my impression that the most of the "constitutionally questionable" actions such as the wire taps and PATRIOT Act were more in response to 9/11 and potential additional/follow up attacks than on the Iraq conflict