patching...
Update: Have an announcement or event you want to promote? We've got a tool for that.
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

DISCUSSION: What Are Your Impressions Of The Iraq War?

It's over, but was this a smart move for the U.S.?

 

The Iraq War is over.

This nine-year confrontation with terrorism brings questions about the stability of the region. But the biggest questions of all remain to be answered, was it worth it? Did we accomplish our goals?

This Huffington Post story points out the costs -- 100,000 Iraqi lives, 4,500 American lives, and a price tag of $800 billion. But the story fails to point out the psychological impact on the troops that came home, the soldiers that live with physical and emotional scars. A CBS story on how much money was spent on infrastructure projects in Iraq gives a mixed review of whether the projects were completed. A USA Today story also tracks our war spending and the transfer of wealth. And, in a New York Times story, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, said the terrorists will test the Iraqi people now that the U.S. troops are gone.

You can't help but wonder how Americans feel about this war. Do you think about it? Or are we so wrapped up in our own economic woes to consider these questions? What will happen to these soldiers? How do we feel about the job they did? And how do you feel about the war being over? What are our obligations to our soldiers and the Iraqi people?

I'd love to read your impressions on this topic.

  • The Iraq War is over, but should we have stayed longer?

    (Voting has been closed for this question)
    • Yes
        13 (28%)
    • No
        33 (71%)
    Total votes: 46
  • Your vote will only count once. This is not a scientific poll. View Results Vote!
Related Topics: Iraq War, President Barack Obama, Public Opinion, and U.S. military

Lyle Ruble

3:28 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

This was Bush's War of choice. It certainly wasn't worth the cost of Iraqi and American lives. It has been destructive to every American in cost of treasure and loss of freedoms. Our men and women who served have given of themselves for what? They return to a country collapsing under the weight of an economy struggling to meet the basic needs of its population. We have a debt to these young men and women to help them as they heal from physical and emotional wounds, but as with other generations of returning vets, they too will be soon forgotten and the money will trickle away to support the cause de celeb of the moment. Before we enter wars we need to understand the full cost before we commit to such destructive expeditions.

What have we gained from this exercise in Sabre Diplomacy; a safer world? I think not, just a new set of enemies.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Johnny Paycheck

7:25 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

Quite true. The younger Bush will probably be proven by history to have been the worst president in our history. He quickly set about the make every mistake that his father was careful to avoid in the first desert war and was putty in the hands of corporate robber barons like Dick Cheney-- who had been tasked to locate the best candidate for vice president, and then without even conducting a search recommended himself for the job... and Bush went along with it!

Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

12:50 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

@Irish -

"The younger Bush will probably be proven by history to have been the worst president in our history."

Going a bit far there, aren't you? There were many Presidents who were far worse than G W Bush was.

Besides, no one can take away the worst President in history honors from John F. Kennedy - he was the absolute worst of the worst!

Eric

4:24 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

A mistake, begun on false pretenses in the shadow of 9/11. It diverted us away from the Afgahanistan mission and our ability to finish Al Qaida and the Taliban, and denied us the opportunity to show the world our goodness by helping the Afghanis once free of the Taliban. Instead, the Iraq war coupled with the botched 2000 presidential election and the 2008 fininancial crisis greatly eroded our leadership position in the world. If we intend to go to war against every nation run by a dictator who wants nuclear weapons, might someday acquire them, and could possibly share them with terrorists, that essentially equates to going to war with many dictators. If you feel this is the proper course of action then it would be expected that you and all eligible family members head for the military recruiter's office to sign up for the list of dictators is still longer than we'd wish.

