Consequences of a failure in Iraq

[Haezed]

With political and media pressure mounting to pull out in the near term, I think we should discuss what the world will look like after we fail.

 

The question was put to John Edwards last Sunday as to whether genocide would result from a US pull out and I thought Edwards didn't really have an answer. He was also asked why some want to put troops into Darfur to stop genocide but not leave troops in Iraq to prevent genocide.

 

Let's assume that Iraq is a losing cause and we're going to fail miserably. What does that future hold?

[Pangloss]

Yeah I watched that interview and I thought it was a pretty astute question, and it thoroughly caught him off guard. So much so that it got me wondering if Stephanopoulos has it in for Edwards. Not that his branch of the Democratic party is any better, but at least his former employer voted for putting actions behind words.

 

Where we'll be is that we'll have created the second Shi'a state. But the Sunnis won't let it go at that. I think it could become a major battleground in a larger Sunni-Shi'a conflict.

 

Hm. I wonder why Israel isn't pressing us to pull out immediately.

[foodchain]

Yeah I watched that interview and I thought it was a pretty astute question, and it thoroughly caught him off guard. So much so that it got me wondering if Stephanopoulos has it in for Edwards. Not that his branch of the Democratic party is any better, but at least his former employer voted for putting actions behind words.

 

Where we'll be is that we'll have created the second Shi'a state. But the Sunnis won't let it go at that. I think it could become a major battleground in a larger Sunni-Shi'a conflict.

 

Hm. I wonder why Israel isn't pressing us to pull out immediately.

 

 

I don’t really give that much credit to the question. I personally find it more of a product of partisan sniping then anything positive. I mean the last round of elections the democrats took major wins simply on the note of changing the situation in Iraq, with a level of presidential approval I think the lowest in history along with a U.S populous that has not faith in the conflict at all really. I know most Americans don’t support a hasty withdraw, but from where I sit we never really went in with enough with any real plan to make victory possible in the first place. So for what its worth its really pull out now and deal with the future, or pull out that much later and deal with the same.

 

My money is on the reality that our next president will most likely be voted in simply by saying he or she will bring the troops home, or at least I hope so.

[Haezed]

Yeah I watched that interview and I thought it was a pretty astute question, and it thoroughly caught him off guard. So much so that it got me wondering if Stephanopoulos has it in for Edwards. Not that his branch of the Democratic party is any better, but at least his former employer voted for putting actions behind words.

 

Where we'll be is that we'll have created the second Shi'a state. But the Sunnis won't let it go at that. I think it could become a major battleground in a larger Sunni-Shi'a conflict.

 

Hm. I wonder why Israel isn't pressing us to pull out immediately.

 

I thought Stephanopoulos tore Edwards into fluffy little pieces in that interview. I don't think there was personal animus but I do think Stephanopoulos showed Edwards is a lightweight.

 

I agree the question was incredibly astute. If you accept the democratic premise that we screwed up by going into Iraq, and that a civil war has resulted, it's not a far step to say that genocide could occur if we leave. Is that a morally defensible position? Are we now compelled to take fix the mess we caused (if you accept the democratic premise)?

[Haezed]

I don’t really give that much credit to the question.

 

Why not? Why wouldn't the Shia exact terrible revenge if we left?

 

I personally find it more of a product of partisan sniping then anything positive.

 

Stephanopoulos is hardly partisan.

[foodchain]

Why not? Why wouldn't the Shia exact terrible revenge if we left?

 

 

 

Stephanopoulos is hardly partisan.

 

Before you go off on some tangent, I am in the national guard and have been on deployment. I have had the luxury of dealing with fight or flight and all that good stuff, even got little metals on my 214. Now with that said, I think the real problem is the choices bush made. The question could have easily have been the one of what if we stay.

 

Its been four years of the same, we don’t have enough people for the mission. Shinseki put it at over 400,000 boots on the ground and then left when bush gave the go ahead at a far smaller number. Say what you want, but nothing is going to change in Iraq, the country is slowing being eroded into nothing but death for everyone involved.

 

Everyday it’s the same, more troops killed, more civilians killed, Iraq burns more into chaos. Politicians say a lot of things, but just look past your political bias at the reality on the ground. The democrats are folding like dried out twigs really, and the bush admin has become something of a tyrant monster giving the middle finger to the American people. The reality of Iraq to me is nothing but bad news we are going to have to face, unless you favor a draft, and even then I don’t see anything positive.

