Over, but not yet won

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Dec. 18, 2011 8:37 p.m.

    True, worf. You weren't responsible for Iraq. But the ones who were...? Man, I can't remember them at all. Which party were they, anyway? Didn't somebody say something about being "greeted as liberators"? Naw, nobody's THAT clueless.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 18, 2011 6:20 p.m.

    Mark B,

    Some people see things as it is. Obama was against the Iraq war, but harped of the benefits to the Iraq people, as if he himself was the cause of it. I don't admire hypocrites. It wasn't me who stated the troops would be home in six months.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Dec. 18, 2011 1:45 p.m.

    In answer to worf's question, here's the way it's going to work. Worf will hate every possible end to the Afghan conflict as long as Obama is president. But however things wrap up, he'll be thrilled at whatever comes from a GOP prez.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 18, 2011 1:49 a.m.

    Why did Obama wait three years to bring the troops home when he thought this was a dumb war? Could have saved lives and money.

    What about the troops in Afghanistan?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 18, 2011 12:20 a.m.

    How is the war over?

    We're just replacing troops with more contractors. They'll still carry around guns, drive armored vehicles, and cost us billions annually. Just look at how we're soaking billions into the Basra fortress err consulate. If we really were "leaving" then why would we be investing so much in security there?

    As long as there's oil in that region, we're going to be there.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Dec. 17, 2011 9:37 p.m.

    Given that our entry into this war was either a deliberate ruse played on the American public or (the version the GOP prefers) simply an unbelievable cascade of error, it's a wonder the Iraqis, with deaths exceeding 100,000, great destruction and huge numbers of new refugees, don't throw stones at departing US troops as they leave. Have we made some friends among the Iraqis? Maybe, but let's not be too surprised when new enemies come out of the mess we leave behind.

  • ljeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2011 4:13 p.m.

    You make some valid points, but we must never go to war on false pretenses.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 17, 2011 4:03 p.m.

    If it was necessary to fully win every war, then countries would never stop fighting until they either won, or were utterly defeated to the point that they were uncapable of fighting, and this includes the utter destruction of the losing country.

    Fact is there reaches a point where it is no longer advantagious to continue fighting, even though a country may not have won. This is the situation we are in here. By continuing the fight, there is more that will be lost than will be gained.

    We can't afford this war any more.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 17, 2011 12:02 p.m.

    Most of Americas great presidents have been war time presidents and this is motivation for vain presidents to desire war to make them great to history. This was a major motivator for Bush's Iraq war, even after his father told him don't do it.

  • Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2011 11:57 a.m.

    This is the first time an argument has been made to make war upon a "friendly", sovereign nation in order to maintain an occupation and continue to risk the lives of American personnel. Also, it is the only place anti-goverment conservatives are willing to waste taxpayer money and increase debt just to satisfy a political grudge.

    It is time Iraqis determine the fate of Iraq. The United States had no reason to make war in Iraq in the first place. Now it has no right to impose its will on another nation, particularly when that nation doesn't want us there, wants us leave sooner than later, and we had agreed (under a Republican administration, at that!) to leave.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2011 11:45 a.m.

    With Republican candidates like Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum frothing estatic to start a war with Iran, the lessons of Iraq need to be understood outside the bubble of partisan verbage. It should be noted that none ever served the nation in times of military crisis, but they are quick to send others to fight a war ginned up by political expediency.

    Like Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich, these folk seem to "regret" that they did not have the "opportunity to fight for their country" and are willing to start a war to make a useless point regarding their patriotism. Perhaps, they also had "better things to do with their time" than establish a knowledge of war and its consequences.

    Cheney and Gingrich used deferments until they were no longer under threat of the draft during the Vietnam conflict. Similarly, Romney went on a church mission in France rather than choose to serve. Perry, unlike Bush, served in the Air Force although never facing hostile fire. And Santorum, perhaps the most hawkish with Bachmann, never served, never chose to volunteer even though he was such an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq war.

    Makes you think!!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 17, 2011 8:42 a.m.

    Your objectives for the war shift with the sands of political convenience. Why did we go in? Weapons of mass destruction. And probably to exact revenge on Saddam Hussein. That's it. Now the Republicans don't want to let go. We did what we set out to do. The Iraqis want us out. It's their country, after all. Period. End of story. Don't make more of it. The world is not a perfect place and never will be. Iraq was a thorn before and probably will be in the future. Are we going to go to war everywhere and over everything? If you are a Republican, the answer is yes. Now the GOP is talking about going to war against Iran, and they still refuse to pay for the trillion dollar Iraq war. It is madness! Mark my word, if a Republican wins the White House in 2012, we will go to war again. No thanks!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 17, 2011 8:04 a.m.

    Back when we started this exercise, I asked what 'winning' would look like. I still don't know. Iraq was supposed to turn into nebraska even before the 'mission accomplished' banner went up. We would be welcomed as liberators, and the fried chicken and old wonderful world of disney reruns could start rolling in. That didn't happen, and I just don't know what value we got out of the exercise. And, when the invasion started, no one dared talk of cost. Even now very few do. Not only in lives, but in dollars.

  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 17, 2011 4:10 a.m.

    The United States never should have gone in to Iraq in the first place. If removing Saddam from power was the goal, there were much better ways to accomplish that. But this was not a war of necessity, and it was never about Saddam. It was all about mid-east oil and colonial and imperialistic objectives pushed by the Neo-Cons of the Bush Administration. Before the war Iraq wasn't a military threat to the United States. But as the country becomes politically and economically aligned with other Islamic nations including Iran, it may very well pose a great danger. This is the potential threat that the military is worried about as we draw down our forces from Iraq and then from Afghanistan It is worth noting, that although invited, no Iraqi official attend the withdrawal ceremonies.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 17, 2011 12:23 a.m.

    So if I get your editorial right, you are blaming Obama for withdrawing too early while acknowledging that the withdrawal date was negotiated by G.W. Bush. You really cant't have it both ways.