There is a cost to every war. There is a cost a country must hide from itself to convince it’s public the sacrifice is not too great and that the benefit of going to war is much greater. Sometimes that war is considered won when the cost is at least met by it’s success, most often, it is seen as Pyhrrical, or lost when the remaining public look back years later and realize once and for all, much too late, that the cost far outweighed the sought-after goal. In Iraq, which resembles more Vietnam then World War II; Americans are beginning to rouse themselves from idealistic daydreaming to rude awakening. We were told the Iraqi’s would meet us with open arms as liberators yet we have a ragtag insurgency faceless and nameless killing our family members and friends.
The figure of American casualties is actually extremely low compared to numbers in other wars, yet, the majority of Americans have shifted against the war, now much more cognizant of the cost – as small to some as those numbers may seem. Apparently, one significant friend or relative is not worth one Iraqi life, let alone a country of them. Eventually, the cost of the war; projected to double the federal deficit over a period of ten years will also not allow Americans to concede that feeding, clothing, freeing, or otherwise occupying Iraq is worth denying American seniors pharmaceutical health benefits, young Americans quality education, or even, gasp!, wealthy Americans fat contracting bids to keep our highway infrastructure intact or our military at current spending levels.
Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield, admitted June 27, 2005, that the insurgency could continue on for as long as twelve years. Because we entered this war with no exit strategy; without an outline determining accomplished goals and a timetable determining our exit from Iraq upon accomplishing those goals, I have only to suspect that Mr. Rumsfield as well as those who support him expect Americans to continue burdenship to an open-ended commitment in occupying Iraq until, at least, insurgents are suppressed to the point that someone or some group determines MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Now, Leuki, if I told you we were to stay in Iraq for five years you may tell me it isn’t going to happen. If I told you that we would continue to pay costs in Iraq and sacrifice countless man hours and deaths in Iraq for TEN YEARS you might tell me it’s not going to happen. "Undefined victory is imminent," you may even suggest. But if I told you that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield hinted that our continued involvement in Iraq was possible for twelve (12!) years you might say,”Whatever it takes.”
That’s very noble of you – noble to the tune of approximately $450 billion dollars. That is in addition to the $314 billion dollars we have already spent. These numbers are from the Congressional Budget Office. Our government is telling you that, total, you wish to spend $764 Billion dollars to insure that Iraqi’s INSTEAD of AMERICANS are taken care of. The cost even Republicans such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska protested, who said that costs of the war -- many multiples greater than what the White House had estimated in 2003 -- are throwing U.S. fiscal priorities out of balance.
We will spend $1.5 billion building an embassy in Iraq. You may say that embassy will one day pay for itself, but why not allow the Iraqi government to pay for it through war reparations? Oh yeah, because our government has already offered to forgive all war debt – no reparations will be made. The cost of the war will not be aided by the Iraqi people though it is our hands that have supposedly lifted them up.
$1.5 billion could have been a down payment on the future of the youth of America for their higher education via Fafsa grants or relieved senior citizens of the high costs of their pharmaceutical drug needs, but instead you want to put their needs down and picked up by people whom we are likely to see no return.
As you are well aware of Leuki, the Middle East is not Germany, nor is it France, and as I have mentioned, the Iraq war is not comparable to World War II. You may make a very poor argument that it is, but a less flimsy and much more believable argument will be made that Vietnam holds closer parallels to Iraq.
Now to address why you specifically target the Iraqi people with all your empathy and love. There are many unfortunate people in the world living under brutal dictators, there are many countries that have invaded their neighbors, there are many people in the world suffering human rights abuses but your compassion does not seem to extend to them by any demand the United States invade their countries or relieve them of their oppressors.
You are mute in regards to people in North Korea living under similar circumstances under a ruthless dictator also purported to have weapons of mass destruction but you do not express your moral outrage or cringe for security there.
You do not nobly demand the United States ride in and free Tibet from it’s occupying and oppressive neighbor China – you do not even muster a typed word for those in the Burma.
The people of Darfur (specifically the Fur, Masaalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups) in Sudan were and are being systematically cleansed from the face of the earth by their own government militias in Africa.
You ignore the desperate pleas for help for those in Uzbekistan where thousands of protestors were indiscriminately fired upon by ‘security forces’ from their own government while many of the rest remain in internment suffering torture. Why have you been so selective in focusing upon the Iraqi people exclusively?
Were you so adamant about Slobodon Milosovich and his genocide in the nineties?
You can easily say now, that yes, you are concerned, but when I broached the subject in post #39 in paragraph three, sentence two you gave not a peep.
This is a curious, but heartfelt confirmation to the Iraqi people (and those Germans who suffered at the hands of the Nazis) of your commitment to their exclusive well-being. Something I think all Iraqi people would stand and applaud to if it were not for the depleted uranium our weapons contain affecting their children and tainting their health for generations to come.
May it be understood that depleted uranium shields and hardens our bullets and ‘bunker busters’ used to great extent throughout the Iraq war, in fact, almost trumpeted as elements of our weapons; harbingers of American might and superiority in the much hurrahed Operation Shock and Awe.
“even a tiny particle of DU can have disastrous results once ingested, including various cancers and degenerative diseases, paralysis, birth deformities and death.”
Okay, so that’s not so bad, we did our thing to rid Saddam and his forces that readily and eagerly surrendered to our valiant troops, but what is the human cost? Is the reign of a 67 year old dictator as damaging as depleted uranium? Depleted Uranium is to Baghdad as the bomb was to Hiroshima, or Agent Orange was to those in Saigon. Depleted Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, meaning it takes that long for just half of its atoms to decay.
“The radiation released through DU use in conflicts is believed to be more than ten times the amount dispersed by atmospheric testing. According to Terry Jemison at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), of the more than 592,560 discharged personnel who served in the 1990-91 Gulf war, at least 179,310 - one third - are receiving disability compensation and over 24,760 cases were pending by in September 2004. A sixth of the Iraq war veterans have already sought treatment.”
Once again, Leuki, which is more important? A secular tyrranical government by an aging dictator or the Iraqi people’s ‘liberation’ at the cost of American lives, dollars, an Islamic fundamentalist government and 4.5 billion years of Iraqi citizen’s health?
“And if you have a single argument for why it would have been BETTER for Saddam to continue slaughtering his population than for the US to attack, I ask you to tell me now.”
I don’t have a single argument, Leuki, I’ve got a myriad of them all best suited to us either totally never engaging in the war in Iraq or…wait, stopping it NOW.
After all, when do you want us to pull out? Your mad despotic dictator is gone, the people have been liberated, and America is free at last from terrorism.
· The State Department reported that the number of “significant” terrorist attacks reached a record 655 in 2004, up from 175 in 2003.
I wonder why? Sorry I couldn’t provide more up to date data to more significantly boost my argument but I’m growing tired of having to re-educate you on the state of all things real.
Now for your question, would it have been better to leave Saddam in power?
Yes - the cost of this war does not meet it’s undefined ‘benefit(s)’.
