[Arkham_c]

Without going on a tirade (I'll leave that to you), I don't understand the political debate on the war in Iraq. My quotes aren't really quotes, but I don't think anyone will disagree that the candidates agree with the gist of them.

McCain blasts Obama for wanting to take the troops out of Iraq because "the surge is working".

Obama blasts McCain for wanting to keep the troops in Iraq because it was "a war that should never have been waged."

Aren't these two statements talking about two totally different things? McCain is basically talking about "where to go from here", while Obama is talking about a "mistake" made in the past. They seem to be talking circles around each other without directly addressing each other's point.

Here's my mock conversation between (I think) two intelligent men with different views:
--
McCain: The surge is working
Obama: So what? If we had never invaded Iraq, we wouldn't need a surge, now would we?
McCain: yeah, true, but we're there now. The surge is the way to get Iraq to peace.
Obama: Iraq won't ever have peace because half the people hate the other half of the people and have for 2000 years, and keeping them from killing each other isn't gonna change that.
McCain: So what should we do? Let them kill each other?
Obama: Basically, yeah. Right now we're enablers, and they're codependents. They need to learn to stand on their own.
McCain: I disagree with you. I think the only way to give them peace is to have them pursue it while not in open combat.
--

How well does this encapsulate the debate? Flame away.

[spacefreak]

It's not just Obama with that approach, it's pretty much the entire liberal left. They are still arguing against a decision that was made 5+ years ago, with pretty much no attention or energy spent on how to actually improve the situation in Iraq.

The left has no problems trying to secure defeat and the collapse of a young, democratic Iraq. You'll rarely hear of any liberals working towards victory of any kind, and they even have trouble admitting that the surge has produced great results.

I think you summed up the different stances well - perhaps better than most contrasts I've seen - with your mock conversation.

[Arkham_c]

The thing is, I think this is substantively accurate. I am not saying that my mock Obama is wrong and that my mock McCain is right. I think there's truth to the mock Obama side of the argument that the Sunni and Shiites all hate each other, have hated each other for so long that they don't even remember why they hate each other, and will always hate each other forever no matter what the US does.

Whether we force them not to kill each other with military force or try to force them to cooperate through diplomacy and the fear of having to stand on their own, both options pretty much suck. Why can't both parties acknowledge this as part of the argument?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

Why can't both parties acknowledge this as part of the argument?

Each party feels the other should be allowed to hang itself with its own position.

[BRussell]

I think they do address the difference. McCain says the invasion was the right thing to do but he doesn't like how it went down (addressing the "should never have gone" point), and Obama says the surge has not brought about a political solution and it will put more pressure on the Iraqis to do so if we leave than if we stay (addressing the "surge is working" point).

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

Whether we force them not to kill each other with military force or try to force them to cooperate through diplomacy and the fear of having to stand on their own, both options pretty much suck. Why can't both parties acknowledge this as part of the argument?

Have you ever read the Long War Journal? I've been reading it for a while, usually once a week. The general gist I get from this site as well as reports from other sources is that this notion that entire ethnic populations would tear each other up if not for the US is way overstated and assumed by too many to be "just the way it is". It's more like a few armed sects who need to be restrained (or defeated) to maintain security.

It's hard for their government to function well if some group is constantly firing mortars into the Green Zone.

If the entire Iraqi population wanted to kill each other, there is little the US presence there could do to stop it. We'd have seen it by now on a grand scale.

What I observe are smaller, organized groups - like Sadr's militia - who are ethnic and religion based, causing havoc for whatever their or their particular leaders' desires are.

[ghporter]

I agree with both of them, frankly. They're just not talking about the same thing.

We produced the power vacuum that led to all these insurgents coming into Iraq in the first place (and both staging attacks and stirring up internecine, tribal issues with the locals), so it looks to me like our responsibility to do whatever is possible to undo that. And if we "cut and run", what does that say to the American public and the world about how we value the over 4,000 Soldiers and Marines whose lives were sacrificed in the past five years? That we don't care? That their sacrifice was not important?

