• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the Iraq War "Worth it"

Was the Iraq War Worth it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 6.4%
  • No

    Votes: 65 83.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 10.3%

  • Total voters
    78
Here's why it fails:

Sorry, Maggie. Try again.

Time: "Iraq's Government, Not Obama, Called Time On U.S. Troop Presence." An October 2011 Time article titled "Iraq's Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence," explained that U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq was "an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis":

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki's ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration's plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based. [Time, 10/21/11]

AP: SOFA Negotiations Thwarted By Iraqi Government. In October 2011, the Associated Press reported that negotiations for a SOFA were stymied after the Iraqi government refused to grant American troops legal immunity:

But talks ran aground over Iraqi opposition to giving American troops legal immunity that would shield them from Iraqi prosecution. Legal protection for U.S. troops has always angered everyday Iraqis who saw it as simply a way for the Americans to run roughshod over the country. Many Iraqi lawmakers were hesitant to grant immunity for fear of a backlash from constituents.

"When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told a news conference Saturday. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started." [The Huffington Post, 10/22/2011]

The New York Times: "Iraqis Were Unwilling To Accept" Terms Of SOFA. An October 2011 New York Times article provided details of the complicated negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for a status of forces agreement (emphasis added):

Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops' staying on.

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.

[...]

This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani's compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty. [The New York Times, 10/21/11]
 
And here's the kicker:

Fareed Zakaria: Who lost Iraq? The Iraqis did, with an assist from George W. Bush - The Washington Post

Some commentators have blamed the Obama administration for negotiating badly or halfheartedly and perhaps this is true. But here’s what a senior Iraqi politician told me in the days when the U.S. withdrawal was being discussed: “It will not happen. Maliki cannot allow American troops to stay on. Iran has made very clear to Maliki that its No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq. And Maliki owes them.” He reminded me that Maliki spent 24 years in exile, most of them in Tehran and Damascus, and his party was funded by Iran for most of its existence. And in fact, Maliki’s government has followed policies that have been pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian.
 
With the situation in Iraq unfolding do you believe that the Iraq War was worth it?

That is a tough one to answer, at least for me. I know when we first went into Iraq, I wished we hadn’t. If I had a vote in congress, I probably would have voted No. But the war itself, our forces vs. Saddam’s was relative painless, went smooth and pretty quick the statue of Saddam came tumbling down. Then came this nation building thing. That I thought was a mistake, especially forcing a form of government on the Iraqi people they did not want. I would have let them chose and form their own government and got the heck out.

But nonetheless, when we did leave we left them with a pretty solid foundation. One if they built on it, the Iraqi’s would have probably led to peace and stability. But Miliki decided to tear a lot of that foundation apart and prosecute the Sunni instead of incorporating them. It is Miliki that bears the brunt of the responsibility for what we are seeing in Iraq today. At least in my opinion. Now keep in mind as bad as things seems in Iraq today, it could get better tomorrow, or worse.

Was it worth it or was it one huge mistake, I suppose history will have to decide that as 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now historians will have the advantage of knowing how all this played out. We do not. There are many days when I wake up, I look back to my war, the Vietnam War and say to myself, it didn’t have to turn out this way. I just hope and pray those soldiers and fly boys who fought in the Iraq War do not in their future wake up and say to themselves, it didn’t have to turn out this way.
 
2011 is not 2014.

Time doesn't change the facts, only how the facts are spun for political advantage. You have Iraqi officials backing up Obama wanting to leave 10,000 troops, publicly.

Unfortunately, Maliki was already bought and paid for, politically. If it was Obama's choice, then I think your argument would be perfectly legit.
 
Because the true motivations behind the Iraq War were never revealed to us, we do not even know what the point of the Iraq War was to begin with.
We never got the WMDs. But we never expected to.

If someone thinks it was worth it or could of been worth it "if only"... I'd sure like to know what that worth is.
 
got SOFA ?
I agree with Beaudreaux. I know what you mean, but I think there's a different way to say it. Better might be, "Do you think our strategy in Iraq ended in a cluster****?" Yeah, I like that.

