Who lost Iraq?

The American public lost Iraq. Sure, you can say Bush and Cheney goaded us into a poorly planned pre-emptive war against a country that wasn't a serious threat, but I seem to remember the public approving this plan overwhelmingly back in 2003.

But as soon as it (predictably) became clear that progress would come at a higher cost in blood and money than the White House said initially, Iraq suddenly wasn't as convenient as we thought it would be in 2002. And suddenly, it became "Bush's war," instead of a war the American public CHOSE to undertake with overwhelming enthusiasm.
(And don't tell me the American people weren't overwhelmingly enthusiastic about this war at the start. Remember "Kick their ass, take their gas?")

Because, really, nobody thought about the long-term implications of this. We assumed Bush and Cheney would take care of those. Because, frankly, what does it matter to anyone? How does Iraq affect YOUR daily life, Thomas Ricks? It's just a thing on the TV.

Who lost iraq?

We won't lose iraq until we admit we've lost. If we want to keep the US military in iraq come hell or high water, and nobody can stop us, then we haven't lost yet.

It isn't like a baseball game where an umpire can say you've lost after 9 innings. If you're still out on the pitcher's mound at midnight challenging the other team to put up a hitter, and they don't, and you pitch the ball anyway and declare that they're out, everybody but you will think the game is over.

But we can stay in iraq as long as Congress coughs up the cash. We can pretend we're doing some good there as long as we're still there.

So there are people who don't admit that iraq is lost yet, and if Obama admits it's time to go home they will definitely blame the defeat entirely on him.

comes to mind. It was a study on the thug-like activities of the GOP McCarthy dildos (after the Mao victory in China) whose heirs tend to gather in the Senate, in preacher tents and under rocks (Fox, Wash Times, sides of ammo and tobacco boxes, airport and foreign toilets).

Opening admonition - you can't lose what you don't have.

Outside of the aftershock of the March sprint to Baghdad against an army more fit for a clown act than defense, there was never the intent or investment to "have" Iraq. 1870 Prussian to Paris was the model. Hit extract leave. Pay off some patrons around the world and reward the hacks at home. It was accomplished.

Aftermath - like the debt from supply side to rich men tax cuts - that is debris for those other wogs to inherit. Distract with blaming those different people.

There is nothing to lose for those rewarded.

. . . I did.

I didn't mean to. But some mean kids were chasing me home from the bus stop, and I dropped my book bag, and stuff went everywhere, and when I got home, it wasn't there.

I went back and looked, but it was dark, and I couldn't see very well, and, suffice it to say, I couldn't find it.

And now it's lost.

I agree with Hardrada that, to a large degree, the American public did help lose the Iraq war but not with his reasoning. Initially, large segments of the public believed, as was frequently alluded to by the Bush administration and his Neocon supporters, Saddam was in cahoots with Al Quaeda in causing the 911 attacks. In addition, the public was given to believe that Saddam's Iraq was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, which could be used to directly threaten us. When these "assertions" were not sustainable by the facts on the ground (and the Bush administration tried hard to hid them from the public), then Americans started looking at what was left of the logic in invading Iraq. Only then, in my opinion, did susport for the war effort dissipate. It wasn't simply that when it "became clear that progress would come at a higher cost in blood and money than the White House said," that Americans gave up. That was undoubtly a factor, but in my opinion it was the realization that they had been suckered into an unnecessary war that did it.

Greed lost Iraq... and will cause continuing losses every time the US hopes to get a good deal on whatever resources Iraq has to offer.

That means the American lifeblood... from driving to work to growing our food... Petroleum.

As a Jew, I can say that if you 'screw me' in a business deal, not only will you never get a good deal from me again, but my children... their children... their children's children AND my extended family (taken tribally, whether modern or in the traditional sense) will continue to 'screw you right back atcha' for the rest of your born days.

Muslims are about the same culturally.

IOW, just invading their countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc) on false pretenses, destroying their country, society, and culture (a US military base on the site of Babylon? C'mon!), has caused the US and the West, no matter WHO happened to have authorized it, to be at fault, and bear the brunt of their cultural anger.... direct or indirect. Conscious or sub...

WE elected our leaders who pursued those policies, and we are ALL going to be held accountable socio-economically. every time we fill the SUV up, for 'the rest of our born days.'

The American people 'lost' Iraq. We allowed our leaders to 'shoot our energy economy in the foot' so to speak.