That leaves me with the feeling that we should say "starting this was a horribly bad idea" but then "staying the course is the only responsible option." Neither is particularly satisfying for various reasons. If those two statements, made officially, could just get the American people to stop arguing and push the administration (whoever winds up in the White House in January) to finish the job and then bring home the troops (probably without some grand deal for a bunch of bases in Iraq), then not being particularly satisfying is something I can deal with.

[Big Mac]

I'm surprised you'd say it was a horrible mistake, Glenn. We took out a brutal tyrant who was continually violating international laws and the terms of our cease fire; we have eliminated from the earth thousands, if not tens of thousands, of terrorists who are no longer around to commit future terrorist attacks against us or our allies. We have given that country a chance to be a normalized member of the world community, a chance that Iraq otherwise would never have gotten. The war was worth it. Now the question is how to bring it to a close - either by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (Obama) or by taking the responsible, if harder path to victory (McCain).

[hyteckit]

I think we should invade Iran and N. Korea next.

Watch for $10/gal gas and bankruptcy of America. Sweet!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm surprised you'd say it was a horrible mistake, Glenn. We took out a brutal tyrant who was continually violating international laws and the terms of our cease fire; we have eliminated from the earth thousands, if not tens of thousands, of terrorists who are no longer around to commit future terrorist attacks against us or our allies. We have given that country a chance to be a normalized member of the world community, a chance that Iraq otherwise would never have gotten. The war was worth it. Now the question is how to bring it to a close - either by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (Obama) or by taking the responsible, if harder path to victory (McCain).

We took out a horrible man, yes. We took out a horrible man at the cost of many lives, and we weakened our country in the process, opened theirs to the most undesirable elements on the planet and allowed terrorists to gain strength while we were wasting our time playing Sim City in the Middle East.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm surprised you'd say it was a horrible mistake, Glenn. We took out a brutal tyrant who was continually violating international laws and the terms of our cease fire; we have eliminated from the earth thousands, if not tens of thousands, of terrorists who are no longer around to commit future terrorist attacks against us or our allies. We have given that country a chance to be a normalized member of the world community, a chance that Iraq otherwise would never have gotten. The war was worth it. Now the question is how to bring it to a close - either by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (Obama) or by taking the responsible, if harder path to victory (McCain).

My own feeling is that, whatever his rhetoric, Obama will be more likely to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat than McCain will. McCain supported all the failed policies that led us to this mess. Why would you ever think that he is a good candidate to get us out of it? McCain has some real problems with his judgement.

Even if it does turn out to be successful, the other question is, was it worth it? How many hundreds of thousands of lives is it worth sacrificing to take out a brutal tyrant? We have created how many thousands of new terrorists ready to give their lives in the next 9/11? Three trillion dollars blown away. Our economy is in the pits, and this money could have made the difference. Both Americans and Iraqis have sacrified a lot to take out this brutal tyrant. Everyone knows that the average cost of this war is $10,000 per American. However, this cost is not born equally. So you may be happy with the situation, but you should still show some sympathy for your neighbor whose son is dead, who has lost his job, can't afford gas, and is having his savings inflated away.

[ebuddy]

Our policy of containment since 1991 was hardly less expensive, nor more effective. Our continued policy of encouraging Iraqi compliance through repeated weapons inspections, disarmament, the occasional bombing, and eventual, unavoidable regime-change would've cost us upwards of $700 billion anyway. (assuming you're willing to use the type of math used to arrive at the oft-repeated $3 trillion dollar figure)

I'm thankful the surge is working, but we're awful late with success. The mismanagement of this action has cost us a great deal more than this should have in lives and dollars. However, this is not sufficient enough to say we should never have invaded IMO. It is easy to sit back now and point out all the errors. There were a host of reasons for invading, including Iran and our presence in the region. The decision to invade was largely bipartisan. Regime change in Iraq was a documented policy of the prior Administration as well as this one and for good reason. Besides which, we're there now as Arkham_c mentioned in his McCain role. To pull out now at the precipice of success in Iraq would be the biggest blunder of them all and you can bet we'd have to return either to another expensive containment policy, or worse; war to a more fortified enemy.