[Pangloss]

I don’t really give that much credit to the question. I personally find it more of a product of partisan sniping then anything positive. I mean the last round of elections the democrats took major wins simply on the note of changing the situation in Iraq, with a level of presidential approval I think the lowest in history along with a U.S populous that has not faith in the conflict at all really. I know most Americans don’t support a hasty withdraw, but from where I sit we never really went in with enough with any real plan to make victory possible in the first place. So for what its worth its really pull out now and deal with the future, or pull out that much later and deal with the same.

 

My money is on the reality that our next president will most likely be voted in simply by saying he or she will bring the troops home, or at least I hope so.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. George Stephanopoulos worked for President Clinton and can hardly be seen as a partisan for Republicans.

 

Anyway, in saying that you "don't give much credit to the question", you seem to be suggesting that we should just ignore a very obvious potential development in Iraq after we depart, just so we can "bring the troops home".

 

How's that approach working out for Darfur?

[Haezed]

Before you go off on some tangent,[/qoute]

 

What tangent? The OP was to discuss the consequences of failure, something those who want to leave in short order do not want to discuss.

 

I am in the national guard and have been on deployment. I have had the luxury of dealing with fight or flight and all that good stuff, even got little metals on my 214.

 

I honor your service. My uncle flew bombers over germany. My dad served in the Korean war. I grew up in a generation that did not have such choices to make yet I deeply sincerely honor their service. My father died last Sunday and I was privileged to give a portion of the Eulogy along with my brother and my mother was presented with the flag which made chills run down my spine.

 

 

Now with that said, I think the real problem is the choices bush made. The question could have easily have been the one of what if we stay.

 

Yes, that has been discussed ad nauseum. The OP was asking the other question for a change.

 

Its been four years of the same, we don’t have enough people for the mission. Shinseki put it at over 400,000 boots on the ground and then left when bush gave the go ahead at a far smaller number. Say what you want, but nothing is going to change in Iraq, the country is slowing being eroded into nothing but death for everyone involved.

 

You are not responsive to the OP. I understand this position and you could be right.

 

Everyday it’s the same, more troops killed, more civilians killed, Iraq burns more into chaos. Politicians say a lot of things, but just look past your political bias at the reality on the ground. The democrats are folding like dried out twigs really, and the bush admin has become something of a tyrant monster giving the middle finger to the American people.

 

Now are you questioning Bush's patriotism?

 

The reality of Iraq to me is nothing but bad news we are going to have to face, unless you favor a draft, and even then I don’t see anything positive.

 

I see a lot of conclusions here without analysis and no real discussion of the OP.

[jackson33]

Foodchain; i also respect the fact you volunteered to serve in the US Military.

you, your fellow guardsmen/women, all the elected officials, appointees to office, the VP and the President of the US have taken an oath. no where in that oath is a choice given and there are direct implications to a chain in command. likewise there is a procedure to follow to complain or make accusations opposing your leaders. i do sincerely hope your words are not in fear of personal harm, because my son or daughter may need your assistance in the future.

 

as for getting out of Iraq; when the government of Iraq is stable, either from the perspective of the Iraq government or the field commanders we will leave the country, in a slow meticulous way. as in Korea, Japan, Germany, France or a number of places assistance was needed to stabilize we did so w/o a time limit.

 

the reason we are in Iraq, is called a *War on Terror*. i prefer calling it a war on Islamic Extremist, but the fact is whatever its called its not over. we help in the stabilization of many countries in the area and by treaty would be obligated to come to their defense. to pull out for any reason, your opinion or that of most of the Democratic lead Congress and allow the AREA to become unstable is not an option.

 

like it or not, the American people, do not want defeat. we are a little to bright and understand the problems which exist have to be addressed. if posed with the question, (would you like to see our troops come home?), which is the question offered, yes they would like that just as i would, but when the job is done. i do hope the final two or three that make the November 07, election do state their exact intent if elected. no questionable well this or that but the exact intent and based on exact meanings.

[ecoli]

Hm. I wonder why Israel isn't pressing us to pull out immediately.

 

I'm assuming you're saying this, because if the Sunni's and Shiites are fighting each other, they'll have less time to kill Jews.

 

Assuming this premise is correct, and even though it makes tactical sense, I don't think Israel would (publicly) take that position... perhaps on ethical grounds. Or at least because it would probably give them bad press abroad.

 

I'd personally be more interested in our Turkey would fit into the picture. The secularists are trying to keep control of the government and gain access into the EU, but in the event of war, I wonder if many of them would switch over. Not versed enough in Turkish politics to say, though.

