rukidding:
And one of the possible ramifications of the Iraq invasion is an end to the escalation of terrorist actions.
How does the causality work there?
childish and hateful number
I have never read any of those two adjectives precede that noun.
how does anyone here know that there wouldn’t have been more deaths if Saddam had remained in power?
Look at a graph of deaths under Saddam, assume any current trends continue. It’s not certain, but it’s a reasonable guess.
Why is the board so determined to think that being anti-bias should only mean being anti conservative bias? All the while so easily duped by liberal bias?
I don’t think you’ve been reading this blog very long, it’s often accused of right-wing bias. I don’t think you can establish that what’s been said demonstrates bias either.
To which, I know—let me save you all the trouble of a response
Sounds like you don’t even care what others actually believe because you’d rather have a strawman caricature to argue with.
James D. Miller:
I think that militarily President Bush under-reacted to 9/11.
What do you mean “militarily”? The rest of your post makes it sound like the failure was diplomatic, unless you wanted to threaten other nuclear countries to assist us in holding the line.
The U.S. faces a tremendous future threat of being attacked by weapons of mass destruction.
What probability do you give for this happening within the next decade? Next two decades?
Unfortunately, before 9/11 it was politically difficult for the President to preemptively use the military to reduce such threats.
I remember Clinton bombing Iraq because they weren’t cooperating enough with inspections and everyone said it was a ploy to make him more popular since Congress was trying to impeach him. I agree that it got easier after 9/11 though.
J Thomas:
If they had lived, we would have caught them and slowly tortured them to death.
We didn’t torture Khalid Sheik Mohammed to death. We tortured him, sure, but not to death.
By dying they avoid the treatment they’d get as prisoners of the israelis—they get off easy.
Terrorists in Israeli prisons are still allowed to have kids that they instruct their relatives to raise into terrorism. Doesn’t sound too strict (or bright) to me.
Brandon Reinhardt:
If you believe invading Afghanistan was a correct choice then I’m not sure how you could say Iraq was a complete mistake.
It’s very simple: IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US
Any other state that might offer aid and support to the enemy would enable the enemy to rebuild their ability to project power.
What’s with that word “might”? So there has to be a probability of 0.0000000? If we don’t have absolute proof a country isn’t doing so we should invade them? And why haven’t we invaded Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Iraq was one possible source of aid and support.
Except it wasn’t.
Any Sunni state with sufficient reason to wish harm upon the west, with the desire to support organizations that might bring about that harm, and with the ability to provide aid and support to that end was (or is) a threat.
Saddam had already gotten a bloody nose from the U.S once, he knew better than to try that again. His support for terrorism was limited to destabilizing his neighbors (Kurdistan Worker’s Party in Turkey, Mujahedin al Khalk in Iran).
al Qaeda may still be able to project limited power, but its ability to strike at the US in such a coordinated way has been significantly hampered.
That’s because of the invasion of Afghanistan, not Iraq.
The harms of 9/11 cannot be measured by the harms of the event alone.
I suppose then you agree with Eliezer, the main harms were in the overreaction.
If we merely rebuilt the towers and moved on, we would have done nothing to deny an enemy the power to strike again.
I would have suggested restricting immigration as a much more sensible way to go about it, but Bush prevented a bill with that purpose from passing.
Additionally, toppling two governments sends a strong message to other states that might harbor the enemy that they will be pursued and punished.
We punished a state, Iraq, that had NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTACKING US. Was Saudi Arabia or Egypt punished, since the 9/11 hijackers came from there? Was Pakistan punished for selling nuclear technology to other countries, or North Korea punished for making nukes? No.
it seems likely that both states had reason to desire an outcome in which the extremist groups were heavily disrupted.
Invading Iraq did not accomplish that, it caused chaos and disruption for people who just wanted to continue with their lives.
You would have failed: not in the construction of your defenses, but by failing to hunt down your enemy and deny them the opportunity of future assaults.
Solution: open the gates and invade countries that have NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTACKING US.
J Thomas:
Allow israel to have nukes but not syria?
Seems like Israel is implementing that plan itself.
If you and your enemies have nukes then you will be worse off than if neither you nor your enemies have nukes.
No, you’re both better off because you won’t get invaded. Iraq: no nukes and got invaded. North Korea: nukes and not invaded. Now you’re Iran, what do you think is the smart move?
The next obvious choice is a war between libya and chad.
Are they angry at each other now? I know in Trevor Dupuy’s “Future Wars” Libya was supposed to attack Egypt, but I forget if Chad was involved.
burger flipper:
What if it had been necessary to shoot down a passenger jet to save some unknown target, but afterwards it was discovered that some on board had been mounting an assault on the cabin, and had called loved ones as well?
Flight 93 still crashed, so then it would have just been a waste of a missile and nothing more.
Brandon Reinhardt:
My post was simply pointing out that failing to respond to someone who actually attacks you can have increasingly dangerous results over time.
We responded by invading Afghanistan. Iraq, let me repeat myself, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTACKING US.
when is it right to preemptively attack another state?
When they are actually about to attack you, like in the Six Day War. Iraq was not about to attack us.
Wars of aggression against non-aggressors would rarely be popular
The Iraq war was just that and popular for far too long.