Reply
Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

5:06 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

I bet we could have hired the IRA to take care of our terrorist problems for much cheaper than the Afgahan war has cost us to date. And the IRA probably would have been more effective in taking out Al Qaida and the Taliban than our military has.

mau

4:49 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

I have never approved of any of these "acts of aggression". But the citizens either have a short memory or didn't pay attention to the Clinton years. Compare the acts of aggression during Clinton's administration 1993-2001 and Bush's administration 2001-2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1990.E2.80.931999

Bush's war? Remember Clinton's war in Iraq?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31143

Reply

James R Hoffa

5:01 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

9 years to spend $800B. Obama spent $787B in one year under stimulus #1. Neither produced the results expected and our children will be forced to pay for all of it.

Isn't government great at spending money?

Reply
Comment_arrow

JL

3:03 pm on Monday, December 19, 2011

I don't want to start an argument ,but President Obama wouldn't have had to spend the 787 billion if bush had not started the war. In addition you may wish to do some fact checking on how the stimulus DID work and how it saved countless jobs and kept this country from sliding further, if anything it should have been more.

Bren

5:35 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

We shouldn't have gone in the first place! Remember the false statements about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction that were the stated basis for the invasion (followed by [Karl Rove's] outing Valerie Plame as an important CIA agent as punishment for her husband Joe Wilson's article in the NYT debunking the accusations. Scientists had also independently reported months before the invasion that the rods in question were not weapons-grade). The war was supposed to "pay for itself" with Iraqi oil, but this never materialized (millions of barrels of oil were reported stolen, and 40% known to have funded the insurgency. Texas oilmen were reported to be inspecting the oil fields after the fall of Iraq. Where did the other 60% of stolen oil barrels go?). Millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars were also handed out in cash in the days following Hussein's fall to individuals unknown. The claim was that it was difficult to keep records "in a war zone," even though hand-held devices make record-keeping available and mobile.

Then there were the months where soldiers were being mutilated or killed because they were sent into combat without sufficient/correct protection. And the thousands of "independent contractors" (i.e. mercenaries) including Blackwater, that terrorized Iraqi citizens and cost taxpayers untold millions as they provided mediocre services that should have been provided by the military. And so much more. It makes me heartsick to think about it.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Ben Hogan

9:43 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

Bren@ I often wonder how women in Saddam's Iraq were treated . I saw a documentary film called Saddams Reign of Terror on television. After watching what this "man" did for decades in his country to his own people, I'm glad he is dead and gone. No one likes war but I'm sure you could find millions of Iraqi's who had family members tortured and killed by Saddam that are extremely happy that he is gone. also Bren if you are interested I could find links that have former president Clinton also claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. how hard would it have been for Bush to plant weapons if he knew this was going to be a false war? If you believe his goal was to somehow profit of this war and he knowingly lied to the American people by claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he would have also realized that eventually we would need to find these weapons, correct? If he truly planned an unjust war he could have planted weapons to quiet the critics.

Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

1:06 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

@Ben Hogan –

While I don’t buy into Bren’s Bush conspiracy theory concerning the Iraq war any more than I buy into Bren’s Koch Bros conspiracy theories, I also don’t buy into the notion that the war was solely about morality concerns.

After all, if Iraq was all about saving the poor innocent Iraqi's from their evil dictator that we placed into power and supported in the first place, then why haven't we invaded Burma (Myanmar) yet? They've been literally begging for our help for the last three plus decades because of a corrupt military coup government that treats its citizens worse than how Saddam treated his people. And yet, we continue to turn a deaf ear to Burma.

St. Swithin

7:02 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

The combination of incompetence and criminal behavior that led to this war still amazes me today. We ripped apart a stable country that did not threaten us. We turned it into a battleground between Iranian and Al Qaeda terrorists. We pissed away billions of dollars that could have been better spent at home. We shredded the Bill of Rights in our fear and ignorance. And we fatally weakened our fight in Afghanistan.

This was our Syracuse.

Reply

Johnny Paycheck

7:09 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

So we're broke and have to end the war of lies... I don't think there will be a lot of objections, although it would be nice if we could have another set of Nuremburg trials and bring some of our corrupt politicians to justice to waging a war of aggression.