[Pangloss]

It was really more of a joke. I think Israel benefits from stablity in the Middle East more than turmoil.

 

Yes, I think Turkey is always an interesting question.

[john5746]

Let's assume that Iraq is a losing cause and we're going to fail miserably. What does that future hold?

 

1) Surrounding countries get involved and the whole middle east goes up in flames.

 

OR

 

2) After the infidels leave, Al-Queda "follows them home" and the sunnis and shia throw a party, blaming all their problems on the Americans.

 

We assume to know what is going to happen, but I think we have less of an idea than we did about WMD.

 

We gave them freedom and made sure they didn't have WMD's. We got them on the way to an elected government and trained some military, police, etc. I don't think we have a moral imperitive to make sure Iraq is a great country. It is in our interests that they become a stable country and hopefully a friend. They must resolve their problems as a country. We can stay on the borders and keep them secure from invasion, but we cannot resolve their family feud.

 

Could it be that our staying there is making the unacceptance of the government? Is that possible? You see how Americans are pissed about illegal mexicans coming into the US and some of them commiting crimes. Could you imagine if their military were here, helping our government? Would we accept them or pull out our guns?

[ecoli]

Could it be that our staying there is making the unacceptance of the government? Is that possible? You see how Americans are pissed about illegal mexicans coming into the US and some of them commiting crimes. Could you imagine if their military were here, helping our government? Would we accept them or pull out our guns?

 

That's hardly the same thing.

[Sisyphus]

I suppose you would have to ask what the effect the continued presence of the American military actually has. Are we really preventing civil war, or just helping to arm various factions within it? Are we suppressing terrorism, or acting as a magnet for it? We have captured or killed thousands and thousands of enemies of many different organizations and ranks, but do the attacks diminish? Is the "insurgency" in its "last throes," or is there even an end in sight?

 

Is Darfur a helpful analogy, wherein one group has the will and power to slaughter another if there's no one (presumably us) there to stop them? If that's true, then that implies the new puppet regime lacks the will and/or the power to prevent genocide in their own country. What is the significance of that? Are they simply incompetent, or are their motives suspect and contradictory, their commitment far less than our enemies? If so, would Vietnam be a better analogy?

 

Can anyone who's been following this for the past four years even straight-facedly claim to know what a "failure" would actually be?

[Haezed]

I suppose you would have to ask what the effect the continued presence of the American military actually has. Are we really preventing civil war, or just helping to arm various factions within it? Are we suppressing terrorism, or acting as a magnet for it? We have captured or killed thousands and thousands of enemies of many different organizations and ranks, but do the attacks diminish? Is the "insurgency" in its "last throes," or is there even an end in sight?

 

I believe it has a stabilizing influence. The former. The former again. No. I don't know.

 

Is Darfur a helpful analogy, wherein one group has the will and power to slaughter another if there's no one (presumably us) there to stop them?

 

It is a helpful analogy if the result of failure is genocide. I don't think the exact nature of the power balance will make too much difference if we exit and the Sunnis are slaughtered en masse.

 

If that's true, then that implies the new puppet regime lacks the will and/or the power to prevent genocide in their own country.

 

No, I'm asking what if we leave Iraq to its own devices and it implodes. In that event, it would not be a puppet regime.

 

What is the significance of that? Are they simply incompetent, or are their motives suspect and contradictory, their commitment far less than our enemies?

 

Or could the simple fact that the Sunnis are outnumbered yet oppressed all others in this country for years lead to a blood bath?

 

If so, would Vietnam be a better analogy?

 

No, millions lost any chance for freedom in Vietnam after we left but there was no genocide.

 

Can anyone who's been following this for the past four years even straight-facedly claim to know what a "failure" would actually be?

 

Yes, pretty easily, to name a couple of examples:

 

Failure would be a real civil war, all out and fought to a conclusion to where one side had complete dominance over the other and exacted genocidal revenge.

 

Failure would be for the surviving entity(ies) to provide safe haven to terrorist groups to cook up WMDs and distribute them to proxies for use in the US.

[jackson33]

Iraq, in short is a secondary issue to the area. disregard stability and you still have Iran, which would enjoy an influence over Iraq. my concern is not to the leaders of either, but the real influence, the clergy of the extreme elements. currently in Iraq they are losing influence, don't like it and aiding far beyond credit given. i would almost say the heads of a couple nations and all the extreme groups, check with this clergy, not the political leader, before doing anything....

