Obama: lives lost in Iraq were "wasted"

[motivez]

The idea that the life of a US soldier can't be wasted is a ridiculous concept. Our military can and has been misused in the past, and is being misused now in this misguided blunder of a war that Bush has gotten us stuck in.

Of course they can be wasted. It doesn't denigrate their service to say that their lives were lost in the course of carrying out misguided orders. They served admirably and honorably, fulfilling their oath and completing their duty and doesn't take anything away from them.

It speaks to the mission, not the soldier.

[RX Bandit]

Originally Posted by motivez

The idea that the life of a US soldier can't be wasted is a ridiculous concept. Our military can and has been misused in the past, and is being misused now in this misguided blunder of a war that Bush has gotten us stuck in.

Of course they can be wasted. It doesn't denigrate their service to say that their lives were lost in the course of carrying out misguided orders. They served admirably and honorably, fulfilling their oath and completing their duty and doesn't take anything away from them.

It speaks to the mission, not the soldier.

The endgame I've advocated for (and I'm not alone in the movement) has always been about pretext for overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran, overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria and dealing with Hizbullah in a successful and definitive fashion. If going into Iraq gave us pretext for going into Iran, no soldier's life was wasted.

And if it speaks to the mission not the soldier (which we agree on, they served their country's initiative with valor), the immediate mission was successful: Saddam is out of power and dead. Iraq is not in the position to obtain or disseminate weapons of mass destruction (regardless of what their capabilities were before 2003). And we are very near in proximity to the smoking gun we need to go into Iran first and Syria later.

[motivez]

I see. So, you feel our history of interventionism in Iran has been so wrought with success that we should try it again?

Our actions have directly seeded a multi-generational hatred for America (and all things that come with it), and we essentially solidified support for the radical elements which are now in control of that country.. and I'm not talking about Ahmadinejad..

It never ceases to amaze me how people refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past and actually argue to repeat them -- only more extremely. Our idiotic and misguided intervention into Iraq (a country which posed no threat to the United States) has gotten us to a place where Iran has been made more powerful.

Should we attempt the same thing in Iran, basic logic says that Iran will rally around Ahmadinejad and his radical policies in the face of an external threat (as we did with Bush after 9/11), and we'll have once again completely radicalized a new generation (or two, or three), and we'll have far worse luck than we have so far in Iraq.. with many more casualties. As it stand snow, he's still on the fringes of Iranian society as far as his more radical rhetoric and policies are concerned.

The rest of what you've proposed is just as misguided and doesn't really serve United States interests at all. It sounds more like a Zionist wet dream than any kind of sensible foreign policy.

And no, it doesn't speak to some small success of the mission, but rather the wisdom of the entire mission and the sacrifice that soldier made during it. Iraq has been a mistake, it's been mismanaged, and as much as it pains me to say it, the soldiers in Iraq have not died protecting America from anything, because nothing in Iraq was a threat to our national security before we invaded. We are far less secure today (our interests and our nation) than we were before invading Iraq.

If that sacrifice was never needed in the first place, then it ultimately was wasted.

I think motz raises some legitimate points. While I might not necessarily agree with him, the points are solid none the less.

I think Iraq intel was obviously flawed but given what we knew at the time and what intel had been pointing too for a decade we did the right thing. Hindsight is always 20/20 so its easy for us to quarterback the mess now. However, the post invasion plan was a complete and utter cluster.

I believe we must take threats seriously, to not do so means we repeat the mistakes of the past and to do so means we repeat the mistakes of Iraq. So quite frankly I'm not sure what the right answer is on Iran.

As for the soldiers...I think it is safe to say motz is right that Iraq was not a direct threat to the US. That soldiers did not die directly protecting America. Where I think we diverge is in the belief that I hold, that is that Iraq has kept terrorist away from our soil for the most part. We have whether right or wrong created a huge distraction in the middle east. So our soldiers IMO have indirectly died to protect our country.

I understand that my view is controversial and that many will disagree but that is how I feel

[RX Bandit]

Originally Posted by motivez

I see. So, you feel our history of interventionism in Iran has been so wrought with success that we should try it again?

Our actions have directly seeded a multi-generational hatred for America (and all things that come with it), and we essentially solidified support for the radical elements which are now in control of that country.. and I'm not talking about Ahmadinejad..

It never ceases to amaze me how people refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past and actually argue to repeat them -- only more extremely. Our idiotic and misguided intervention into Iraq (a country which posed no threat to the United States) has gotten us to a place where Iran has been made more powerful.

Should we attempt the same thing in Iran, basic logic says that Iran will rally around Ahmadinejad and his radical policies in the face of an external threat (as we did with Bush after 9/11), and we'll have once again completely radicalized a new generation (or two, or three), and we'll have far worse luck than we have so far in Iraq.. with many more casualties. As it stand snow, he's still on the fringes of Iranian society as far as his more radical rhetoric and policies are concerned.

The rest of what you've proposed is just as misguided and doesn't really serve United States interests at all. It sounds more like a Zionist wet dream than any kind of sensible foreign policy.

And no, it doesn't speak to some small success of the mission, but rather the wisdom of the entire mission and the sacrifice that soldier made during it. Iraq has been a mistake, it's been mismanaged, and as much as it pains me to say it, the soldiers in Iraq have not died protecting America from anything, because nothing in Iraq was a threat to our national security before we invaded. We are far less secure today (our interests and our nation) than we were before invading Iraq.

If that sacrifice was never needed in the first place, then it ultimately was wasted.

Backing the Shah over Mossadegh was essential to do at the time. There is no small argument to make, it took 12 single spaced pages in my departmental distinction paper to even begin to scratch the surface of why it was so essential to oust Mossadegh.

And the Islamic Republic is not so loved right now. There is open criticism of Ahmadinejad in public in Tehran. The population is stewing at the thought of fighting a bloody war with US and IDF forces -- there has been open and frank admission from certain officials in Tehran that certain segments of the population are uneasy about fighting, especially since Bush's speak on 10 January that changed many things and led to the incident at Irbil. That's significant, as in Israeli foreign policy the truest policy has been: never let rhetoric get more heated than you can (and are willing to) back up with the IDF. Iran for the first time under Ahmadinejad has used more incendiary rhetoric than the general population seems willing to commit to their army. That is significant.

The Zionist's wet dream is that no threat exists in the world and we can finally be left alone. That will never happen. This is realpolitik/neoconservative (its not a bad word no matter how much the newfound left wants to make it) cohesive foreign policy. There are so many disparate parts of the policy its hard to write one cliffs note for the whole thing so I won't bother.