The Cost of Not Liberating Iraq

A Worthy Question

I think that is a worthy question Joe. But first, thanks for your service. We are all indebted to you guys.

We lost a lot in one day on 9/11 in terms of lives, property and sense of security. We are an open society. We cannot possibly harden every target in the US enough to prevent more 9/11's. My assumption, after studying the Koran and the history of Islam (caliphate=imperialism) is they will be after us for years to come; doesn't matter what we do. (Nor is it about anything that we did do.) That's what the Koran tells them to do. Hypothetically, we could surrender, which by the way is what "Islam" literally means. In this case I believe millions of Americans would die. Bin Laden's purpose was to incite the jihadis against us, which he very effectively did. Will we now fight them in America or in a place of our own choosing? Bin Laden and his "emirs" have repeatedly stated that Iraq is the central battleground for the caliphate. And the world-wide caliphate IS what this is all about. There is no more aggressive, empire-building ideology (yes, imperialist) in the world. Please read the Koran to better understand this (it is not long) and some history of Islam. These jihadis are nuts and will not think twice about killing millions for Allah. Therefore, if we can face them down in Iraq, then we are fortunate that the jihadis are agreeable to that. Soon the Iraqis will carry most of the fighting if we will only back them up. It will take years to discourage the jihadis and the price in American blood is high, but we cannot make it a lot less expensive than it is now. We need to be prepared to witness ongoing casualties perhaps at only a somewhat lower rate than they have been, but in perspective a lot lower than any past war.

Dan of CT @ Apr 10, 2008 00:51:21 AM

Iraq = monarchical war

The Constitution puts the power to declare war solely in the hands of the people via their elected representatives. The President has no power to declare war. However, the President does control the agencies of the Federal government. The President supplies the information and guidance for declaring war.

When the President, through the tools of his office, misinforms and misleads the public and its Congress to obtain a declaration of war on a false premise, the President subverts the Constitution and usurps the people's power to declare war via its representatives.

The Iraq war is unequivocally the war of a Monarch. It is the war of a single person who has stolen the power from the people. None can deny that the justification - the case - that the President made for war was a false one. The case for war was not just premised on the existence of WMD, it was based also on a representation by the Administration that Iraq had ties to terrorists, and Al Quaeda specifically. There is strong proof that the Administration knew this, among other things, was false.

Even if we suppose that the President erred honestly, the *continuation* of the war for 5 years is the act of a Monarch. Neither the people nor their Congress signed off or approved a war for any reason other than the nexus of WMD and a rogue nation. Congress did not approve war for nation building, spreading democracy, deposing a dictator, or any of the post facto justifications given by the President. It is the CONTINUATION of the war after the disproof of WMD that is illegal, nay treasonous!

The ridicuoulous costing games played in this opinion piece are irrelevant. No "savings" of treasury can negate the unconstitutionality and immorality of this war. For a just cause we wouldn't care of the price. We would have spent our last penny and last man to win World War 2.

Some have referred back to Kennedy's "bear any cost" statement to argue that the war is in the spirit of our historical interventions for arguably just causes. However, the entire statement by Kennedy was that "we shall [do anything] in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." The survival of liberty was a concern during the cold war, but no American with two feet on the ground can argue that liberty would fail in the world without the Iraq war.

It deeply saddens me that my fellow citizens feel no outrage in the manner in which this fiasco has been forced upon us. It is as though presidential acts are self-justifying; "he did it, therefore it was legitimate".

Our founding fathers built the checks and balances, but the uber-check is the people, and we have failed us.

-JTS

JTS of WA @ Apr 10, 2008 00:49:36 AM

What are you talking about ???

All of you pro Iraq war people have NOTHING to say until you explain to me why we have 160,000 troops in a country where Osama bin Laden is NOT hiding but LESS than 1/10th that number in the country where he IS hiding!

How come nobody talks about him anymore unless he releases a tape ?

Do you NOT see him as a threat ?

IT'S BEEN SEVEN YEARS !!!!!!!

How about supporting the troops by giving them a mission they can be proud of instead of having them take sides in never ending sectarian wars and IGNORING the guy who killed 3,000 Americans ?

The COST of this war is that we haven't found the monster who killed so many of our citizens because we have been busy making MORE enemies in a country that never attacked us.

Vince Foster of IL @ Apr 09, 2008 23:39:12 PM

Leatherneck Joe

You misunderstood my comment.

I am not complaining about my status, after 19 years and 11 months of active duty and reserves at the point I was recalled, I am perfectly aware of the volunteer obligations I agreed to fulfill. But I am bitter that as a navy pilot, I am filling a billet supporting the Army. Based on your callsign, would you question the system if you were tapped to be a sonar tech on a boomer?

My comment was to the article's author, was at what point does Iraq become too expensive to continue? How many more volunteers is he willing to sacrifice for the mission? Are 10,000 fatalities and 50,000 injuries acceptable to you? Double that? Triple that? Shouldn't we have a discussion about that question?

Our leaders have not done a good job of showing us a goal that we can pursue, the message is merely that we have to endure. My question is, until when?

Semper Fi.

Joe Pilot of NY @ Apr 09, 2008 23:38:39 PM

Rooting for Failure from Day One

Democrats have been shameless in rooting for failure in Iraq for nothing but their own political gain. It's disgusting. They are the first ones the jihadis would execute in a shariah regime.

Get Real of CA @ Apr 09, 2008 22:40:50 PM

liberating!

Do the Iraqi's feel liberated? If the massive US debt is not the cause of a crumbling US$ what other excuse does GWB have. This war has been a disaster.

the munz @ Apr 09, 2008 21:38:46 PM

liberating!

Do the Iraqi's feel liberated? If the massive US debt is not the cause of a crumbling US$ what other excuse does GWB have. This war has been a disaster.

of @ Apr 09, 2008 21:37:39 PM

Cost

I was going to make the same comment, the % of GDP is much less than 25%. He is using the total cost over many years against a year of GDP.

Bill W of MO @ Apr 09, 2008 20:53:33 PM