[red rocket]

The thing is, ‘the surge’ isn’t working, but if a candidate said that, he’d be up against the neocons and their media machine, which would kill off his chances of winning. Saying the invasion shouldn’t have happened is safe, he doesn’t have to accuse powerful people of continuing to lie to the American public.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm surprised you'd say it was a horrible mistake, Glenn. We took out a brutal tyrant who was continually violating international laws and the terms of our cease fire; we have eliminated from the earth thousands, if not tens of thousands, of terrorists who are no longer around to commit future terrorist attacks against us or our allies. We have given that country a chance to be a normalized member of the world community, a chance that Iraq otherwise would never have gotten. The war was worth it. Now the question is how to bring it to a close - either by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (Obama) or by taking the responsible, if harder path to victory (McCain).

Ridding the world of Saddam, and the thousands of "let's take on the great satan" jihadists is not a bad thing. The "horrible mistake" was not taking into account that a) maybe the Republican Guard and the rest of the Iraqi Army would fold like a stack of cards and b) what to do about the borders to keep out insurgents and foreign weapons. It was very bad planning to have only one concept of operations. "The battle plan is always the first casualty in any combat." They teach that to just about anyone in the military that makes decisions above the level of "should I get a haircut before or after lunch," so I'd expected the topest of top brass to have taken that into account.

I don't buckle my seat belt because I expect that I will have problems because of my own actions, but you never know what the other guy(s) is going to do. That's even more applicable in a military situation.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

The thing is, ‘the surge’ isn’t working, but if a candidate said that, he’d be up against the neocons and their media machine, which would kill off his chances of winning. Saying the invasion shouldn’t have happened is safe, he doesn’t have to accuse powerful people of continuing to lie to the American public.

In the strictest sense, I agree with you. The surge by itself did not "work." But it did allow for a lot more control of borders, and a lot more time for our forces to work with local authorities (tribal, civil, etc.) so that they saw the benefit of having Iraq controlled not by outsiders (us or the insurgents) but by Iraqis. The situation in most of Iraq is far more under control than it was "pre-surge." And it's because locals have both taken responsibility for their own security and used that to identify outsiders and suspicious behavior.

Not that candidates actually seem to think about this level of detail. Buzz words and sound bites are their forte. I don't consider either of the two candidates capable of saying "this is the bald truth from my point of view" and actually spilling his guts.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Our policy of containment since 1991 was hardly less expensive, nor more effective. Our continued policy of encouraging Iraqi compliance through repeated weapons inspections, disarmament, the occasional bombing, and eventual, unavoidable regime-change would've cost us upwards of $700 billion anyway. (assuming you're willing to use the type of math used to arrive at the oft-repeated $3 trillion dollar figure).

You know this is false, and yet you repeat it anyway. The three-trillion-dollar figure is for costs above maintaining the status quo. "Another expensive containment policy"? The containment policy was not expensive. I guess you are just making things up, since the war can't be justified except with more lies.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tie 

The containment policy was not expensive. I guess you are just making things up, since the war can't be justified except with more lies.

You might want to do more research on that first statement there. Containing Saddam cost billions. Just the logistics of the Air Force efforts to enforce the no-fly and no-troop zones in the north and south was enormously expensive, especially since it went on for over 12 years. Keeping troops handy to enforce sanctions on the ground was also hugely expensive. I don't have numbers handy, and I don't make them up, but the Air Force had thousands and thousands of people in the theater for over a decade just to fly over those two zones, every day, several times a day, with enough warplanes that it would make Saddam think three or four times before acting in either area.

[tie]

ghporter, I'm glad you bring this up. I agree that these numbers are important and that we shouldn't just make numbers up like ebuddy wants to do. Fortunately, this information is pretty easy to find. For example, here are the cost estimates for containment from a war hawk, from 2003:

Effective containment requires a potent U.S. military presence, including personnel and large amounts of military hardware that could be put to other uses. Prior to the recent buildup, the U.S. devoted roughly 30,000 troops, 30 ships (including a carrier battle group), and about 200 aircraft and other equipment to containment efforts. These resources proved insufficient to enforce U.N. mandates or, evidently, to prevent Saddam Hussein from continued investments in weapons of mass destruction.