In Obama's hurry to close it down, he left this country in a mess. We have troops stationed all over the damned world on a permanent basis. Why not here? This country's stability is most certainly of great importance to the United States.

Obama was dead wrong.
 
2011 is not 2014.

Heya Maggie if they want go go back that far.....then they can look at what his Iraq Policy was always about and from the get go. BO's Beginning and all its uhm.....erm....oh yeah, so called glory. :roll:


Barack Obama's "New Plan" For Failure
September 13, 2007, 9:32 AM By Frederick W. Kagan.

In a speech that will no doubt be hailed by the left as bold and original, Senator Barack Obama today unveiled "his" plan for a "responsible" withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2009. The plan may be bold, but it is certainly not original. In fact, Obama's plan is extremely similar to one unveiled in June by the Center for a New American Strategy called "Phased Transition: A Responsible Way Forward and Out of Iraq." Like the CNAS report, Obama's plan calls for the withdrawal of almost all American combat forces from Iraq by the time the next president takes office (oddly enough), but purports to offer ways to achieve vital American goals in Iraq without using U.S. forces in combat, including continuing the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, helping the Iraqis achieve political reconciliation, preventing the Iraq struggle from becoming a regional war, and preventing genocide within Iraq (the CNAS report called its objectives "the three nos:" no al Qaeda, no regional war, and no genocide, and also argued that its approach would enable reconciliation within Iraq). Like the CNAS plan, Obama's proposal asserts that U.S. forces can continue to train Iraqi Security Forces even after this withdrawal of combat power (as long as the ISF are non-sectarian). Like the CNAS plan, Obama's proposal is utterly unworkable. Any attempt to transfer it from the realm of thought-experiment to the real world would lead to immediate disaster in Iraq and the region.

The CNAS team deserves credit for making a serious and respectable effort to grapple with a difficult task. Obama's proposal does not. Not only is it a strategy someone else developed and published, but it is dumbed down to the point of incoherence. On the one hand, the plan trumpets: "All combat troops redeployed by 2009." The proposal even provides a little plan for how to do that: "The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas. The drawdown would begin immediately with one or two combat brigades deploying each month and all troops engaged in combat operations out by the end of the year." This sounds good (if one accepts the premise that withdrawal is desirable), but means little.

The weird thing about Obama's plan is that the section following "All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009" is headed "Residual Force to Remain." This "residual force" would "protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training the Iraqi Security Forces. In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safe-haven." The CNAS report was clear and explicit about this point. It is too much to expect Senators to develop concrete and detailed war plans on their own--with very few exceptions they have neither the staffs nor the expertise to do so. That is one of the reasons why the United States has traditionally left the developing of war plans to its generals. But when a senator puts out his "own" plan that is virtually identical to one that has already been carefully evaluated and shown to have been unworkable, it seems only right that the American people should be aware of the fact......snip~

Barack Obama's "New Plan" For Failure - Page 2 - CBS News

Do you think someone can tell Fareed..... he needs to learn how to keep up with 21st Century Journalist Work. :lol:
 
Last edited:
got SOFA ?

BO's got one for Afghanistan.....hows that working out.
couchsleep.gif
 
Heya Maggie if they want go go back that far.....then they can look at what his Iraq Policy was always about and from the get go. BO's Beginning and all its uhm.....erm....oh yeah, so called glory. :roll:


Barack Obama's "New Plan" For Failure
September 13, 2007, 9:32 AM By Frederick W. Kagan.

LOL! The opinion of a neoconservative hack from 2007 carries little weight with me. You might as well have quoted Bill Kristol.
 
BO's got one for Afghanistan.....hows that working out.
couchsleep.gif

Do you guys have all yer TPs lined up from the WSJ piece from Cheney, as well as the video from Liz and Dick?
He makes you look like an angel M .
 
Yes. I was proud to serve, and I was proud to have brought (apparently temporary) peace and freedom to a people who had known only fear and tyranny. That was worth it.

There was never even temporary peace in Iraq following our invasion. Say what you will about his methods, but Saddam Hussein was the only thing keeping Iraq from total chaos and we opened the floodgates when we toppled his regime. His regime was a paradise in comparison with what we brought them.
 
Sorry, I have to rub this in MMC's face a little more...

