West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(44 posts)

Iraq war is over

Started 5 months ago by dobro
Latest reply from DBP

dobro
Member Profile

The Iraq War officially ended today. So who won?

Posted 5 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

no one "won"..it was not that type of war...many of us are simply glad that it's done ...

Posted 5 months ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

The United States kicked the crap out of Saddam Hussein's forces. The citizens of Iraq can vote. History will see where it leads.

I would rather have this fledgling Democracy/Republic than the Arab Spring changes that have brought more radicals to power.

Posted 5 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

blackwater/xi, haliburton, and KBR won.

and now we have another oil trading ally on the arabian peninsula!

Posted 5 months ago #
Smitty
Member Profile

Humanity.

Posted 5 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

When's the next one? As Iran is now conducting naval exercises to choke off the Straits of Hormuz where 30 per cent of the worlds oil transits... we are playing dilly dally election year politics so the great mass of wooly arm hair pitted lasses and the, Berkenstock schlocking space cadet coprs will go out and campaign for The Messiah. That Keystone pipeline is energy independence... via both the Canadian oil sands, and the Bakkan fields. Way to man up Hussein Obama and do the right thing for our national security. Oh perfect. Guess we have Solyndra or SunPower to cover our backs..oh...oops guess not! Talk about a global recession and depression... shut the straits for 45 days. Can we please have our drone back..pretty please. pretty please with sugar on top?

Posted 5 months ago #
TDe
Member Profile

Iran and the Shiites... along with Blackwater, Haliburton and KBR are the winners. Certainly the 100K+ documented civilian Iraqis killed and the families of the 4483 US soldiers killed didn't win. Nor did the American taxpayers who funded the war to the tune of 800+ Billion and are now facing astronomical federal debt.

Posted 5 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Yea... and we could actually export some oil and value added refined products and get some of that 800 bilion back.

Posted 5 months ago #
TDe
Member Profile

Do you mean take oil from Iraq?

Posted 5 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Nooooo ... sell our domestically produced oil from the Bakken fields... we have larger reserves than Irag... we just have to get it to the Gulf of Mexico. We could avoid this strategic fiasco entirely with domestic production. The straits get closed... no one is shipping Arab or Persian oil. We will certainly go to war again in the Persian Gulf...and it will be over oil. The soviets are vastly up armoring the Iranians... especially ship to ship missles, advanced detection... etc.. they have oil and natural gas to sell to Europe and they would love the disruption... that's our "new" relationship with the Russians... the one Obama "reset" with Medved.

Posted 5 months ago #
TDe
Member Profile

Thanks for clarifying..

Posted 5 months ago #
365Stairs
Member Profile

Clearly the Iraqi people...what with the $470 million mosque we built that includes two spires with 250 lbs of real gold on top...

Gotta go pray now...

Posted 5 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

More of them... build more. The price of gold is falling.

Posted 5 months ago #
365Stairs
Member Profile

All snarkiness aside. Since the question was asked...nobody "wins" a war.

We can say we aided the "liberation" from a dictator.

But the war we fought there for call it 10 years pales in comparison to the fighting that area of the world has been doing for 2000 years.

Bottom line. A strong majority of that area of the world have been trained to hate America. Combine that with the hatred they have for their own country folk and neighboring countries for having a slightly different belief structure...

Combine all that with the trumped up reasons to be in that part of the world (again)...

I would truly love to believe that 4500+ of our service members didn't perish for nothing...much like Vietnam...time will tell the story.

Posted 5 months ago #
dobro
Member Profile

Was it worth 4 trillion dollars (borrowed money,over 25% of the deficit), 4500+ lives, an unknown number of Iraqi lives?

PS "Since the question was asked...nobody "wins" a war." Interesting. It seems like in my high school history classes pretty much every war America fought in up til Korea had winners and losers. Am I misremembering?

Posted 5 months ago #
365Stairs
Member Profile

Dobro...you mean your history teachers / books actually said America had a "winning record" like 6-2 - because we killed more of the enemy troops than we lost?

If that was the case...then we "won" in Vietnam right?

Iraq / Afghanistan are certainly not the last places we will go to try and assert our defensive & oil ridden strategies.

Believe me...I was very very lucky to have served when the 1st Gulf conflict was happening and only trained for war. I was scared then but would have gone because those were our orders...a lifetime later...I meet with returning troops as often as possible and make damn sure for the time we have together...they have my utmost respect for squelching their fears and fighting a fight that can't be won at any cost!

