The Warring States of NPF - The Cost of the Iraq War

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- News and current events (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - The Cost of the Iraq War (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=41168)

The Cost of the Iraq War

Quote:

The United States is withdrawing the last of its troops from Iraq this month, which makes now an appropriate time to begin weighing the costs and benefits to U.S. national security from our intervention there.

On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush stood aboard the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and declared to the country and to the world that �Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.�

What I want everyone to pay attention to are the Strategic costs:

Quote:

Empowered Iran in Iraq and region. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the primary strategic beneficiary of the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. The end of Saddam Hussein�s regime removed Iran�s most-hated enemy (with whom it fought a hugely destructive war in the 1980s) and removed the most significant check on Iran�s regional hegemonic aspirations. Many of Iraq�s key Iraqi Shia Islamist and Kurdish leaders enjoy close ties to Iran, facilitating considerable influence for Iran in the new Iraq.

Created terrorist training ground. According to the U.K. Maplecroft research group�s most recent index, Iraq is the third-most vulnerable country in the world to terrorism. The years of U.S. occupation in Iraq created not only a rallying call for violent Islamic extremists but also an environment for them to develop, test, and perfect various tactics and techniques. These tactics and techniques are now shared, both in person and via the Internet, with extremists all over the region and the world, including those fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Stifled democracy reform. While the Arab Awakening of 2011 is a potentially positive development, there�s no evidence that the Iraq war contributed to this in any positive way. A 2010 RAND study concluded that, rather than becoming a beacon of democracy, the Iraq war hobbled the cause of political reform in the Middle East. The report stated that �Iraq�s instability has become a convenient scarecrow neighboring regimes can use to delay political reform by asserting that democratization inevitably leads to insecurity.� Rather than supporting democratic forces in neighboring Syria, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has repeatedly voiced support for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Fueled sectarianism in region. The invasion of Iraq replaced a prominent Sunni Arab State with one largely controlled by Iraq�s Arab Shia majority. While the end of the oppression of Iraq�s Shia majority is a positive thing, this shift has exacerbated regional tensions between Shia and Sunni, including in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, and Bahrain (where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based). Lingering disputes in Iraq between Sunni and Shia Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen also continue to invite exploitation by both state and non-state actors.

So let me make it clear. We made Iran stronger since we removed Hussein. Iran could focus on crushing its own people under the pretense of freedom. And it could bolster itself from US attacks. We also had US personnel that were now on the frontlines of Arab displeasure at US policy. They were basically targets for the past decade.

Say what you will about the Arab Springs/Occupy movement, all of them had aimed for dictatorships in Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Of course, Iraq would have been rebuilt by the people.

Final irony, the Iraqi government supports Bashir Al-Assad, who is linked to the Shiite Muslims, who don't want Sunnis in Syria. Also, the Sunnis are out of government but they just did an exchange of bodies for the Iran war that was going on in the region. The symbolism is that they have just now said that they're the ally of Iran. So let's recap:

No Al Qaeda.
No WMDs.
$1.5 Trillion wasted.
Iran buffed.
No threats to the US.
100K killed...

Great job breaking it, United States.

Bin Laden was both a threat to the US and part of Al Qaeda, so at least two parts of your list are false.

All Middle East countries look the same to TDK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDK (Post 1174550)

Bin Laden was both a threat to the US and part of Al Qaeda, so at least two parts of your list are false.

Bin Laden wasn't in Iraq.

He was in Afghanistan and then Pakistan.

These are all different countries.

You should know this.

The fact that we're pulling out means that at least we'll have a chance to do something different that may be right. Keeping your foot in the pile of dung is stupid, especially if it's supposed to avoid stepping in more dung.

At least we can hope the next big military action is done right . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aldurin (Post 1174553)

At least we can hope the next big military action is done right . . .

You must be new here.

We declared war on TERROR, not the country of Iraq.

The Iraq War is a sub-War of the greater War on Terror, is it not? Like we don't have half our military devoted to fighting Iraq, you get sent overseas maybe you go to Pakistan or whatever.

Its all the same war.

Alternatively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc v4.0 (Post 1174554)

You must be new here.

I didn't say how strongly you had to hope. Anything after WWII just doesn't have the moral clearness that war used to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDK (Post 1174555)

No, it's not.

Jagos is speaking SPECIFICALLY about the war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq had negative effects, wasted money, and wasted lives.

Our accomplishments elsewhere would have happened regardless of the Iraq conflict.

In fact, they probably would have been accomplished with greater ease were we not dividing our resources up between two wars under the pretense that they were the same war.

So you're saying there was a pretense of it being the same war.

In that regard, it seems perfectly reasonable for someone (specifically someone who does not make a habit of reading about the war on terror because its fucking stupid) to believe they are the same war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDK (Post 1174558)

You are just determined as fuck to avoid admitting you were wrong, aren't you?

I mean, I can't really come up with any other explanation for why you'd be so dedicated to Being Right about something you just admitted you don't know anything about.

Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion based on the fact that you admitted you don't know what you're talking about, this would not be the best thread for you to put your unrivaled debate skills to the test in.