Supposedly we were there because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction-- the same weapons the we still possess ourselves. Turns out he didn't have any and we're still planning to keep our own. They told us we were there to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein-- who was killing his own people... And then it turned out that the only way we could keep order was by killing even more people than Saddam was killing (but the ones that we killed were 'bad' and Saddam was killing the good ones right?).

Saddam had horrible prisons where he tortured people... So we took them over and tortured more people... Now we've spent over a trillion dollars there that we didn't even have and will need to install a new Saddam. It's a shame that there isn't some external entity that can force a regime change in the United States...

Reply

NaiveOne

7:21 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

I may not know a lot about the personnel fighting in Iraq, but I believe that President Bush did. Every time that he would talk about the troops, he would refer to them as the 'Coalition Troops' or the 'US lead Coalition Troops'. Can you find out how many Canadain, French, German, Japanese, ans British men and women also died? They deserve praise too.

Reply
Comment_arrow

St. Swithin

8:36 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

Bush's attempt at a coalition for Iraq was always a joke. He used the phrase just to pretend there was some international support for the war. In truth, this was almost completely an American war. The Canadians, French and Germans refused to participate. They supported Afghanistan but not Iraq. The Japanese were not allowed, due to their constitution, so they just sent a token observer force. According to Wikipedia - as of February 24th, 2009 there were a total of 319 deaths for armed forces in Iraq other than the U.S. 179 of those were British. The British were the only other country to contribute significant forces, and they pulled out several years ago.

patchreader 123

7:24 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

America is now, and always will be, engaged in a permanent war so long as there are profits to be made by the “war machine.” Defense contractors are given billions to support a war effort. The U.S. government then bombs a country rich in natural resources (i.e., oil) and then uses U.S. construction contractors to rebuild it and security contractors to “train” various personnel there. These U.S. construction and security contractors (i.e., Halliburton; DynCorp), in addition to the defense contractors (i.e., General Dynamics) are usually connected to the government (i.e., heavy campaign contributors; stock owned by government officials). The money used to fund these contractors comes from the U.S. tax payer, who usually does not see a dime of it. The contractors squander the money without having to account for it. It’s an age-old ploy to use middle class tax money to benefit a rich, elite group of businesses and their owners.

Reply
Comment_arrow

patchreader 123

7:25 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

Tax payers rich enough to buy huge quantities of the stock underlying the foregoing contractors may see a return on their “taxes” used to fund the underlying war/rebuild effort. However, CEOs at top defense contractors have reaped annual pay gains of 200% to 688% in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Meanwhile, much of the money spent in Iraq, to include hundreds of millions of your hard-earned tax dollars, is completely unaccounted for. You and I, the American tax payer, will never, ever see that money again.

Comment_arrow

patchreader 123

7:38 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

Why does the U.S. continue to have a military presence in Afghanistan? Because the country is rich in mineral deposits. Lithium (for batteries), gold and other valuable ores. Afghanistan is merely the next opportunity for the squandering of your tax dollars to fund a war and reconstruction effort. Bush initiated the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Obama continues it, as will every president to be elected in the future, as long as “there’s gold in them there [Afghan] hills,” or any country’s hills for that matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

Go ahead; label me as a conspiracy theorist. However, before you do so, conduct your own investigation into some of my statements.

Comment_arrow

mau

7:57 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

You're a conspiracy theorist :) Just joking. Some of the major oil companies in the Middle East used to have maps of the pipe lines routes going from Russia and Chechnya to the Mediterranean. The wars broke out all along the proposed pipe line as it was being built. There are even a few skirmishes between some of the countries on the Mediterranean over who will control the ports.

Patch_comments_icon

Denise Lockwood

7:24 pm on Sunday, December 18, 2011

Interesting answers... what obligations do we have to the people who served in this war, what should that look like?