As these current war efforts wind down and our troops return to the war in their home towns...I pray everyday they don't wish they were back there instead...

Posted 5 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

The goal was to rid the region of Saddam and get some level of democracy and stabilty to the country. So given those goals we won. If the goals also included to do it in a year and at a cost of less than $1 million then we lost. Clearly those latter items were not part of the goals.

We can only do so much, eventually the people of the country have to decide what their fate is going to be. Hopefully they can choose to get along and realize that trading one dictator for another is not good for the country.

Posted 5 months ago #
dobro
Member Profile

"they have my utmost respect for squelching their fears and fighting a fight that can't be won at any cost!"

this raises a question, and I mean this with no disrespect. wouldn't it be just as worthy of respect to squelch one's fear of societal disapproval and to refuse to be part of a fight that can't be won at any cost?

Posted 5 months ago #
smokeycretin9
Member Profile

No one "wins" until there is a Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks in downtown Basra.

Posted 5 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

We'll be baaaack... because the root cause is still there. We need secure international access to oil. But, we will settle for an insecure access if that is the best we can get. Interesting that Iran comes out of this the clearest winner. With the major western economies teetering on the brink a disruption of supplies would pull the foundation out. They couldn't have engineered a better negotiating position.

Posted 5 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Wow. Great thread and great comments.

**************************************************************************************

To me, it's not so much Who won? as What have we learned?

Is there democracy in Iraq now?

–Yeah, kind of. But at what cost was it gained? Surely there are better ways to change a regime than an invasion followed by a long and costly occupation.

Did President Bush let his emotions and personal interests influence his judgment about Iraq? Did Congress do its job of fact-checking WMD claims and generally counter-balancing the power of the Presidency? Having started the war, was the President enough of a leader to "win the peace"?

—Yes. No. And NO!

*************************************************************************************

War should always be the last resort, never the first. If we've learned nothing more than that, then perhaps all the blood and treasure will have been worth it after all.

And if not, all I can say is it's too bad.

Way too bad.

–David Preston

Posted 5 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Dobro

wouldn't it be just as worthy of respect to squelch one's fear of societal disapproval and to refuse to be part of a fight that can't be won at any cost?

Not a decision one has to make any longer... it's an all volunteer force.. and that's what they volunteer for. Something to mull over before ya sign on the dotted line. It's OUR job to decide wether they should go "over there"... they go in our name.

Posted 5 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Interesting point, k, but you may be missing a nuance here.

The fact that we have an all-volunteer force has nothing to do with the question of whether an individual soldier can/should decide not to obey an order. There are provisions in international law, US law, and God's Law dictating that certain kinds of orders should never be obeyed. This would include any order a soldier reasonably believes to be illegal. (Example: an order to shoot unarmed civilians.)

However, there are nuances and there are nuances. Is a simple order to report for duty in a war that one believes to be an illegal war ipso facto an illegal order? Some civilian legal authorities would say yes. However, a military court would almost certainly say no.

Think this is an artificial dilemma?
Not to Lt. Ehren Watada it wasn't . . .

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

Remember Lt. Watada? He signed up for Afghanistan, but when they sent him to Iraq instead, he said, "Hell no. I won't go."

And he didn't.

Posted 5 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

And he should have been shot. He took the money. He accepted the commission and in so doing he agreed to accept the lawful orders of those appointed over him. We are not subject to international law, and when you join up... you give up your civil law and submit to the law of the military, the UCMJ. He was a wussie little pee pee coward. He cashed the check and gambled he wouldn't have to earn it. Not until he got his orders to pack his bags did he decide he was a man of a newly developed sense of morality. You don't sign up for squat in the military... you go where you are told to go ... the needs of the service are paramount. Firing squad. Great way to leave your juniors..adrift with a new commanding officer to learn OJT in a combat zone.

Posted 5 months ago #
charlabob
Member Profile

I'm amazed at the patience of the folks on these forums with an obvious troll. And many of you are my dearest friends, but PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!

Love, charlabob

Posted 5 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

charla: I love you too, and I know it's galling, but we simply have to put up with kootch's taunts. Anyway, some of his arguments are valid, and even the ones that aren't can still give us an opportunity to hone our debating skills.

Por ejemplo . . . k notes the primacy of the UCMJ (the Uniform Code of Military Justice) in Watada's case. And he's absolutely right on that score. However, at the same time he notes (in passing) that the UCMJ requires soldiers to obey only "lawful orders."