The Congressional Budget Office assigns average personnel costs of about $250,000 per person-year to overseas peacekeeping operations, yielding $7.5 billion per year for troops. Accounting for operating costs and depreciation of ships and planes adds $5.4 billion, so the direct costs of containment are about $13 billion per year. If post-9/11 security concerns and redoubled efforts to enforce sanctions were to lead the U.S. to expend 50 percent more on containment, then costs rise to about $19 billion annually.
...
In this light, consider an optimistic scenario in which the Iraqi regime morphs from malign to benign in any given year with a 3 percent probability. This implies an expected duration for the current regime of 33 years. ...

Putting things together, annual costs of $19 billion can be converted to expected present value by discounting future expenditures at an appropriate rate, which we take to be 2 percent per year... The resulting estimate for the cost of containment is $380 billion. This dwarfs any reasonable estimate of the U.S. war costs.
...
For example, suppose that the current Iraqi regime raises the probability of a terrorist attack of the same magnitude as 9/11 by 5 percent per year... In total, our estimated U.S. cost of containment becomes $630 billion.

from War in Iraq versus containment, by Davis, Murphy & Topel

As I wrote above, Bilmes and Stiglitz take into account the costs of containment, and their $3 trillion figure has those costs already subtracted off. (In their first paper, they use $15 billion per year, about the same as Davis et al. These figures don't seem to be that controversial. Note that they use a 4% discount rate instead of a 2% discount rate---this is about 30% more conservative over a 33-year period.)

The economic costs of the Iraq war, by Linda Bilmes & Joseph Stiglitz

The economic consequences of a war with Iraq by William D. Nordhaus

The Economic Costs of the War in Iraq, by Scott Wallsten & Katrina Kosec

It is pretty much impossible to make a credible case for ebuddy's claim that, "Our policy of containment since 1991 was hardly less expensive, nor more effective."

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

You might want to do more research on that first statement there. Containing Saddam cost billions. Just the logistics of the Air Force efforts to enforce the no-fly and no-troop zones in the north and south was enormously expensive, especially since it went on for over 12 years. Keeping troops handy to enforce sanctions on the ground was also hugely expensive. I don't have numbers handy, and I don't make them up, but the Air Force had thousands and thousands of people in the theater for over a decade just to fly over those two zones, every day, several times a day, with enough warplanes that it would make Saddam think three or four times before acting in either area.

"Billions" over a decade compared to what we've spent and lost in this war? Surely you're joking. There's no comparison.

[Luca Rescigno]

The problem with the surge is that the real point was to give the Iraqi government enough security to work things out, and they didn't get anywhere with the time we gave them. The problem is that as long as our commitment remains indefinite, the Iraqis are going to be slow to move on anything.

I'm not a strategist or a diplomat, but it seems that we need to be putting a wee bit more pressure on the Iraqi government to patch things up. I am staunchly against the war, but simply pulling everyone out as Dennis Kucinich and other far leftists have suggested would have pretty dire consequences for both the Iraqi people and the security of the world in general. I do think it was a mistake to become involved in the war in the first place, but that doesn't justify our pulling out full stop.

Also, simply giving the government time isn't really good enough either. We already did that last summer and it didn't work. We increased the security but they didn't do anything with that security. We need our top diplomats to start coming up with ways to improve the Iraqi government so that most people there accept it. I don't think a traditional democracy can work, and I blame the neocon movement for pushing their "democracy at all costs" agenda. It's certainly possible to have a representative government there without having to make it just a copy of the U.S. government. Give regional groups more power or something, so Sunnis don't feel disenfranchised. I do not know all the details of how to work it out but we have to at least try and quit pussyfooting around the fact that the government we've propped up so far is not working.

As for motivation, we can slowly start withdrawing troops, or just redeploy them to force the Iraqi military to start pulling a little more weight. Leave enough guys there as a security blanket, but a slow and steady reduction in troop levels might just be what the government needs to start kicking things into high gear. There's no reason to just withdraw everyone at once.

