"This Was A Good Thing To Do"
The fear of most Iraqis is not that we won't leave soon enough. It's that we'll leave too soon. A few pundits and gloomsayers should try to keep that in mind.
Ditto the fact that what we're doing isn't much more expensive than maintaining those "no fly zones" to protect the Kurds was, and that once Iraq is self-sustaining, it'll actually have been cheaper to do this than the status quo would have been. In all three areas: dollars, lives, and suffering.
what we're doing isn't much more expensive than maintaining those "no fly zones" to protect the Kurds was
Really? We're spending $1 billion a week to occupy Iraq. Do you have evidence of what the no fly zones cost?
As somebody who was anti-war to begin with - in no small part due to concerns about the follow-up - I feel like we broke it, so we bought it, and we need to be there for the long haul.
I do hope they set up a trust fund a la Alaska for the oil revenues, which I think will give Iraqis more of a stake in stability. I'm really crossing my fingers and rooting for this to work out.
Seth,
Thats the honest and patriotic way to view it - my hat's off to ya.
At least we are working toward something positive. All the troops and the no fly zone was spending a lot to simply keep the status quo, and a bad one at that.
If our plans work out in the Middle East, the costs will be puny compared to the gains for us adn the world.
Really? We're spending $1 billion a week to occupy Iraq. Do you have evidence of what the no fly zones cost?
Only assertions I've seen in the press. However, what I have read suggests that the no-fly zones cost a hell of a lot to maintain, and that futhermore, this $1 billion a week stuff is in large part money we'd be spending one way or the other--troops we'd have in a different location vs. where they're at.
I don't have any hard numbers, and I haven't seen any from anyone else. Let me know if you find anything. So far the whole operation looks to have been a pretty cheap investment to me.
A really cheap investment in what, exactly?
I'm in full agreement: now that we're in Iraq, it's our responsibility to stay there until the job is done. Regardless of who our next two to ten presidents are, I hope that all of them recognize America's duty to the Iraqi people to make sure we leave their country a better place than we found it.
Yet I question whether we've put our investment in the best place. Of course, that's an academic question: we're in Iraq, so it's hardly the time for coulda woulda shoulda's. Yet I think I might have been more likely to wave an American flag and put a "Support Our Troops" sign in my front yard had we invaded Saudi Arabia. The evidence has always pointed to their support of radical Islam and religious terrorism, not to mention the way they treat their own citizens (immolating young girls and collapsing walls upon homosexuals, just for starters).
There's no doubt that many anti-war folks would protest any war and any time for any reason. Yet for my part, I would have been far happier to see the Saudi monarchy fall. They're a source of a greater threat to our country (remember that the 9/11 hijackers were largely composed of Saudi nationals) whose neutralization would definitely have made a major impact on the region.
So I guess I'm learning Persian instead of Arabic.
John and Seth:
While I applaud your positive attitudes, displayed despite your misgivings about the war, I think you underrate the value of this investment. Of course, it's anyone's guess how Iraq will turn out, but if we do manage to incubate an exemplary liberal democracy in Iraq, demonstrate real concern for the people there and intimidate the neighboring countries out of supporting Palestinians militants and/or terrorists, I think it will worth the risk and (serious) human cost.
Some of these things seem to be happening already.
Seth: I think it was already broken, but that's subjective.
John: I think Iraq was an appropriate stepping-stone in the larger strategy. I agree with your assessment of Saudi Arabia.
Dean: as of the time I served, the Navy and Air Force each spent roughly $1.1 M training each fighter pilot, and north of $800K training each navigator/weapon systems operator, for a roughly 8-year useful career. The requirements and costs have probably changed since I was in. It seems likely that F-15s are at least $20M a copy, and I would guess they depreciate over a 15-year useful life. I have no idea what the fuel expenses, support staff and other logistics train cost, but it's not insignificant.
I think it's safe to say that the occupation costs are significantly higher than those of the No-Fly-Zone costs on a per-unit-time basis, but if we get out reasonably soon, the NPV of the war as a project will have been positive.
>>We're spending $1 billion a week to occupy Iraq. Do you have evidence of what the no fly zones cost?
David, Whatever the cost of the peace, it is always cheaper than the cost of war. I mean the next war, of course.