 

then i have to mention Israel; they are going to pre-empt anything that threatens there security. with the failure in Lebanon, i worry that they may not succeed with all Iran can and will provide others today. this scenario leads to total disruption of oil supplies and the chain reaction to the economy and a real war. Iraq is an interest, but not cause for our efforts, in total.

 

it must be hard to understand, since in the US, we do have at least some separation of church and state. the heads of the a few major religious groups can influence their flocks, even some can threaten industry (Sharpton), but the checks and balance system is still working and our destiny or notion of an afterlife does not require bad deads....

[bascule]

CNN recently reported on this very subject:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html

 

Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.

 

Clearly those advocating withdrawal don't want these things to happen. They see the long term consequences of remaining indefinitely as being less desirable.

 

Perhaps "damned if you do, damned if you don't" is the best way to summarize the situation

 

Or this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

 

I believe those who advocate continued presence in Iraq are falling victim to the "sunk cost" fallacy, which essentially says we should continue investing in our presence there because we have already invested so much already. Leaving now would be a waste and would plunge the country into chaos. We should continue investing in our presence there in order to see a stable democracy realized, one which is capable of quelling insurgency on its own.

 

Those advocating withdrawal no longer see this as a realistic goal. It's no different than business: If you can lure investors with a promised outcome, and fail to achieve that outcome, should they continue investing in you until that outcome is realized, or simply cut off funding and take the loss?

 

Clearly withdrawal represents a dramatic loss not only economically but in terms of human lives. Nevertheless, we must question if this loss is inevitable or if the afforementioned goal is achievable.

 

I think the general outlook among those advocating withdrawal is that the situation is NOT progressive. Things have not improved. They have gotten worse over time. We're now refereeing a civil war. We're engulfed in a military occupation. Is this really a worthwhile use of American lives and money? In 20/20 hindsight, is our continued investment worthwhile?

[Sisyphus]

 

No, I'm asking what if we leave Iraq to its own devices and it implodes. In that event, it would not be a puppet regime.

 

No, millions lost any chance for freedom in Vietnam after we left but there was no genocide.

 

I'm not necessarily disputing that it would "implode," I'm just asking what the significance of that fact, if true, would be. If the "Iraqi government" is completely unable or unwilling to control the violence on its own, then what does that mean? If the guys we're trying desperately to support are weaker than the guys we're trying desperately to wipe out, what does that mean? I was suggesting Vietnam as an analogy inasmuch as it was a situation in which we threw in our lot with an uncommited and corrupt faction against a more passionate and numerous adversary. In that situation, victory is impossible, even if you win every battle. Is it exactly the same? No. Is it useless as an analogy? No.

[Haezed]

I'm not necessarily disputing that it would "implode," I'm just asking what the significance of that fact, if true, would be.

 

Potentially, genocide. Compare and contrast that to the status quo as bad as it is, or the Saddam regime, as horrendous as that was.

 

If the "Iraqi government" is completely unable or unwilling to control the violence on its own, then what does that mean?

 

Control "the violence." There are degrees or horrible and what was being suggested by George to John was that what could come would be a human tragedy of genocidal proportions.

 

If the guys we're trying desperately to support are weaker than the guys we're trying desperately to wipe out, what does that mean?

 

I don't know if the guys we support are weaker. It's simply easier to tear down than it is to build up. That's the nature of reality. It may take 2-5 years (i really don't know) to build the WTC, and a little bit of resources and a willingness to die will tear them down. That's what we are seeing in Iraq BUT it is different completely from the scenario we are discussing.

 

I was suggesting Vietnam as an analogy inasmuch as it was a situation in which we threw in our lot with an uncommited and corrupt faction against a more passionate and numerous adversary.

 

I see no evidence of that at all. We threw ourselves against ultimate corrpution and evil and we are fighting imported forces and some insurgents and sectarian violence whipped up by all of the above. The vast majority of Iraqis made their way to the polls and want this to work.

 

The only real analogy to Vietnam is that we are suffering without a real end in sight.

 

In that situation, victory is impossible, even if you win every battle. Is it exactly the same? No. Is it useless as an analogy? No.

 

It's a very weak analogy. For one thing, there was a stable regime before we went in. It was a despicable horrendous regime but it was stable. I think we have some responsibility to give this time and 4 years is miniscule in the sweep of history.

 

The Vietnam analogy is also tricky because it will lead us into a quicksand debate as to what really caused us to lose that war. See, e.g. the Tet offensive.