In response to the argument that Saddam was a terrible dictator who's better off dead, I agree... but there are a lot of terrible dictators in the world who'd be better off dead. If you're going to use that as an argument, then there's no defending the U.S.'s lack of action against North Korea, or our outright friendliness with Saudi Arabia. Hell, if it were our job to go around the world deposing dictators, we'd have to invade dozens of countries at once. There have to be more reasons than that.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

The problem with the surge is that the real point was to give the Iraqi government enough security to work things out, and they didn't get anywhere with the time we gave them. The problem is that as long as our commitment remains indefinite, the Iraqis are going to be slow to move on anything.

I just think statements like this are indulging in a fantasy ideology whereby the elected government in Iraq is somehow really in charge of the country.

The governing force in Iraq is the United States military. Whatever puppet institutions we use to try to cloak that fact will never really be able to stand on their own. It's all a farce.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I just think statements like this are indulging in a fantasy ideology whereby the elected government in Iraq is somehow really in charge of the country.

The governing force in Iraq is the United States military. Whatever puppet institutions we use to try to cloak that fact will never really be able to stand on their own. It's all a farce.

No, you're right, they aren't, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would even try to argue the opposite. But we want to eventually make it so they are in charge.

We really have to. Unless the Iraqis can take over, all we can do is either leave the country to descend into chaos, or maintain a permanent presence of 100,000+ troops. Neither one of those things is an acceptable outcome.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

No, you're right, they aren't, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would even try to argue the opposite. But we want to eventually make it so they are in charge.

We really have to. Unless the Iraqis can take over, all we can do is either leave the country to descend into chaos, or maintain a permanent presence of 100,000+ troops. Neither one of those things is an acceptable outcome.

Look at some of the workings behind the scenes about base construction and the influence the US is using on the Iraqi "constitution" and what kind of authority our forces will have in an "independent" Iraq. The latter scenario you give is all too "acceptable" to certain parties, the very men who charted our course into this debacle.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Look at some of the workings behind the scenes about base construction and the influence the US is using on the Iraqi "constitution" and what kind of authority our forces will have in an "independent" Iraq. The latter scenario you give is all too "acceptable" to certain parties, the very men who charted our course into this debacle.

Not to mention John McCain's "100 years" comment.

It's obvious we can't win by military force alone. Keeping Iraq occupied by a foreign army doesn't help the diplomacy efforts. Besides, I doubt the U.S. has the will or even the ability to maintain a police state there for the next 10 years, much less the next 100. We have to start listening to the Iraqis and doing some serious work on fixing their government so that when we're eventually forced to leave, Iraq is at least somewhat organized.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

As I wrote above, Bilmes and Stiglitz take into account the costs of containment, and their $3 trillion figure has those costs already subtracted off.

Why would you accuse me of lying while lying in the same sentence? C'mon tie. First of all, Stiglitz and Bilmes only subtract the cost of enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq. They do not subtract for the cost of economic sanctions, disarmament requirements, weapons inspections, etc... , but of course you knew there's more to containment than they accounted for. The $3 trillion dollar figure includes bonuses for new recruits put off by war? They also include increase in oil prices as if we'd not have risked this outcome either way due to demand elsewhere. I know we like to live in bizarro world of "war hawks" saying one thing and our preferred "anti-war zealots" saying what you want to hear, but the facts remain;

