The Costs of War

Ms Patterson's essay calls to mind the metaphor of one hand clapping. Because it involves only one hand, no clapping whatever takes place. Here, missing that other required half, no genuine analysis takes place. True, misjudgements and the initial bungling of the occupation phase by the Bush administration led to much suffering by Iraqis and the US alike, unnecessary suffering. Yet to ignore Saddam Hussein, whose name is not so much as mentioned by Ms Patterson in an article that centers on the Iraq war, perhaps better known by the popular moniker extended by the Iraqis who enjoyed his beneficence, as the Butcher of Bagdhad, is to write not so much an analytic essay as to sketch a diatribe.. Although she is not specific, we can assume that by "waged under false pretenses" Ms Patterson references the widely held opinion that Saddam held and had the intent to further develop WMD in the future. The first part of that statement proved false. Yet the facts not disputed are that he sarin gassed a village of his own citizens, that he dammed off the water supply of a segment of his own population to ruin their crops and starve them into oblivion, that he invaded his neighbor unprovoked, that he created the greatest man-made environmental disaster in the history of mankind, that, inspired by Stalin and Roman generals, he decimated the male populations of his own villages, and the like. Nor were his 17 violations of UN resolutions and pot shots he took at US jets attempting to enforce those resolutions imaginary. 83% of Iraqis wanted Saddam overthrown. It was the botched first years of the US occupation, not Saddam's overthrow, to which they took umbrage. The costs of the Iraq war, perhaps as much as two years of Obamian-sized deficits, was indeed very high, as was the loss of 134,000 Iraqis as Ms Patterson references. And had President Bush had competent leaders such as Gates and Petraeus in charge with their sound judgment, they would have been far lower. Sadly, like Lincoln, good generals were initially lacking, yet fortunately they were belatedly appointed and prevented a major civil war by turning the situation around. Nonetheless, by its own admission, the UN-supported sanctions on Iraq, aggravated by Saddam's corruption of the Oil for Food program, resulted in far more Iraqi deaths, perhaps a half a million according to the UN, by itself. And that doesn't include the hundreds of thousands Saddam contributed to the body count. The one hand here is the 134,000 Iraqi dead over the US involvement, which included Al Qaeda and Sadrists fighting the US and Iraqi government troops; the missing hand, the multiples of that figure Saddam and the UN's attempt to control him that would have continued to pile up bodies at a far greater rate had we not replaced the man who so admired Stalin and aped his blood baths. Another question one would pose is why is the US, who under Barack Obama had removed all US combat troops according to the schedule his predecessor had negotiated with Iraq, subsequently viewed more unfavorably by key Middle Eastern countries than the US was at the end of the Bush administration according to the Zogby poll? Could it be due to other factors, such as the threat of values represented by the US and the west, such as women's rights, which conflict with Islamic preferences that women remain virtual chattel and not be allowed to drive cars or obtain the education that enable women such as Ms Patterson to express their viewpoint? And so it goes. While no doubt we as a people have to bring spending on defense under control--for example, how can we afford to pay life-long retirement benefits for 38-year-old retirees for 2/3rds of their adult life--there will be a price to pay for such cutbacks to which Ms Patterson here is either oblivious or negligent. A timely example would be a reference to what was considered Reagan's wasteful "Star Wars" expenditures on ABM systems such as the Aegis missile defense system. Following North Korea's threats to launch a missile against the US, do those living on the West Coast wish that system had not been developed? President Obama has just quietly authorized $2 billion to shore up that ABM system for California and environs. Do Californians want that cut? We do spend a similar amount on Israel each year, and a similar amount on Egypt as well. Is it in our interest to cut one or both? We need to involve both hands to get a feel for these complicated but crucial issues and events. The costs of war have to be considered in relation to the costs of no war.

The author's position would be sensible, if it weren't premised on what seems to be a preference for isolationism. Yes, Iraq was a debacle. Yes, we should be more cautious moving forward in the future. And, yes, some Republican hawks seem to think the extraordinary costs of war (both financial and human) are a worthy price for security. But the author falls into the pit of most people who think that strategic thinking is about ideology, not pragmatism: she views the world through a narrow set of binoculars, missing the forest for the trees. As noted above, she got one half of the picture correct: that Iraq was a catastrophic mistake whose effects linger on into the future. But she gets the second half wrong: that the lesson we learned from Iraq is less engagement with difficult situations abroad. The fact is, the United States is a global superpower. China may be on the rise, but it is still decades away from building the diplomatic and military capabilities it will need to transform itself from economic behemoth into a true global leader. That leaves us. Take, for example, the author's comments on the "tar baby" (by the way, who uses that term in modern day America? I hope the author is at least passingly familiar with the term's racist past) of Syria. An unstable Syria threatens peace in Iraq, Lebanon, and the overall security of the Middle East. Rather than bury our heads and say, "Not our problem," the US has (and should) be taking affirmative steps to provide aid to the Syrian rebels. I'm not advocating for actual intervention - I'm not even sure that providing arms would be wise. But I think that hiding from the problem, as the author would have us do, is an obviously erroneous approach. America after 9/11 was faced with a threat in the form of radical Islam. We faced that threat, and for the most part, have done our job dismantling the dominant international terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda. But now that we're moving into a post-Iraq, post-terror world, the new issues we'll face will be even more complex and likely more difficult to solve. If the lesson we take from Iraq & Afghanistan is isolationism, then I guarantee America's problems at home will become more intractable.

The Iraqi War was neither a debacle, nor waged under false pretenses. Though there is plenty to argue about the main objectives were achieved handily. Namely, the gruesome regime was destroyed, the ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction was destroyed, the threat to Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and ungrateful Iran was destroyed. In the administration of President Clinton the US announced the policy of removing the regime; after 9-11 the regime had to go. It mattered not a wit that Hussein wasn't behind 9-11, he was behind the continuing terror against Israel, and more. Hussein was not in compliance with the agreements that ended the first Gulf War. And so, President Bush said the US would attack Iraq, the Congress concurred. Did you think missiles were buried in the sand to discover? Hussein and his regime were the living weapons, and I shed no tears for them. To suggest that the war "de-stabilized" the region is almost laughable. The region hasn't been stable since before the First World War when it was under the Ottoman Empire--oops, those unhappy occupiers of the same ilk. So what stability do you imagine Ms. Patterson? We support Israel, yes. And send aid, yes. We also support Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, etc. Frankly, we support all the Arab countries of the Middle East with Cash or actual military forces and arms. We even support the Palestinians and their pathetic attempts at self governance. Gee, all this is easier without Hussein, and would be much easier if the Iranians didn't support Syria and the other factions in "Palestine" and Lebanon. Israel is entitled by conquest to hold the lands you claim are occupied. I say, return the West Bank the same moment the Turks return Constantinople to the Greeks (by your judgement occupied since 1453). What's done is done where war is concerned, and I am no cheerleader for battles, but there is absolutely no point to acting like any of this was caused by the removal of Saddam Hussein, or that unexpected outcomes are a surprise. Ask yourself again, why do the Arabs (or Muslims) despise Israel so? If Israel didn't exist, or if we didn't support our "client state" would the Middle East be paradise? I doubt it. Remember that the so called Palestinians are the last unrepentant allies of Adolf Hitler, and the geography of the sands was drawn twice, after WW1 and WW2, and we are paying for British blunders and betrayals far more than any mistakes made by both Presidents Bush and Clinton and Obama. The "Jewish settlements" on the West Bank? Those are Israeli settlements.