Consequences of a failure in Iraq

[Realitycheck]

After reading abskebabs's post, everthing looks much more dismal. I keep seeing this theme over and over, "If we put more people in there, if we put more people in there, this is the United States' police state ...". (Sigh.)

[Pangloss]

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.

 

Well I've posted this before, but I guess there's no harm in repeating. I think Iraq has been a done deal since the November elections. The fat lady sang. We've crossed the Rubicon. Had our Waterloo. Well into extra innings. Insert your metaphor here. This space intentionally left blank.

 

Wups, where was I. Oh yeah. There was an interesting report making the rounds today from ABC News that said... well let me post a quote:

 

U.S. officials told ABC News that the troop levels in Iraq cannot be maintained at the present level, either politically or practically, with the military stretched so thin.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/IraqCoverage/story?id=3236822&page=1

 

Doesn't mean they're coming home right away, and we could still in theory field a small force for many years to come, at least in terms of the numbers problem. But it does put things into perspective. The Bush administration has refused to give timetables, and yet here are its top military people saying that it's time to start packing.

[foodchain]

We cannot define the enemy. That defines a degree of freedom for them and an intelligence avenue. OMG, its hard to think huh.

[armygas]

even though our differences with North Korea officially probably could be worked out diplomatically and were

 

Just be advised, the reason North Korea is so dangerous is because Kim Jong-il has stated on many occasions that he will fire a nuclear weapon on South Korea at some point before his death. We are in a pact with South Korea to the point that any attack on their soil is an attack on the U.S.

 

 

Also, I have been to Iraq twice. Should we have went.....who knows but we are there now and leaving would create instability that would have to be dealt with by force by our children. I would rather finish it now than to have that happen. It will take awhile longer to ensure a solid stable Iraq but I am willing to continue to serve in that capacity so my children won't have to worry.

[Haezed]

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.

 

To answer your question first requires answering the OP. We know things are bad now. That's easy and hardly worth repeating.

 

The question is how bad things could get if we leave. This question has nothing to do with sunk costs.

 

If anything, it is the war's detractors who are fixated on sunk costs as they keep a running total of the cost in blood and coin.

 

Your point reveals that this is a red herring. The question is (i) what are the future costs and (ii) what are the future "benefits."

 

Possible benefits might be preventing (i) genocide, (ii) safe haven to terrorist groups and (iii) allowing Iran to become a Middle Eastern superpower.

 

What I see is an endless discussion of the "sunk" costs on the media without much discussion of future costs and benefits.

[Physia]

Pullout is not an option, so there's no need to worry.

 

The leaders know why they went to Iraq and why they won't get out of it. There are reasons that can't be told to people; the reasons they gave are just media talk.

 

Debating by if's about the pullout from Iraq, the consequences are horrible. It is evident that the Sunnites and the Shiites are going back to their old days of constant conflict. However, that will also spread around the Middle Eastern region, and possibly around Africa and the east.

 

Our mission in the Middle East is not yet completed. Unless it is, there's no pullout.

[Pangloss]

Don't mess our pretty little heads over it?

[abskebabs]

There are reasons that can't be told to people; the reasons they gave are just media talk.

Even if so, this would be at best patronising and disingenous, and at worst downright manipulative, I guess the lines of morals are probably pretty blurred for a lot of politicians anyway...

 

Even if this were the case, I would have liked to think that if there really was a much more sophisticated goal behind the attacks and occupation of Iraq, the policiy would have been implemented in a much more thoughtful and carefully considered way. Don't you think so? Or perhaps I and most of the world has been expecting too much of governmental forward planning and management skills...

 

Who knows, perhaps one day you will be able to say the word bureacracy without inadvertently synonmising inefficiencey, incompentency and corruption?

[lucaspa]

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.

 

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

 

Very bad. BUT, the terrible consequences are not going to stop the failure nor can they be used to keep troops in Iraq.

 

We have two separate issues:

1. Whether we can succeed in Iraq.

2. The consequences if we fail.

 

I don't see how we can succeed in Iraq. Nothing our brave and dedicated people in the military can do will stop the failure. The failure is one at the NCA who ordered the invasion in the first place.

 

At some point you have to decide not to reinforce and continue failure. There are some battles that simply can't be won and you have to quit and face the consequences.

[armygas]

There are some battles that simply can't be won and you have to quit and face the consequences.

 

If we don't win this battle, our children (not us) will face the consequences. As a parent I will fight like hell to keep that from happening.

[geoguy]

Americans lost the Iraq war the day they invaded. The only issue is, as it was in Vietnam, how to get out without their tails between the legs.