Scott Wallsten, an economist at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy in Washington, figures Iraq war costs through 2015 will be close to $1 trillion. Remarkable as it may seem, Mr. Wallsten says his estimates are "not so far off" from the Bilmes-Stiglitz $3 trillion estimate. For one thing, Wallsten doesn't include in his estimate some "macro" economic costs, such as a rise of $5 to $10 per barrel of oil that Bilmes and Stiglitz blame on the war. In 2003, oil was priced in the futures market at $25 a barrel. Now it is more than $100 a barrel. But other factors, such as the huge rise in demand for petroleum in China and India, also have helped push prices up... Wallsten notes that Yale economist William Nordhaus in 2002 reckoned the war would cost anywhere from $100 billion to $1.9 trillion, far closer to reality. And Wallsten says this demonstrates the value of making serious cost-benefit analysis when government leaders make major policy decisions. In his original study, Professor Nordhaus noted: "The historical record is littered with failed forecasts about the economic, political, and military outcomes of wars." Like Wallsten, University of Chicago economist Steven Davis holds more analysis and planning is needed before launching a war. But this was "actively resisted" by the Defense Department before the war. "Quite unfortunate," he says. Professor Davis and some colleagues did publish in 2006 a look at the cost of continuing the prewar containment policy involving economic sanctions on Iraq, disarmament requirements, weapons inspections, northern and southern no-fly zones within Iraq, and maritime interdiction to enforce trade restrictions. The cost, they calculate, would have run in the range of $350 billion to $700 billion. "It is difficult to gauge whether the Iraq intervention is more costly than containment," they wrote.
Iraq war cost estimates
This... from a non-war hawk as you can see above. Again, experts disagree, but tie's convinced.

It is pretty much impossible to make a credible case for ebuddy's claim that, "Our policy of containment since 1991 was hardly less expensive, nor more effective."

If you say so.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

"Billions" over a decade compared to what we've spent and lost in this war? Surely you're joking. There's no comparison.

Without some defined end point, that "billions over a decade" is not a joking matter, nor is the use of tens of thousands of personnel every day in a dangerous setting. Through that decade+ there were hundreds of casualties due to accident and Iraqi actions (they shot at our planes rather frequently in the '90s). So from the perspective of "cost", something had to be done eventually. Not that the invasion was even a good idea from the start, but something that got Saddam out of power was necessary to staunch this particular cash hemorrhage. Obviously the chosen methodology was a really bad choice.

[BadKosh]

How about If our CIA and the rest of the Intel gathering agencies had actually been able to SHARE INFORMATION, instead of hitting the "Wall" put in place during the Clinton admin, then perhaps Bush would have been give USEFUL INFO from Tenant, and we would never have gone to war?

I know it's popular for those who have the attention span of a goldfish to want to blame Bush, but this problem predates his time in office.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How about If our CIA and the rest of the Intel gathering agencies had actually been able to SHARE INFORMATION, instead of hitting the "Wall" put in place during the Clinton admin, then perhaps Bush would have been give USEFUL INFO from Tenant, and we would never have gone to war?

I know it's popular for those who have the attention span of a goldfish to want to blame Bush, but this problem predates his time in office.

It's also popular among that tiny minority of people who are still starry-eyed about Bush to blame Clinton for any and all failings, regardless of whether they're justified or not.

Maybe instead of throwing blame around we look at the problem, realize it transcends the single person who happens to be President, and try to come up with solutions?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How about If our CIA and the rest of the Intel gathering agencies had actually been able to SHARE INFORMATION, instead of hitting the "Wall" put in place during the Clinton admin, then perhaps Bush would have been give USEFUL INFO from Tenant, and we would never have gone to war?

I know it's popular for those who have the attention span of a goldfish to want to blame Bush, but this problem predates his time in office.

It's Clinton's fault™

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Without some defined end point, that "billions over a decade" is not a joking matter, nor is the use of tens of thousands of personnel every day in a dangerous setting. Through that decade+ there were hundreds of casualties due to accident and Iraqi actions (they shot at our planes rather frequently in the '90s). So from the perspective of "cost", something had to be done eventually. Not that the invasion was even a good idea from the start, but something that got Saddam out of power was necessary to staunch this particular cash hemorrhage. Obviously the chosen methodology was a really bad choice.

Did they shoot at our planes? I would think that would have been ill advised. Do you mind if I ask for a source on that assertion?

[ghporter]

I overstated the "shot at our planes rather frequently" point. Rather, they used antiaircraft artillery radars very frequently, and any pilot will tell you that being "lit up" by tracking radar is only a bit less distracting than actually being shot at. My memory was faulty; I apologize.

Here's a NYT article about how the Iraqis worked hard at escalating the problems with enforcing the no-fly zones, this one from 1999. There were many of these incidents, and every one had the potential to become actual combat. That takes a heavy toll on air crews.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why would you accuse me of lying while lying in the same sentence? C'mon tie. First of all, Stiglitz and Bilmes only subtract the cost of enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq. They do not subtract for the cost of economic sanctions, disarmament requirements, weapons inspections, etc... , but of course you knew there's more to containment than they accounted for.