[Realitycheck]

With political and media pressure mounting to pull out in the near term, I think we should discuss what the world will look like after we fail.

 

The question was put to John Edwards last Sunday as to whether genocide would result from a US pull out and I thought Edwards didn't really have an answer. He was also asked why some want to put troops into Darfur to stop genocide but not leave troops in Iraq to prevent genocide.

 

Let's assume that Iraq is a losing cause and we're going to fail miserably. What does that future hold?

 

Since Zarqawi started this new front for Al Qaeda, it is tough to say what would happen. I would like to believe that Al Qaeda would let off, but there is no guarantee that the fire would be quenched. Al Qaeda is not exactly leadership material. Granted, there has been lots of meaningless strife between Sunnis and Shias, what does Al Qaeda really have to gain by warring with the Shias? Have they ever shown to be megalomaniacal about dominating the whole Islamic world? No, their primary platform throughout their entire existence has been about Americans and Zionism and terrorizing embassies. I don't think they were ever a real anti-Shia force until Zarkawi in Iraq. This was just a diversion for them. Lately, it seems that Al Qaeda in Iraq might be losing its foothold on the Sunnis that they were controlling, which is a promising sign, but who really knows for sure? It only takes one person to drive a car bomb and kill 50 people. How long did it take for the Israelis to start figuring out were the bomb factories were? A long time. If Iran could act as a savior for Iraq, I would say let it happen, though I am also thinking that Saudi Arabia won't let it, too many Sunni factions wouldn't let it. It really sounds like more of a stalemate than anything. What does it take to get Sunnis and Shias to lay down their arms? A simple change of Islamic law?

 

And everybody will blame one person, for getting all vengeful about Hussein's death threats against his father, for making up imaginary excuses to go into Iraq, for labelling nations as evil (even though our differences with North Korea officially probably could be worked out diplomatically and were), for even contemplating that it was even achievable in the first place. How many times do you see suicidal religious fanatics bow down in submission?

[CDarwin]

The only way to prevent a civil war is to get the Iraqi government serviceable.

[Realitycheck]

... or to get the natives to stand up against Al Qaeda. Finally got ahold of some good press. The Sunnis really don't want to be all divisive now, do they? Kind of interesting that this shows up right after Iran and the U.S. start talking.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070601/wl_afp/iraq

[bascule]

So I'm quite curious, no one has responded to the question of if our continued investment is worthwhile, or if our only reason for staying there is the sunk cost fallacy.

 

This is a very basic question regarding any investment. Failing to consider it does not make for a wise investment strategy.

 

Can anyone defend the idea that our sunk cost will equate with a desirable outcome, and place it in terms beyond the vague hypotheticals offered by the Bush Administration?

 

My position would be that we are wasting American lives, money, and time.

[abskebabs]

... or to get the natives to stand up against Al Qaeda. Finally got ahold of some good press. The Sunnis really don't want to be all divisive now, do they? Kind of interesting that this shows up right after Iran and the U.S. start talking.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070601/wl_afp/iraq

I assume you are talking about what has been happenning in the Anbar province recently. I agree developments there have been positive, casualties have dropped in the past few months, but the reasons for the change of heart of the sheiks who effectively govern this area may not be for entirely benevolent reasons.

 

I think that the dispute that tribal sheiks who originally supported Al quaeda and the general insurgency may have initially changed heart after Al Quaeda started targeting them too in order to consolidate its control over the Sunni province. Inevitably this provoked a backclash. Also with Al quaeda out of the picture, the tribals have an effective monoploly on smuggling rackets that go to Syria and Jordan.

 

I guess with the situation the way it is they are much preferable to what was happenning before, even if they exert a kind of mafia control on throughout this region, at least there will be greater stabillity. As for this being a galvanising force for other Sunni areas, I'm not so sure. They have already been labelled as "a band of thieves and bandits" by the influential association of muslim scholars, so support on that front may not be coming.

 

I guess actually in a way this kind of exposes the ginorance the US always had for these kind of local leaders and their job in helping provide law and order to the regions they governed and influenced. I think even under Saddam's regime they played a much larger role in governance.

 

Also to answer Bascule's question on whether the current engagement is worthwile, I would say no, and it will not become so unless possibly heavily modified and a new strategy is well thought out and executed. Petraeus strategy I think is an ok one, and he certainly succeeded in the places he was assigned during previous tours in Iraq under more helpful circumstances(aka using the clear and hold strategy). I remember reading about him actualy back in 2004, I think he was stationed in a western province at the time.