 

 

Do you get out after 4,000 deaths? 5,000 deaths? Another trillion spent? The farce has gone on longer than it took to defeat the Japanese empire in WW2. The stupid morons don't even know who the so-called 'enemy' is after 4 years in Iraqinam. The goal now is no more than establishing 'stability' under a whacky fundy regime allied to Tehran. American soldiers kicking down doors in Baghdad and terrorizing the population because they don't have a clue what else to do. Pathetic.

 

The USA lost. Get out. Those still with some polyanish hope of 'victory' can go back to eating ther Freedon Fries and hoping for a slice of Yellow Cake for dessert.

 

The most despised man in the world is George W. Moron Bush The guy who should be wearing the white hat is a lying, torture-condoning murderer.

[geoguy]

Mr Freedom Fries

[Realitycheck]

Let's all face it. A Democrat will be elected president (or possibly a Republican who agrees on leaving) and we will finally leave a war, a war that was going on long before we ever entered the fray (and not a moment sooner, because we are a responsible President). Al-Qaeda could have stirred the flames a long time ago to make themselves another training ground, but no, they waited until we started interfering, just like when the Soviets went into Afghanistan, and the U.S. went into Afghanistan, am I right or am I right? (Don't get me wrong, Al-Qaeda needed to be dealt with.) There comes a point where the people start seeing the light and just are not going to put up with stupid *******t, where they are being fed like a baby and crying, "... but I don't really want to fight, it's too much work, it's too dangerous, it's the American's fault, they are my brothers, yadda, yadda, yadda. Look at these fools (hahahaaa!). I wonder if they will ever get a clue! The longer they are here, the more Al-Qaeda gets to pick them off, one at a time. When the time comes, then we will fight and show these Americans how to deal with Al-Qaeda, praise be to Allah. Until then, the Americans can keep pretending to be policemen and we keep getting more free meals and play golf on Fridays. Notice how only the policemen get bombed, our policemen AND the American policemen. If they were enforcing sharia, then there would be no war. Allalu akbar!"

[geoguy]

There comes a point where the people start seeing the light and just are not going to put up with stupid *******t, where they are being fed like a baby and crying, "... but I don't really want to fight, it's too much work, it's too dangerous, it's the American's fault, they are my brothers, yadda, yadda, yadda. Look at these fools (hahahaaa!). I wonder if they will ever get a clue!"

 

Fortunately most Americans do finally have a clue...they finally know that it was idiotic to all chant 'Rah, Rah, Rah' it's off to war we go. We are right and they are wrong. Good vs Evil. With us or against us. Axis of Evil. It's akin to a Shakespearean tragedy....Americans are are victims of their own hubris.

 

Iraqis are Iraqis. The same people they were when the USA was chomping at the bit to 'nation build'. But nope. Americans wouldn't listen. Even lied to the UN and the world. Faked evidence. Father knows best. White man's burden. Save the savages from themselves. Freedom and democracy.

 

'Gee, let's go play in the quick sand'

 

Now the Iraqis won't pick up the ball and co-operate? What idiot ever thought they would do otherwise? It's friggin Mesopotamia...what part of the last 8,000 years did the American not get? Invade and occupy a people and then act 'gosh gee' they don't like us.

[Pangloss]

Amusing to see the ABB (anybody but bush) philosophy still alive and kicking. You'd think the left would have grown up by now. But I guess the right never got over Clinton, so it was probably too much to expect.

[bascule]

Pullout is not an option, so there's no need to worry.

 

Yes, there's this alternative called "phased withdrawal"

 

The leaders know why they went to Iraq

 

Misinformation?

 

and why they won't get out of it.

 

Stubbornness?

 

There are reasons that can't be told to people; the reasons they gave are just media talk.

 

Withdrawal would be an admission that the experiment was a failure. They're keeping our soldiers there to save face.

 

Debating by if's about the pullout from Iraq, the consequences are horrible.

 

Yes, the consequences are horrible. However, given present trends they're also inevitable. The future holds a progressively worsening situation in a country which is growing increasingly hostile to our presence in the region. It can either be bad now or worse later.

 

It is evident that the Sunnites and the Shiites are going back to their old days of constant conflict. However, that will also spread around the Middle Eastern region, and possibly around Africa and the east.

 

I've heard the "civil war will spread throughout the region" argument trotted out by the same talking heads who say they'll follow us home.

 

Our mission in the Middle East is not yet completed. Unless it is, there's no pullout.

 

To what end? What are we trying to accomplish there, and how long will it take?

 

What's the reasoning behind an indefinite commitment towards what after four years has been revealed to be an apparently insurmountable goal?

 

What justifies the cost? The lives lost, both American and Iraqi? The tanking value of the US dollar in the international market? A nearly $9 trillion debt?

[ecoli]

I've heard the "civil war will spread throughout the region" argument trotted out by the same talking heads who say they'll follow us home.