Reply
Comment_arrow

James R Hoffa

12:45 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

ALL of our veterans from ANY kind of active duty (whether that be WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc.) should be treated equally and with respect from the government. Personally, I wouldn't object to no-cost individual lifetime health care at a minimum so long as the older vets were retroactively compensated. Good luck getting such a proposal through Washington though – they’d rather throw away money on crap like Solyndra!

Comment_arrow

St. Swithin

7:38 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

James, All veterans receive lifetime health care through the VA. The actual cost depends on your income and military status (retired, disabled, Reservist, etc) Just another example of socialized medicine.
Denise, more veterans are coming home wounded than ever before. For every casualty there are about 10 wounded. Extra support should be given to the VA to help these soldiers. Also, the tough economy will eventually lead to a downsized military. Every effort should be made to help veterans find work in the civilian market.

Comment_arrow

Eric

8:40 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

VA benefits depend most on how badly "disabled" a vet became while on duty and how much VA healthcare services capacity exists in the Vet's home area. For many vets this translates to little or no help at all. For retired military members, the "free" healthcare for life promised at time of recruitment in exchange for military service is not free. It includes premiums and co-pays. Although these were small in the past, they are now planned to increase significantly. Healthcare for vets can be a good deal, or a not so good deal, it depends, but the promise of free healthcare for life is fulfilled to only the most badly injured, it is a broken promise for most vets.

Brian Dey

7:45 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

The statement of "weapons of mass destruction" was only one of several reasons given. As far as the WMD, the intelligence, not just ours, but every one else's stated they had WMD. We knew that they used mustard gas against their own people and threatened use against other nations. So please, give that issue a rest. I also understand the mindset at the time following 9/11/2001. We were a nation that just took it's worst attack. And for those that thought it was okay to attack Libya to remove Gaddahfi, it is hypocritical to say that getting rid of Saddam Hussein wasn't just as noble.

What I found to be a mistake, was what we have done time and time again. Nation building should never be our objective, and that's where it started to unravel. We could have declared victory after the first Iraq election after we caught Hussein. Once it became clear that there was never going to be repayment through oil, that could have been the end. To have no presence at all with a 17,000 U.S. embassy population is asking for trouble and history will prove that to actually be the worst mistake. We still have troops in Germany, Korea, Bosnia and every place we have been in armed conflict.

With that said, our troops did fantastic work and should be honored and respected. Sadly, again, there will be no triumphant return or fanfare as this President would rather sneak out quietly.

Reply
Comment_arrow

St. Swithin

8:53 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

Sorry Brian, but everyone else's inteliigence agreed that there were NO WMDs. That is why no one else would support our invasion of Iraq. I remember Powell presenting evidence to the U.N. and convincing almost nobody. Even our own intelligence was skeptical at first. I remember reading news reports where the CIA had found no evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Then Dick Cheney would visit CIA HQ, and the next day the CIA would announce 'clear evidence' that Iraq had WMDs.
In the meantime North Korea was jumping up and down shouting "We have nukes!" and they were ignored.
I do agree with you about nation building, though. In this day and age it is never a good idea.

Comment_arrow

Eric

9:28 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

Prior to 9/11 the US military’s priority regarding Iraq was to enforce the no-fly zone - there was little interest in Hussein's potential relationship with terrorists. Yet post 9/11 this was the focus of Secretary Powell's argument to the UN, the possible "nexus" of gaining and then sharing WMDs with other bad guys. Hussein had demonstrated the will to gas the Kurds in the north and the Iranians to the east, and while gas and biological weapons are terrible, they are hard to deliver and cause scales of destruction several orders of magnitude below nuclear weapons. The real question became, did Iraq have nuclear weapons, and on this subject the intelligence was mixed. So, we turned our attention from finishing the widely viewed legitimate mission in Afghanistan, to Iraq, which we were watching closely for years while enforcing a no-fly zone, and had inconclusive evidence of a nuclear program or any relationship with terrorists. This shift of attention to Iraq was surprising for another reason. Many of the military post 9/11 forward deployment sites were originally set up in Middle East areas where they could support efforts in Afghanistan, and then could be used to pivot to Somalia where known Al Qaida camps existed. The mission redirection to Iraq was surprising, seemingly inconsistent with the "war on terrorism". Sketchy intelligence, oil, post 9/11 fear, revenge, unfinished business, planting democracy – where do we head to next, Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea?