 

But I don't think his strategy will work with the current No of troops on the ground, and I don't think the current Iraqi security forces and even large sections of the iraqi government, regardless of its sovereignty, can be currently relied on to look after its citizens as it clearly has sectarian leaders among its ranks. Large and wholesale change would be required, there would need to be wholescale reform of the Iraqi police and even army to a certain extent. Perhaps the justice department would be better suited to helping train the police as opposed to the army? Also for the state of Iraq to survive a lot of effort needs to be taken so that it becomes and stays secular, though I am not sure how this could now be achieved.

 

The current investment is not worthwhile, but perhaps if the right amount of resources were provided, and a sufficient amount of realistic and stategic and forward planing was employed, then positive results could be produced. A serious deal needs to be done with Iran, perhaps a backroom one to avoid either side losing face, in order to cooerce and incentivise them to stop meddling in Iraq. They Syrians too, regardless of what other grievances America has with them need to be seriously engaged on the question of border security, and the hand of cooperation needs to be extended to them.

 

I guess change has to come from within for a lot of this to happen, the Iraqi ppl have to make a decisive shift from their current sectarian politics that will just lead them to endless bloodletting. But I guess then again its a case of catch 22.

 

The current security climate is pathetic, so the remaining populace rely on tribal, ethnic or religious leaders for protection, contributing to the sectarian divide. In turn these types of groups gain more power, making the problem get worse. The more educated and secular part to Iraq, including its intelligentsia and some of its most potentially valuable citizens have in the process been killed, coerced into silence, and many more have fled the country, maybe to never return.

 

I guess basically in my opinion half mesures will not work, and if America wants to have one last try or "surge" to stabillise Iraq it needs to commit itself wholeheartedly, intelligently, and on many different levels. Progress needs to be continually managed and bottlenecks identified and dealt with. Basically more of what is happenning to an extent already. I can understand though with the war having become so unpopular, why this probably will not happen.

 

I guess if this is not done, then there is basically not much reason to remain in Iraq, after all genocide and civil war is only being delayed, not stopped. I think things will become very messy in this case, as even now Iraq still contains quite a mixed population. I guess America would then be burdened with a humiliating failure, and Al queda will readily toast its victory, and its supporters will be overwhelmingly emboldened. The consequences would be drastic, but the status quo is disasterous too, and I don't think the merican public will stand it much longer.

 

I have to say these consequences are already starting to seem quite scary. Iraq war Al queda veterans will be much more numerous and much more dangerous than the Afghan war ones ever were. In fact we are already starting to see this in Lebanon. They have been able to put up a pretty damn good fight against the Lebanse army considering how few their numbers are.

 

Going through this, its amazing to think how badly this entire debacle has been managed, and how now, in the effective midnight hours viale stategies are being discussed.

[Realitycheck]

I believe that our primary purpose for staying there was twofold. One, Bush felt responsible to stay the course, since he instigated the process. The Saudi king told him that it was his responsibility to fix the mess. Secondly, this was a good avenue for him to kill as many terrorists as possible, a major part of his platform on the war on terror. After all, this was a war. Will this have any effect on diminishing future acts of terrorism, in general? Now that we are on "war footing", I think it is a lot harder for that to happen to us. However, this has detracted us from our true objective.

 

Of course, it was a huge waste of money, time, and lives. They never wanted us over there in the first place. Was it worth it? We spend a trillion dollars for what? To kill a few terrorists, put the fear of the Devil in a few more, and adjust the oil prices upwards to inflation-adjusted norms. The world is full of things that need to be fixed. Why not just send a check for $4,000 to every single American?

 

What would have happened if we would have left Iraq alone? Hussein would have died sooner or later, which would have brought about some change (I think Q-sei would have made a better leader.), the oil markets never would have been disturbed so violently, and we would have possibly nabbed Bin Laden.

 

It is really irrelevant to try and say that our sunk cost will ever equate with a desirable outcome. It is sunk. This cost was mostly irrelevant to our objectives. This was charity work, and continues to be. However, the single determining factor that will dictate whether anything good came out of this is what happens in the future.

 

Basher Assad said, "We can never let this happen again."

Hamas leader said, "Israel is a reality."

The U.S. is talking to Iran again.

 

The pieces are there, but it all depends on what happens in the future. Everything is very fragile and largely subject to chaotic, vengeful people. This employer I had for a short time who was a Palestinian and was later connected with Hamas financiers once told me, "There will never be peace."