 

That doesn't mean it won't happen...

[geoguy]

That doesn't mean it won't happen...

 

Stop the occupation today and it will happen Stop the occupation in 5 years and it will happen. Just a matter of when the invaders leave. Why this American need to protect thug regimes and women-haters in the Saudi royal mafia? The Bush monkey when introducing the Saudi leader: ' I'm pleased to welcome our good friend'.

[Haezed]

Very bad.

 

Care to elaborate since that was the question, kind of sort of, posed by the OP that very few want to consider?

 

BUT,

 

I've just got to laugh. It took you three words to skip past the question.

 

....the terrible consequences are not going to stop the failure nor can they be used to keep troops in Iraq.

 

I don't understand this sentence.

 

We have two separate issues:

1. Whether we can succeed in Iraq.

2. The consequences if we fail.

 

I see those as the flip side of the same coin although failure can come in many forms and degrees.

 

I don't see how we can succeed in Iraq. Nothing our brave and dedicated people in the military can do will stop the failure. The failure is one at the NCA who ordered the invasion in the first place.

 

And failure means... what? Oh, right, you wouldn't say.

At some point you have to decide not to reinforce and continue failure. There are some battles that simply can't be won and you have to quit and face the consequences.

 

Lots of words. No answer.

[Pangloss]

I still think the order to withdraw will come by the end of this year.

[Haezed]

I still think the order to withdraw will come by the end of this year.

 

Perhaps. The question is, what then?

[geoguy]

Perhaps. The question is, what then?

 

Bush and Cheney have the answer. Ask them to explain the 'what then' by staying another 3, 5 or 15 years. Surely the Americans thought this through when they were chomping at the bit to occupy Iraq.

 

Just a question of training the Iraqi security forces. Perhaps they can use Lebanon or Palestine as a model....Hamas and Hezbolla...democracy at it's finest in the Arab world.

[Haezed]

Bush and Cheney have the answer. Ask them to explain the 'what then' by staying another 3, 5 or 15 years. Surely the Americans thought this through when they were chomping at the bit to occupy Iraq.

 

Well, that's great, but shoving blame on this administration isn't going to be too fun after the next election. It's not a greatly productive exercise even now but if it gives you pleasure....

[Realitycheck]

Perhaps. The question is, what then?

 

There comes a point when people just have to stand on their own feet, it happens for lots of people. The Iraqis have a lot to lose by not making something out of this (like the proceeds from a whole bunch of oil, for one). They know this. This is regime change. The majority is gaining control. The majority will be gaining a lot of tools and know-how out of this. The majority is being taught how to make something out of this. It's always the idiot splinter groups that make it so hard, but if the Sunnis can be taught to turn away Al-Qaeda, then there should be plenty of hope.

 

Will the Iraqis let their big chance slide into chaos? I think not. We've worked too hard to fix our mess. There is no way that we will kill all of the insurgents. Even if it comes down to an election causing change, the Iraqi people should have a pretty good idea on how to handle things, especially with our continuing, yet diminished help, and when that happens, they really won't have any choice. It will be win or die, and I put my money on armed majorities any day. The insurgents may continue to fight on, in vain, but they simply cannot bomb everybody. Armed, organized majorities are simply that. Insurgents are simply rag-tag bands of pissed off people, and there is always the "Get the Americans out and we will be happy" factor.

[geoguy]

Well, that's great, but shoving blame on this administration isn't going to be too fun after the next election. It's not a greatly productive exercise even now but if it gives you pleasure....

 

blame? According to Bush and Cheney it would be 'praise'. Both have repeated that if the clock was turned back they would have followed the same course...invade and occupy Iraq. There has even ben 'tremendous progress'...

 

'Iraq' is like the last 5 years of the 'Vietnam' war in the USA. Both are more about image and internal American politics than those countries. Positions are taken looking towards domestic U.S. elections and so on. The war in Iraq is lost. It's a question of spin and the presidential candidates, the current government, etc not accepting reality.

 

The best analogy is Monty Python's dead parrot skit.

The Parrot is DEAD. For Americans the Iraq war is LOST.

 

No amount of prodding, poking or 'surge' is going to make a difference in the outcome.

 

"It's not a greatly productive exercise even now but if it gives you pleasure...."

 

Not pleasure but feeling a lot safer. What if the USA was successful in Iraq? Who would have been next? would the Americans then have invaded Iran? N. Korea?...Venezuela...Cuba?...what lies would have been trumped up to invade other countries? The USA has been humiliated in Iraq and the world won't accept American 'evidence' to justify more aggression. The USA reached a low point with its 'Freedom Fries' tantrum and, after it is forced out of Iraq, the USA will have the opportunity to redeem its tainted image.