Further, the only people who don't seem to 'get it', are the American public. Be it rationalization, denial, or a perverse sense of 'exceptionalism, we ARE, as a society, clueless.

Incoming! National Security Archive Papers - Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI: Twenty Interviews and Five Conversations in 2004 http://trunc.it/od4u

Let's ask the 1.2 million Iraqis who have died as a result of this war.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

No, they won't answer.

Let's ask the 10.9 million Iraqis internally displaced.

Or the 2.2-2.4 million Iraqis living abroad (Aug 2008)
Iraqi Refugees in Syria 1.4-1.5 million
Iraqi Refugees in Jordan 450,000 – 500,000
Iraqi Refugees in Egypt, Lebanon, Iran 130,000 – 150,000
Iraqi Refugees in the Gulf States 200,000

or the 5.4 million international refugees and asylum seekers
2003-2004 366,000
2005 889,000
2006 1,800,000
2007 2,400,000
NOTE: Figures in the above table are cumulative.

NOTE ON ALL DISPLACED IRAQIS: According to the International Organization of Migration only about 78,180 of the estimated 5.1 million Iraqis uprooted from their homes- less than 1%- had returned by March 31, 2008.

or the Iraqi prison popoulation.
June 2009 ~11,000 in U.S. custody

All except dead Iraqi figures are from Brookings Report.
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20090625.pdf

the Odierno world:
PBS Originally Aired: July 1, 2009 GEN. RAY ODIERNO: I would just say that, as I look at violence all over Iraq -- and you're exactly right, the numbers are high over the last 10 to 12 days -- but when I look at security incidents around the country, they're still very low.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec09/odierno_07-01.html

the real world:
According to the Iraqi Health Ministry, the number of civilians killed in the month of June ended at 373, nearly three times the number killed in May. The number fell just shy of April’s toll of 395, which was itself the deadliest in nearly a year.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/07/01/iraqi-civilian-toll-jumped-nearly-threefold-in-june/

Read the Hannah shill just now.

It is a work of pandering to those who will lose blood, heirs and treasury by one who can only inherit a secure posterity at no risk.

Madoff extracted less and was more ethical.

A young Naval officer reminds us elsewhere on Slate what
Clausewitz stated: "military victory is meaningless unless it can achieve its intended political objectives, otherwise it's just a waste of life, equipment and money."

What have we accomplished? We've prosecuted OIF on a credit card with interest piling-up daily; tied down our forces for longer than ever anticipated for which their refitting and resetting cost hasn't even been addressed yet; expended our diplomatic energy in the region at the expense of our other critical interests and seen other regional players take over the traditional role of mediating that was once the domain of the U.S.

Finally, we've created a vacuum for Iran to step into, thereby changing the dynamic for them to become a regional player, and watched as the House of Saud has decided America can no longer be depended upon to guarantee the security on the Arabian Peninsula (or is that the Persian Gulf?).

It is quite probable we would have had to address the Saddam regime militarily at some point. The key is knowing when is the right time to do so. Or as the T'ai Kung stated in the "Six Secret Teachings: "One who excels at warfare will await events in the situation without making any movement."

"When he sees he can be victorious, he will arise; if he sees he cannot be victorious, he will desist."

Victory - absolutely not.

It was those three thousand, four hundred and sixty three servicemen (as of 29 June) who lost Iraq. They should have tried harder. They not only lost Iraq, they lost....everything. Since no one is mentioning them I thought I might place some blame.After all, they did volunteer. Do not blame our wise elected representatives, they only sent them over there.

We won the state to state battle quickly and fairly easily, then we lost control to Insurgents, Jihadis, and Iranian Proxies. Then we fought them back and re-took Iraq. So I'd say we won it, lost it,, then won it back. Was it a good idea in the first place? No, but in the defense of Bush and Company I'll say this--the guy who comes to the table with a plan will get that plan put into motion if the other guy (the dems) show up to the table with no plan. When the archeologists dig this up they'll either laugh or cry. And if you think this is over...

In defense of Bush (although that goes against my better judgement) I believe as the F.B.I reported today that the W.M.D curveball was thrown by Saddam, Bush along with 70% of the American public were the ones who swung wildly at that pitch.