In so doing, he begs the question, to wit: What is a lawful order?

Indeed! That is precisely what is at issue in Lt. Watada's case. Unfortunately, it was never decided because the case was declared a mistrial by a military court, and the Army chose not to retry.

Why didn't the Army retry Lt. Watada? I think it's because they would not have welcomed the public discussion that would have ensued over the question of whether the Iraq war was, in fact, an illegal war.

Think of the implications of that question for the Army. Think of the implications for the country . . .

This is a fascinating subject if you ask me. So rave on kootchman, I say. Rave on! It's all to the good.

Posted 5 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

It was settled. He did go up the chain of command, and was rebuffed. Then he went on national TV... therein lies his dismissal, one is not allowed to slam the CIC . His orders to get his butt to Iraq was a lawful order. So ordered by the Commander -in-chief, and authorized by his congress. A lawful order in the military is any order that is not specifically prohibited. Even a declared CO is not excused from a lawful order... in WW ll they were non-combatants. and not required to carry arms.but they did indeed serve on the front lines as medics or corpsman.. It doesn't get more lawful than that. Now while in Iraq, if ordered to fire an artilerry barrage at a hospital... that would have been an unlawful order under the Geneva Convention to which we are a signatory nation. The legality of the war was challenged by the ACLU and the courts passed on it. We are not a military that challenges civil authority... pray that we never are. He played the game and took the pay check up until the point he was ordered into harms way. Then he found his soul...worse he broke unit integrity, and turned his back on the enlisted that he trained with and would look to him for leadership in combat. Best he didn't go..he would have been fragged...why would the Army re-try him? To what end? His unit was on deployment orders, to retry him they would have had to stand down his battery to participate in his court martial...as witnesses.. they had other pressing concerns.

Posted 5 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootch..

all of your bluster aside..
i think DBP made a valid point...

Posted 5 months ago #
Jiggers
Member Profile

With the actual announcement that the WAR has ended, we aren't jumping for joy in the streets all at once now are we. It is like no one cares unless you served or knew someone who lost their life overseas. The rest of the population is too busy working trying to make our house payments and/or playing Warcraft....(rolling eyes emoticon).

Posted 5 months ago #
metrognome
Member Profile

interesting that none of the conservatives/Republicans who have commented have remembered that the stated purpose of the war was to locate and destroy weapons of mass destruction that Bush the Incompetent and his administration knew didn't exist.

The Iraq Was was started for 3 reasons:
- Bush the Incompetent wanted revenge on Sadaam for insulting Bush the Elder;
- Bush the Incompetent wanted to capture or kill Sadaam to prove to Bush the Elder that son was better than dad (who failed to kill Sadaam), and that his previous lifelong record of incompetence was just a 'misunderstanding';
- Rove and Cheney wanted Bush the Incompetent re-elected; being a 'war president' pretty much guarantees a second term.

So, where is Bush the Incompetent now? Why did he sell his 'ranch' in Crawford (that cost taxpayers millions to retrofit) and retire to a new home in the city (that cost taxpayers millions to retrofit) as soon as he was out of office? If he was such a great president, why aren't the Republican presidential candidates seeking out his endorsement?

If the Democrats had gone after Bush for war crimes the way the Republicans went after Clinton for having sex with a consenting adult who wasn't his wife, Dubya and Laura would be having monthly conjugal visits. 4,500 members of the U.S. military dead, 32,000 wounded (at least 10,000 wounded seriously enough to require a lifetime of care paid for by taxpayers other than the 1% who profitted from the war) ... wonder how Bush the Incompetent sleeps ...

Posted 5 months ago #
miws
Member Profile

"You dissed my Daddy!"

Posted 5 months ago #
Jiggers
Member Profile

Even though as bad as Saddam was in how horrible he treated his own people, he had that region under control. Now look at the chaos that we are leaving behind. Don't be fooled into thinking how stable Iraq is now that we have left. The U.S. government lies. There will be a civil war in Iraq to see what group will gain control. It may not happen for awhile, but it will happen. Bush Sr. could have taken the man out before, but he accomplished his goal and that was to only free Kuwait from that dictator. Maybe I'm wrong, tell me if I'm wrong and educate me. But I only regurgitate what the media has spoon fed me through newspapers and TV. We were on the tail of bin Laden in Tora Bora. There are numerous hideouts deep in those caves in that mountainous area that U.S soldiers aren't familiar with. Even the Russians got lost in Afghanistan. Bush Jr. wasn't about to come up empty and decided to go after the easier target in Hussein. Both of those dictators are announced dead. But do you really believe in what the government and media spoon feeds us? There's something to chew on.