MSC

8:55 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

The war was an act of fraud and everyone knew it. We as Americans should be ashmamed that we keep electing politicians who have their own agendas. The war was for the Bush Administration to gain financially by allowing the "select" contractors to make billions and they all benefited. The losers are the soldiers and families who did their jobs, lost their lives for what? A fraud. We, meaning the American people need to take back our country from career politicians who are only motivated to get what they want by all means. It is disgusting, we need to change our laws so politicians serve only 1 term then go home. No more career politicians who control the government and do these things and get away with it. One term, no healthcare benefits, no pension do your job and go back home. This would allow more americans an opportunity to serve their country and not a bunch of rich politicians who want to control the world. These politicians should have to meet with the dead soldiers family every day as a reminder to what they caused. The blood shed of Americans that lost their lives, were wounded and now on disability for the rest of their lives should be on the politicians who did this to them. Folks, it is time for revolt, it is time to get our country back before we the meek will be controlled like robots. Eventually we all will work for government.

Reply

Carol

9:07 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

I feel that this was another useless war. The lives that were lost & the soldiers that were injured is a shame. And the money that was spent on this war was ridiculous! Plus there was a picture of all the expensive office equipment, etc that is being left over there. We could have fed alot of people that are out of jobs and bought alot of food for the needy with the money that was spent. I don't feel that the US should always get involved in these foreign wars. Have any of those countries come forward to help us when there are natural disasters here????

Reply

John

9:37 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

Yep; just too bad Dick Cheney via George Bush sold the US an $800 BILLION "Shock & Awe" diversion of Americans' money.... could have done a lot with that tax money here in the Good Ol' US of A. Like taking care of previous wars' veterans needs, including real healthcare, not just "pass-our-higher-costs-on-to-you" co-pay excuses. Any guesses as to how much concrete alone we bought & left lying around Iraq? Or how about creating real jobs here in the USA rather than military "jobs"....?

Reply

patchreader 123

9:57 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

Here is a start regarding the costs of rebuilding Iraq:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2010-03-22-iraqcosts_N.htm

It represents a transfer of wealth from the American, middle class tax payer to various corporations.

Reply
Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Denise Lockwood

10:34 am on Monday, December 19, 2011

Thanks I added your links to the story and also included a New York Times story.

JL

3:07 pm on Monday, December 19, 2011

wow, I am amazed at the reaction to this topic, for the most part there is a lot of pro republican feedback on topics ,but 90 percent of the posts for this topic are democratic views.

Maybe people are seeing the smoke and mirrors of the republican party and really looking at whats going on..... then again ..........

Reply

Keith Best

12:08 am on Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Let's not forget all the Democrats who wanted to surrender in Iraq years ago. How Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid declared the war was lost back in 2006. How the Surge was a failure.How Democrats did everything to undermine the war effort and enbolden the enemy. That should be the real story here. That is the real history lesson.

Reply
Comment_arrow

St. Swithin

9:08 am on Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Keith, you can try to deflect blame, but intelligent people know better. The Iraq War was started by Republicans and lost by Republicans. A few Democrats (and others) realized what a disaster it was and tried to point that out. You call that "undermining the war effort".

Beto

8:25 am on Tuesday, December 20, 2011

I am heartened to see so many acknowledge the glaring outrage that was this war. It is not only Democrats who can see this; it is all grown ups. Like when a family member commits a deceitful, greedy, immoral and incompetent act, it does no good to deny it, least of all to the perpetrator. I hope for the best for all returning veterans, the Iraqi people, and our wounded republic.

Reply

Leave a comment