Centerfield

Though the article doesn't say so very clearly, it does acknowledge that the increase in Iraqi civilian deaths comes after a decrease in American troop presence. American troops were strong forces for stability in most places, and, as supporters of the war have said, massive troop withdrawals too early will cause more problems than they fix.

I found this quote in the article instructive:

"The militias are in charge now," said Aliyah al-Bakr, 42, a Sunni Arab schoolteacher who had two male relatives abducted and executed by black-clad gunmen in Baghdad on Feb. 22. "I'm more afraid of Iraqi militias than of the Americans. But the American presence is still the cornerstone of all the problems."

The woman is a Sunni Arab in Baghdad working for the government. Of all the people at risk of harm by Saddam Hussein or his psychotic sons, she was probably among those with the least to fear. She admits that it's the Iraqis (including those brutally repressed by Saddam) that she fears the most, but she still wants to blame things on America. I'll buy some culpability by America's presence in Iraq for the incursion by Al Zarqawi and his ilk. But the only way America is responsible for theocratic militias of Iraqis from regions and sects brutally supressed by Saddam is if the only thing keeping them from such actions was Saddam's dictatorial, murdering repression. Obviously, I don't think that's a legitimate grounds to criticize us.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 2, 2006 12:19 AM

"the only way America is responsible for theocratic militias of Iraqis from regions and sects brutally supressed by Saddam is if the only thing keeping them from such actions was Saddam's dictatorial, murdering repression. Obviously, I don't think that's a legitimate grounds to criticize us"

Whether or not they're better off now is a matter of debate. Ask the 35,000+ that are now dead, I'm sure they'll disagree.

Posted by: JP at April 3, 2006 12:48 AM

Anyone who had little to fear while Saddam was still in charge is going to blame us first for the current state of affairs. That's a given. And I'm fine with any agreement among the debating sides right now that agrees to give the US either the credit or the blame using some short list of relatively objective criteria.

If 10 years passes and Iraq is a violent, bitterly divided, chaotic hellhole, then blame. If 10 years passes and Iraq ihas become a relatively stable place that operates under democracy and the rule of law and provides opportunity and civil rights that surpass, oh, let's say Iran, North Korea, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, then credit.

See I'm open to giving either credit or blame based on the intermediate and long-term outcomes. Let's talk about what the goal line is. I am convinced that there are partisans on both sides who are quite willing to move the goal line to either prevent or guarantee a touchdown, and such people are not worth debating.

JP, these 35,000 dead people comprise who, exactly?

And supposing they could speak to us both right now and then again in say 20 years, what do you suppose they'd say about whether it was worth it for their country? See, I think that 20 years from now, both American soldiers and Iraqis who perished in these last few years would give an answer based on the long-term outcome.

Posted by: bk at April 3, 2006 02:53 PM

Brian,

I agree with your point that you can only really judge the success of Iraq (or any policy really) is in the long run. But it's unrealistic to say we have to wait 10 years to make any judgment. judgment. And, for that matter, how do you know that 10 years would be enough. You can always say that, with the passage of enough time (however long that might be) the policy would look better. At some point, though, people have to decide whether, based on current conditions, the policy is successful and it's worthwhile continuing.

As for whether the country is better off without Saddam, I have no doubt that, in the abstract, it is clearly better off. But the problem is abstractions are meaningless in the real world. It's at least possible that, given the way that Saddam was deposed and what has happened to Iraq, the country is not better off. That's not a judgement I can make--it should be a judgment that the Iraqi people make. I certainly agree that that judgment might be much different in 20 years than it is now, but I don't think we can just assume it will be. And even if it is, you don't know what might have happened in the alternative. Saddam might have had a heart attack or been poisoned or something else might have gotten rid of him. What we know at this point is that lots of Iraqis have died since the invasion and that the country is on the brink of civil war (albeit a "democratic" civil war).

I'm not defending Saddam in the least. But the fact is, his rule did suppress a lot of the ethnic hatreds. That doesn't justify the way he did it, but the point is that invading Iraq opened up a Pandora's box and no one can really say for sure what the outcome will be. Yes, the insurgents are despicable and the Iranians meddling bastards. But this kind of stuff should not have been totally unforeseeable except that the Administration didn't want to think about it. I just think we should have had a lot less hubris that we could just easily remake Iraqi society. Maybe we will be able to and it will work in the end, but the jury is clearly still out on that.

Having said that, I tend to agree that a precipitous withdrawl would make things worse rather than better. As Colin Powell said, we broke it, now it's ours.

Posted by: Marc at April 3, 2006 03:55 PM

Whether or not they're better off now is a matter of debate. Ask the 35,000+ that are now dead, I'm sure they'll disagree.

Accepting the 35K figure solely for the sake of discussion, as Brian obliquely points out, a major portion of those dead are insurgents and jihadis who died trying to kill American soldiers, Iraqi police and soldiers, and innocent Iraqi civilians. The bulk of the rest are innocent Iraqi civilians killed by said insurgents and jihadis. Don't ask me to weep for group #1, or take blame for group #2.

For comparison, best-guess data from Saddam's reign is that as a result of the Coalition invasion at least 60,000 Iraqis have not vanished into hidden mass graves. In the "cold equations" of war math that's a +25K trade-off.

Posted by: Tully at April 3, 2006 10:50 PM