Conversations / Live Q&A

"Very unfortunate" is a real understatement!  At my most frustrated, I would say that we took a brutal, broken, state and replaced it with one which although not as obviuously brutal, is far more chaotic, and quite possibly more broken than it was before we boot boots on the ground.  that's not simply unfortunate, that's bad.

As to what we were thinking, i think that depends on the year.  even if in '02 and early '03, we really thought that the threat of WMD was real -- a premise i am willing to accpet -- it became clear that we were wrong, and that having been wrong about that, we should have been talking exit strategy by late '03, not "victory".  As to what was accomplished, it really not clear, at least not when weighed against the losses we sustained -- most importantly human, but also financial.

Absurd or not, I am not sure how one can posit, as you do, that having gone in, we have no blame regarding the chaos we are leaving behind.  If you mean that it's not us who are blowing things up now, you are correct, and Iraqi's wil have to decide for themselves that murdering each other in teh name of tribal and relgious difference is a fool's bargain.  So while we bear no guilt for the murder and mayhem of today, we DO bear a measure of responsibility -- and we will prove that we know so in how me make decisions going forward.

President Obama "quit" because he ran on a platform of doing so, was elected accordingly, and honored his promise.  Right or wrong about that conclusion, he did something few politicians ever do -- follow through.

The country may become like Iran, but it seems unliekly.  Despite a Shii majority, the nation does NOT have the same tradtion of relgious extremism that Iran had, even before the return of the mullahs.  And if we don't like what may come, we should have thought about that BEFORE invading, because the likelihood of ever turning Iraq into an American-style democracy was never never greater than  those old country cousins, Slim and None.

to say that America gave Iraq a chance is like saying that you are giving a baby a chance to swin by dropping it in the the swimming pool.  it's theoretically true, but not reasonable to assume.  i know that assering it makes decent people feel better about leaving, but maybe we shouldn't feel so good, even though it is clear that we needed to go.

yes, yes and yes.  in other words, having asked thousands of Americans to make a valiant effort, and seeing them rise to the occasion, we are still left having accomplished very little.  it's a tragic story, and redemption lies not in what may or may not happen in Iraq, but in making sure to learn lessons which prevent us from travleing down the same road in the future.

so diplomactic relations with foreign nations are bad?  i don;t think so.  we live not behind the walls of Fortress Americana, but in the larger world.  The choices are better than invasion or isolation.  Soemthing to think about.

it's a fine analogy, which is why it's so disturbing.  when will we learn?!

Even assuming the very best of intentions in each case, when will we learn that efficacy, not victory, should always be the goal.  sometimes that does require all out victory -- think Japan and Germany, but not always.  We needed to get out years ago and the terrible truth is that we did not, probably more out of political and national ego reasons, than out of concern for the Iraqi people.

As you are wise enought to point out, your points are all pure conjecture.  They are however valuable conjecture because they remind us that there are always more paths to an agreed upon goal than we initially imagine.  And in the case of Iraq, there was never even an agreed upon goal!

That;s easy -- NO.  unleashing forces of self-determination which lead to people freely choosing despotic and dangerous paths, is nothing of whcih to be proud.

Democracy for it;s own sake should NEVER be a national goal.  Democrcacy is a means to an end. The end is a rights-driven, minority-respecting, culture that while not necesssarily always in agreement with the US, we invest in because it will be largely in our national best interest to do so.  That's success.

I think it was not NOT worth it -- not even close.  I think we have unleased forces which will cost thousands of lives in the future, and do so without even providing any real stability in either the region or in terms of a new US ally upon whom we can rely.  I hope that I am wrong, but doubt that I am.

When that analysis is added to the almost 4,500 American dead, almost 23,000 wounded, and almost 1 Trillion dollars spent, I want to scream and or weep.  I say that as one who recalls being convinced by Colin Powell's now famous presentation to the United Nations about WMD in Iraq.  I say that as one who is not an isolationist, even though it is tempting at times.

I say what I say knowing that we must learn to be brave enough not only to enter wars when we think that they are called for, but equally brave about admitting when we have been mistaken, and getting out with appropriate speed.  I am haunted by the fact that we fought so msuch longer than we did in WWII, and accomplsiehd so very little for anyone.

I both agree and disagree with you.  We are not bound to help repair and support all democratic initiatives  -- never have been and never will be.  We are bound to help with those that use democracy to create teh kinds of cultures which match our values and visions.  I will say again what i said before -- democracy is a means and not an end.  if we have any broad-based obligations as a nation, it is to the greater end, not every instance of the means.  confusing the two seduces us into all kinds of bad bargains.

As to the obligation to remain aware of the braoder casualtiy count, of the fact that something we started continues to kill people even though we have left, i agree totally.  Human suffering is human suffering.  It's not worse because the humans suffering happen not to be citizens of our country.  What IS different, is the level of obligation we may have to alleviate it.  That is a decision which is always about balancing competing interests, however uncomfortable that may make us.

well, we agree about your first four words -- "in a word...no".  the rest of what you wrote is as self-serving a narrative as the one to which you object, and as a result, unlikely to yield any new insight which could prevent subsequent errors.

 

if it were as simple as your narrative suggests, we, the American people, would have demanded an end to this war long ago.  the real work now is to ask what about such wars engages us?  why do we still believe in nation-building of the sort we attempted in Iraq?  why is it so culturally and political difficult to admit when we have made a mistake?  when will we stop accusing each other of telling lies,and begin asking those with whom, we disagree if they might be wrong.

 

nothing will make the Iraq war "worth it" -- at least as far as i can see.  but if we could learn from it, learn to appreciate how we got in and why it took so long to get out, we might at least redeem something from the process -- something terribly valuable to the next generation that may have to decide whether to go to war or not.