Posted 5 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

wonder how Bush the Incompetent sleeps ...

–Oh, I think Bush the Incompetent probably sleeps competently enough, metrognome. In his heart, I expect he still believes he did the right thing in Iraq. Anyway, I'm not holding my breath waiting for him to have a crisis of conscience about all the suffering the war caused. If he were capable of experiencing remorse over things like that, it would've happened already.

Posted 5 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

the war is over..
but don't fool yourself into thinking America has left...
the military is still there in sizable force

Posted 5 months ago #
Jiggers
Member Profile

We may have over 200,000 troops placed in hot spots around the globe. I know there is at lest 30,000 plus alone stationed on the Korean Peninsula.

Posted 5 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Sure metrognome... just how would congress go after Bush after both houses authorized the escapade?

"- Bush the Incompetent wanted revenge on Sadaam for insulting Bush the Elder" Noooo... it was a bit more than an insult...

http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html

Jiggers..he had the region under "control" if you count nerve gas on the Kurds as a political control method. Clinton had the first shots at Bin Laden..but he passed. The CIA was begging him to take him out. After the first World Trade Tower bombing, and two American embassy bombings and a declared "jihad"... too busy playing hide the stogie with his intern.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/#.Tu0ewHOqX1s

A few pages of the history books will have to be turned before there is a winner... if ever one can be declared. Many an empire has marked its zenith and demise by invading, occupying, and investing in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Posted 5 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Speaking of which, I'll be so glad when the sun finally sets on the American Empire.

Then maybe we can all get some sleep.

Posted 5 months ago #
waterworld
Member Profile

I'm still way back at posts 26 and 27 -- the discussion of Ehren Watada. If I followed correctly, DBP asked why the military did not retry Watada after the first court-martial ended in a mistrial, and Kootch answered (and I paraphrase) that his unit was busy fighting the war, which was more important than being here to testify.
.
I just want to make sure that we haven't left out some of what happened after the mistrial that ended the court-martial. Initially, the military did seek a second trial. The court martial ruled that Watada could be retried on all five counts against him. Watada got an injunction in federal court to prevent the trial from starting, and then he ultimately obtained a ruling from the federal district court that double jeopardy barred a second court-martial on three counts: one related to Watada's refusal to report for deployment to Iraq, and two others for making critical statements about the war in media. The government appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court ruled, the new Solicitor General (now Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan) reviewed the case and decided that the government should drop the appeal.
.
After dropping the appeal, the military could perhaps have gone forward with a court martial on the (less serious) counts of "conduct unbecoming." Even those counts might have ended up in the double jeopardy bin, however. Instead of pursuing those counts, the Army dismissed Watada with an "other than honorable" discharge. I'm pretty sure there was no settlement of any kind between the government and Watada at the end; the government simply elected to use an administrative option to get rid of him.
.
I also wanted to point out that Watada was never accused of desertion, and therefore never would have been subject to the death penalty. Watada committed the offense of "missing movement" by refusing to deploy to Iraq. He had specifically told his superiors that he wanted to remain in the military, and he had offered to serve in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. To be guilty of desertion, a soldier must either have the intent to remain away from military duty permanently, or quit his unit with the intent to avoid hazardous duty or shirk important service, or enter a different armed service (U.S. or foreign) while he is still serving out his contract with the armed force he is now avoiding.
.
The offense of missing movement is relatively minor by comparison, as it carries a penalty of only two years in prison, along with the usual accompaniments of dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of pay.
.
Okay, so this doesn't really have much to do with the end of the war in Iraq. I would have preferred we had not fought this war, and I am relieved it's over. I could never support executing someone like Watada. But I think he clearly violated the code of military justice. It wasn't up to him to evaluate the legality of the conflict. If every soldier did that, we wouldn't have a functioning military; we would have a bunch of armed men and women implementing purely individual notions of foreign policy and international law.

Posted 5 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Thanks for the clarification on Lt. Watada, ww. It sounds like both sides had second thoughts about pursuing a trial once things got underway.

In retrospect, Lt. Watada seems naive for thinking he could set a precedent on this, doesn't he? As it turns out, though, we (the American public) were even more naive than him. Naive for thinking that somehow everything would turn out all right if we just turned our heads away and ignored what was happening.