To the earlier poster who suggested US public opinion was split before the invasion... according to Pew Research in March of 2003, 71% of Americans thought invading Iraq was the correct decision, 22% thought it was the wrong decision. That's pretty overwhelming.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/431/trends-in-public-opinion-about-the-war-in-iraq-2003-2007

Political capital is such a fickle mistress.

The FP blog is not showing comments just now, so maybe somebody already put this up. Anything to it?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KG02Ak05.html
Marching out of step in the US military
By Dahr Jamail
Jul 2, 2009

We lost Iraq in 2005, under Bush's watch, when it became public that there really weren't WMDs in Iraq and the Iraqis were not throwing flowers and candy at us.

Jason, Bush didn't have to admit that iraq was lost in 2005, and look many people still have not admitted that it's lost! After all our army is still there, still controlling things. We can direct airstrikes absolutely anywhere we want to and nobody can stop us. By some ways of thinking that means we have not lost.

Compare to vietnam. There are actually people today who want to claim that south vietnam was in good shape until the US congress cut off the funding, and presumably that if the funding hadn't been cut that south vietnam might exist to this day. They say the viet cong were destroyed during the Tet offensive and were no longer any threat, that the COIN challenge was entirely handled and the only remaining problem was the north vietnamese army, which the ARVN could handle just fine,

When somebody denies the Holocaust people call him a holocaust denier and ridicule him. When somebody says 9/11 was an inside job people call him a Truther and ridicule him. But vietnam deniers are taken perfectly seriously. People who ought to know better treat them as if their point of view is somehow legitimate, as if they are not delusional loons whose own words make them ridiculous.

So I think it's reasonably certain that when Obama gets us out of iraq (whether that's in October 2012 or earlier or later) there will be a concerted effort to say he lost iraq and to blame him for anything bad that happens later.

And Obama can say that he had no choice, that he was following the treaty that Bush signed, and his alternative was only to overthrow the iraqi government and conquer iraq all over again without any particular excuse the UN could accept. And the delusional loons will ignore that and say he should have stayed and consolidated the Surge victory rather than create a brand new defeat.

Hardrada says,

"according to Pew Research in March of 2003, 71% of Americans thought invading Iraq was the correct decision, 22% thought it was the wrong decision. That's pretty overwhelming."

But March is when we invaded, and not the best time for assessing where the people's heads are at (which is, as always at the beginning of a war, delirious with war-fever). I'd like to see some comparison with February, January, December.

That poll and the Lancet study are both nuts. Do the math, how many Iraqis would have to have died each month for 1 mil to be dead? What happened to all those bodies? During the height of the sectarian war the warring sides WANTED people to see the dead to intimidate them and cleanse neighborhoods. For that survey to be correct around 90% of the dead were never reported. Plus the Lancet study has been discredited. The author refused to turn over and answer some basic questions about his study. Most reliable estimates believe that about 100,000 have died.
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2009/05/iraqi-casualty-reports-in-april-2009.html

Your numbers on Iraqi refugees are also incorrect. Iraq has about 2 million refugees and around 2.6 million internally displaced. The number of refugees is under dispute and could be less. This was caused because you added up the numbers of refugees each year. That's incorrect. The 2.4 mil in 2007 for example was how many there were total since 2003. Most estimates think about 5% of Iraq's displaced and refugees have returned so far.

You can quote all that stuff all you want, but the Lancet study has been discredit. In early 2009 the American Association for Public Opinion Research asked the author of the Lancet study some basic questions about his work. He only gave partial responses and refused to answer others. He got censured for that and for violating basic research methods.

And again, where are all the bodies? 1 million divided by 6 years = 166,666 dead per year. 13,888 per month. Iraqi families constantly go to the morgues looking for their family members. Why haven't they been reported? Especially now with violence subsiding the families should have the opportunity to find their dead. If 1 million died only 10% of the dead were reported. You really believe that? There's 900,000 dead bodies laying around somewhere, just no one's found them.

So then why didn't he answer the questions about his research and turn over his finding when asked? Isn't that common amongst researchers?

Yes, that's common when both parties are legitimate researchers. Not clear that applies to the group you say was after him.

So how about you ask him what was going on? Or do a search to find out what he said? You're the one who thinks this is significant, and you have repeatedly tried to smear this researcher with this allegation. Why not show that you're capable of unbiased searching by answering your own question?

"Yes, that's common when both parties are legitimate researchers."

Exactly. It's not common when one of the parties are fraudulent researchers who are trying to keep everything secret to hide their fraud.