That's right, they didn't account for the cost to the Iraqis, only to the costs to the US. To me, that makes a lot of sense, since I'm an American. The other costs you mention, disarmament requirements and weapons inspections, are trivial. I guess you are just mentioning them to play stupid.

Basically, there is about an order of magnitude difference between the two situations, and you claimed that this made them equivalent. I'd hate to see your checkbook.

Originally Posted by ghporter

Without some defined end point, that "billions over a decade" is not a joking matter, nor is the use of tens of thousands of personnel every day in a dangerous setting. Through that decade+ there were hundreds of casualties due to accident and Iraqi actions (they shot at our planes rather frequently in the '90s). So from the perspective of "cost", something had to be done eventually. Not that the invasion was even a good idea from the start, but something that got Saddam out of power was necessary to staunch this particular cash hemorrhage. Obviously the chosen methodology was a really bad choice.

Why? The cost was maybe $15 billion a year, about 2-3% of our military spending. This is comparable to what we spend each year in Japan and South Korea. (I think so, anyway, 80,000 troops at $250,000 gives $20 billion. I couldn't google up the actual numbers, though.) We could definitely have kept it up forever.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I overstated the "shot at our planes rather frequently" point. Rather, they used antiaircraft artillery radars very frequently, and any pilot will tell you that being "lit up" by tracking radar is only a bit less distracting than actually being shot at. My memory was faulty; I apologize.

Here's a NYT article about how the Iraqis worked hard at escalating the problems with enforcing the no-fly zones, this one from 1999. There were many of these incidents, and every one had the potential to become actual combat. That takes a heavy toll on air crews.

I wouldn't want to discount the toll the scenario you describe takes on these personal, but are you really arguing that this compares to the 4,000 plus American deaths and the toll that actual combat has taken on hundreds of thousands of our troops?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

The cost was maybe $15 billion a year, about 2-3% of our military spending. This is comparable to what we spend each year in Japan and South Korea. (I think so, anyway, 80,000 troops at $250,000 gives $20 billion. I couldn't google up the actual numbers, though.) We could definitely have kept it up forever.

$15 billion a year just to monitor Iraq? Damn. And here we bitch about China's $50 billion defense budget.

[tie]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

$15 billion a year just to monitor Iraq? Damn. And here we bitch about China's $50 billion defense budget.

According to Wikipedia, the US estimates the Chinese defense budget to be between US$100 and $140 billion according to exchange rates. According to PPP, that would be between $380 and $540 billion US.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I wouldn't want to discount the toll the scenario you describe takes on these personal, but are you really arguing that this compares to the 4,000 plus American deaths and the toll that actual combat has taken on hundreds of thousands of our troops?

Did you read my posts? I'm saying that "something" had to be done, from at the very least an economic standpoint, to get rid of Saddam. I have said repeatedly in this thread that I thought the invasion was a dumb idea, because that's the way I feel. I posted about "containment" specifically because it was not a viable or effective strategy.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

According to Wikipedia, the US estimates the Chinese defense budget to be between US$100 and $140 billion according to exchange rates. According to PPP, that would be between $380 and $540 billion US.

And we believe CIA's estimates to be true just as we believe Iraq has WMD's.

Where the hell did you get the "$380 and $540 billion US" from? What/Who is PPP?

[Luca Rescigno]

PPP = Purchasing power parity.

Basically, because the Chinese currency is so undervalued that $100-$140 billion based on current exchange rates can buy the same amount of stuff as $380-$540 billion if it was the U.S. using that money.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

PPP = Purchasing power parity.

Basically, because the Chinese currency is so undervalued that $100-$140 billion based on current exchange rates can buy the same amount of stuff as $380-$540 billion if it was the U.S. using that money.

You mean missiles, aircraft carrier, military jets, and so forth cost about 70% less to obtain in China when compared to the US?