Kagan works for the American Enterprise Institute, which is a essentially a re-branding of the Project For a New American Century. These are the last guys you should listen to on anything concerning Iraq. I would rather get Foreign Policy advice from a random crack head.
 
"And once we'd ......gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."
Dick Cheney 1991
 
Last edited:
Afghan was the right conflict. Iraq was a disaster from start to finish. Watching Coiln Powell present 'the so called evidence' was absolutely pathetic.

Paul
 
I believe hindsight serves little purpose, hence the "20/20" that goes along with it.

If one is to fantasize, it was foolish to think these people from the dark ages would want to be part of any form of civilized modern society in the first place.

I passionately didn't think it was worth it beforehand, so I still get to say it wasn't worth it now :)

I thought Bush was lying. I thought destabilizing Iraq was foolish. Pretty much I was right.
 
LOL! The opinion of a neoconservative hack from 2007 carries little weight with me. You might as well have quoted Bill Kristol.

:lamo Then why aren't you using Military Sources with real strategists and tacticians. That which the sheep uhm I mean Fareed types.....have to learn about and get permission to Speak on?
funny.gif
 
I believe hindsight serves little purpose, hence the "20/20" that goes along with it.

If one is to fantasize, it was foolish to think these people from the dark ages would want to be part of any form of civilized modern society in the first place.

Hindsight should be used to avoid repeating past mistakes.

955a97e850dd.jpg

Baghdad before the US invasion, looks pretty civilized to me.

_66476655_24edd3b9-44df-459e-b5ec-8718e6e2e1b4.jpg

Baghdad after the US invasion

Whose the barbarian(s)?

"And once we'd ......gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."
Dick Cheney 1991
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I have to rub this in MMC's face a little more...

Kagan works for the American Enterprise Institute, which is a essentially a re-branding of the Project For a New American Century. These are the last guys you should listen to on anything concerning Iraq. I would rather get Foreign Policy advice from a random crack head.



Well I have to rub it back in yours.....despite Kagans opinion.... and now for the good rub.....down in the good stuff.....face first!

How does this change the very Fact of who BO got his Strategy from. That would be the CNAS plan. Care to try and get around that one Amadeaus? :lamo
 
There was never even temporary peace in Iraq following our invasion. Say what you will about his methods, but Saddam Hussein was the only thing keeping Iraq from total chaos and we opened the floodgates when we toppled his regime. His regime was a paradise in comparison with what we brought them.

:shrug: I was there and I saw it and you are wrong.
 
I still disagree with the decision to invade Iraq. The primary reason "we" chose to invade Iraq was because the previous administration believed they were in possession of nuclear weapons. The facts show that they were not in possession of nuclear weapons, but even without hindsight on the issue, there was no proof of nuclear weapon possession, so we never should've invaded. Invading nations and allowing lives to be lost on little to no evidence, which was essentially all the Bush administration had, is never good policy.
 
:lamo Then why aren't you using Military Sources with real strategists and tacticians. That which the sheep uhm I mean Fareed types.....have to learn about and get permission to Speak on?
funny.gif

Perhaps you missed it, but my sources are Time, Huffington Post, and New York Times. The info comes from Iraqi Officials who confirmed the SOFA deal.

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.

[...]

This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani's compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty. [The New York Times, 10/21/11]

Also, Fareed was quote a high-ranking Iraqi politician.

What you have to decide, MMC, is where your loyalties lie. Is it to being anti-Obama, or being pro-Neocon? Because you're certainly not being pro-fact, or pro-military with your nonsense propaganda.
 
Hindsight should be used to avoid repeating past mistakes.

955a97e850dd.jpg

Baghdad before the US invasion, looks pretty civilized to me.

_66476655_24edd3b9-44df-459e-b5ec-8718e6e2e1b4.jpg

Baghdad after the US invasion

Whose the barbarian(s)?

"And once we'd ......gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."
Dick Cheney 1991

This should simply be repeated. Thank you for this post.
 
:shrug: I was there and I saw it and you are wrong.

He is not wrong about the underlying seeds of chaos. They were there, obviously, or we wouldn't have what we have today.
 
Back
Top Bottom