After the initial wave of protest died down, criticism of the war was suppressed with exuberant claims of "Mission Accomplished!" And when that fell through, there was always Old Reliable:

Support our troops!

Even good folks like Senator Patty Murray fell for that one.

Ultimately it devolved upon a few brave individuals to keep the antiwar movement from flatlining completely.

People like Ehren Watada . . .

Posted 5 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

four trillion and counting
that's the current price tag on the "war on terror"
but does that account for the true price tag?
not according to this article

interesting read.

http://newamericamedia.org/2011/12/troops-are-home-from-iraq-but-the-war-is-far-from-over.php

Posted 5 months ago #
TDe
Member Profile

You know, K, I've been thinking a lot about this thread. I find it troubling. I actually agree with a few of your ideas and enjoyed our early written conversations and disagreements.

However, I've decided to no longer engage in dialog with you because you've advocated for the execution of a serviceman in a public forum, simply because you disagree with the fact that he stands up in the military for what he believes. I find those statments you made about Lt. Watada appalling. Disagreement is one thing Mr. K, but calling for a life to be ended is quite another in my book.

I hope somewhere along the way you manage to find joy in your life and maybe even recognize the goodness that surrounds you in your neighborhood and in the world. Ciao

Posted 5 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

He didn't believe in anything other than protecting his ass. He put his unit at great risk. No unit is deployed without a trained cadre including a chain of command and supporting arms training. Lt. Wussywoo broke the integrity of that unit. Lt. Wussywoo put mens lives in danger. He sucked from the teat until he found out he might have to actually do what every serviceperson does when the needs of the service dictate, go to war. Where he goes, and how he goes is not in his pay grade to decide. Period. He was given a lawful order and his solemn oath was to obey those orders. Ask his gun crews in the battery he was assigned to command how they feel about him...or the ground pounders who rely on competent supporting fires from artillery if the proverbial shit hits the fan and you need help...pronto. If you truly believe he was standing up for what he "believed" in... his conduct didn't reflect it. Just a coward... no more. Slather him with moral high ground all you wish....his actions were contemptible. May you never have to go in harms way and have a superior officer turn his back on you, the welfare of your comrades, and refuse the duties of his commission. No honor there. Look at the timeline ... he graduated from college... entered the OCS program AFTER the war in Iraq was underway....eh?

Posted 5 months ago #
waterworld
Member Profile

Kootch, I agree with you that Watada must have known what he was doing when he enlisted, considering that the war in Iraq had already begun. But what you are talking about is the offense, not the punishment. The maximum penalty for missing movement is two years, dishonorable discharge, and forfeiture of pay. Since the war in Iraq started, no member of the armed forces has been sentenced to more than 18 months for missing movement. Watada was willing to fight in Afghanistan, so he wasn't charged with, or guilty of, desertion, and under the UCMJ, he did not commit a capital offense. What TDe is getting at is your view that Watada should have been executed. Why should he be executed when everyone else who commits the same offense does 18 or fewer months?
.
Watada did not do anything unique by missing movement or by changing his mind specifically about the war in Iraq. He was one of about 5,500 members of the armed forces who skipped out -- and most of those others were true deserters, people who had decided they simply would not fight for their country anymore.

Posted 5 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

I agree that you should tone it down, kootch. We all get that you think Lt. Watada's actions were reprehensible.

Since no one can know what was in his heart when he refused to go to Iraq, none of us can know whether he was motivated by cowardice, idealism, or something else altogether.

Maybe he is a coward. I don't think so, but I could be wrong. I would just point out that, like a lot of Americans, Lt. Watada believed that Iraq had WMDs at the time he enlisted. Sometime after that it became apparent that President Bush had either lied to the American people or that he simply hadn't done his homework on Iraq before starting the war. (Difficult to believe, I know. But also possible.)

In any case, Lt. Watada decided not to take part in it. From the Wiki article:

Soon after reporting to Fort Lewis, Watada discovered that his unit would be deploying to Iraq, in support of ongoing operations there. In preparation to deploy, he began conducting research on the country, its culture, and the reasons for the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Watada claims that, after reading several books and articles about the history of Iraq, international law, and the evidence used to justify the war, and speaking with veterans returning from Iraq, he ceased to believe in its legality and justification.

I imagine Watada knew that he was in for a fight either way. And he got one. It's over now, though. Mostly.

I expect he sleeps pretty well at night.
Just like the President.

Probably gets some real nasty looks from people now and again, though.

Just like the President.

Posted 5 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^