So a aircraft carrier that cost $4 billion USD in the US would only cost China $1 billion USD?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Did you read my posts? I'm saying that "something" had to be done, from at the very least an economic standpoint, to get rid of Saddam. I have said repeatedly in this thread that I thought the invasion was a dumb idea, because that's the way I feel. I posted about "containment" specifically because it was not a viable or effective strategy.

I may not have read all of them. I'm not sure. Weren't you the one comparing the cost of containment to the cost of the war?

What "something" would you have preferred?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

That's right, they didn't account for the cost to the Iraqis, only to the costs to the US. To me, that makes a lot of sense, since I'm an American.

Economic sanctions on Iraq, disarmament requirements, weapons inspections, northern and southern no-fly zones within Iraq, and maritime interdiction to enforce trade restrictions... these are all costs incurred by the US, figured into the US expenditure on containment.

The other costs you mention, disarmament requirements and weapons inspections, are trivial. I guess you are just mentioning them to play stupid.

Apparently not. Experts disagree. I'm not going to pretend to know whether or not you were "playing" stupid, but my post did serve to illustrate your dishonesty. I'm hoping at some point you embrace a little introspect tie. Here's to hoping.

Basically, there is about an order of magnitude difference between the two situations, and you claimed that this made them equivalent. I'd hate to see your checkbook.

People still use those???

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Did you read my posts? I'm saying that "something" had to be done, from at the very least an economic standpoint, to get rid of Saddam. I have said repeatedly in this thread that I thought the invasion was a dumb idea, because that's the way I feel. I posted about "containment" specifically because it was not a viable or effective strategy.

You're either with them or against them ghporter. You should not have even spoke up. You just stay in lock-step boy, keep quiet, let the naysayers speak, and you'll be fine.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I may not have read all of them. I'm not sure. Weren't you the one comparing the cost of containment to the cost of the war?

What "something" would you have preferred?

No, I was not comparing the cost of containment to the cost of the war. I was pointing out that containment wasn't "cost effective" as another poster had suggested.

I'd have preferred to have our allies work with us on the whole issue. Like have some of them shoulder the burden of enforcing UN sanctions for a while (instead of having their diplomats cash in on Saddam's payroll in the oil-for-food scam) and then have them actually do something themselves about Saddam's throwing his weight around in the region. I'd like to have seen our allies actually act that way...

But George's quick little "regime change" invasion was definitely the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're either with them or against them ghporter. You should not have even spoke up. You just stay in lock-step boy, keep quiet, let the naysayers speak, and you'll be fine.

George was castigated for saying "you're either with us or against us." Does that mean you agree with him? Lock step is for morons, and I'm no moron. I've always had my own political take on everything, and this is no exception. And I thought it was stupid to go in in 2003, when I was on active duty. Don't stereotype me and you'll find that I'm full of surprises.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

It's also popular among that tiny minority of people who are still starry-eyed about Bush to blame Clinton for any and all failings, regardless of whether they're justified or not.

Maybe instead of throwing blame around we look at the problem, realize it transcends the single person who happens to be President, and try to come up with solutions?

Well DUH!! I said that. Clintons admin DID damage our intel gathering process. The jury is still out as to the success of the new organizations, kludged together after 9/11.

Who benefitted most from the broken Intelligence gathering? Perhaps those giving missile staging technologies to the ChiComs in trade for political donations (Charlie Trei)??

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Apparently not. Experts disagree.

Find me one expert who says that the UN weapons inspection program cost multiple billions of US dollars per year.

There aren't any. There is no way of inflating the cost that high. You are just wrong.

[tie]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You mean missiles, aircraft carrier, military jets, and so forth cost about 70% less to obtain in China when compared to the US?

So a aircraft carrier that cost $4 billion USD in the US would only cost China $1 billion USD?

I have no idea. PPP adjustments can always be fishy. Labor is much cheaper in China, but raw materials aren't. I don't know how the cost of an aircraft carrier divides up between labor/raw materials/R&D. But China doesn't have any aircraft carriers anyway. As far as I know, it spends much less of its defense budget on high-tech hardware and more on manpower. The army is also used for domestic security. It is certainly an apples-to-oranges comparison, but that is the best we can do.