Robin, Elizer or other moderators: if you are unhappy with how the thread has developed, make a note of it and I will move the discussion to my blog unless others would like to have it at their blogs.
rukidding: And one of the possible ramifications of the Iraq invasion is an end to the escalation of terrorist actions. How does the causality work there?
childish and hateful number I have never read any of those two adjectives precede that noun.
how does anyone here know that there wouldn’t have been more deaths if Saddam had remained in power? Look at a graph of deaths under Saddam, assume any current trends continue. It’s not certain, but it’s a reasonable guess.
Why is the board so determined to think that being anti-bias should only mean being anti conservative bias? All the while so easily duped by liberal bias? I don’t think you’ve been reading this blog very long, it’s often accused of right-wing bias. I don’t think you can establish that what’s been said demonstrates bias either.
To which, I know—let me save you all the trouble of a response Sounds like you don’t even care what others actually believe because you’d rather have a strawman caricature to argue with.
James D. Miller: I think that militarily President Bush under-reacted to 9/11. What do you mean “militarily”? The rest of your post makes it sound like the failure was diplomatic, unless you wanted to threaten other nuclear countries to assist us in holding the line.
The U.S. faces a tremendous future threat of being attacked by weapons of mass destruction. What probability do you give for this happening within the next decade? Next two decades?
Unfortunately, before 9/11 it was politically difficult for the President to preemptively use the military to reduce such threats. I remember Clinton bombing Iraq because they weren’t cooperating enough with inspections and everyone said it was a ploy to make him more popular since Congress was trying to impeach him. I agree that it got easier after 9/11 though.
J Thomas: If they had lived, we would have caught them and slowly tortured them to death. We didn’t torture Khalid Sheik Mohammed to death. We tortured him, sure, but not to death.
By dying they avoid the treatment they’d get as prisoners of the israelis—they get off easy. Terrorists in Israeli prisons are still allowed to have kids that they instruct their relatives to raise into terrorism. Doesn’t sound too strict (or bright) to me.
Brandon Reinhardt: If you believe invading Afghanistan was a correct choice then I’m not sure how you could say Iraq was a complete mistake. It’s very simple: IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US
Any other state that might offer aid and support to the enemy would enable the enemy to rebuild their ability to project power. What’s with that word “might”? So there has to be a probability of 0.0000000? If we don’t have absolute proof a country isn’t doing so we should invade them? And why haven’t we invaded Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Iraq was one possible source of aid and support. Except it wasn’t.
Any Sunni state with sufficient reason to wish harm upon the west, with the desire to support organizations that might bring about that harm, and with the ability to provide aid and support to that end was (or is) a threat. Saddam had already gotten a bloody nose from the U.S once, he knew better than to try that again. His support for terrorism was limited to destabilizing his neighbors (Kurdistan Worker’s Party in Turkey, Mujahedin al Khalk in Iran).
al Qaeda may still be able to project limited power, but its ability to strike at the US in such a coordinated way has been significantly hampered. That’s because of the invasion of Afghanistan, not Iraq.
The harms of 9/11 cannot be measured by the harms of the event alone. I suppose then you agree with Eliezer, the main harms were in the overreaction.
If we merely rebuilt the towers and moved on, we would have done nothing to deny an enemy the power to strike again. I would have suggested restricting immigration as a much more sensible way to go about it, but Bush prevented a bill with that purpose from passing.
Additionally, toppling two governments sends a strong message to other states that might harbor the enemy that they will be pursued and punished. We punished a state, Iraq, that had NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTACKING US. Was Saudi Arabia or Egypt punished, since the 9/11 hijackers came from there? Was Pakistan punished for selling nuclear technology to other countries, or North Korea punished for making nukes? No.
it seems likely that both states had reason to desire an outcome in which the extremist groups were heavily disrupted. Invading Iraq did not accomplish that, it caused chaos and disruption for people who just wanted to continue with their lives.
You would have failed: not in the construction of your defenses, but by failing to hunt down your enemy and deny them the opportunity of future assaults. Solution: open the gates and invade countries that have NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTACKING US.
J Thomas: Allow israel to have nukes but not syria? Seems like Israel is implementing that plan itself.
If you and your enemies have nukes then you will be worse off than if neither you nor your enemies have nukes. No, you’re both better off because you won’t get invaded. Iraq: no nukes and got invaded. North Korea: nukes and not invaded. Now you’re Iran, what do you think is the smart move?
The next obvious choice is a war between libya and chad. Are they angry at each other now? I know in Trevor Dupuy’s “Future Wars” Libya was supposed to attack Egypt, but I forget if Chad was involved.
burger flipper: What if it had been necessary to shoot down a passenger jet to save some unknown target, but afterwards it was discovered that some on board had been mounting an assault on the cabin, and had called loved ones as well? Flight 93 still crashed, so then it would have just been a waste of a missile and nothing more.
Brandon Reinhardt: My post was simply pointing out that failing to respond to someone who actually attacks you can have increasingly dangerous results over time. We responded by invading Afghanistan. Iraq, let me repeat myself, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTACKING US.
when is it right to preemptively attack another state? When they are actually about to attack you, like in the Six Day War. Iraq was not about to attack us.
Wars of aggression against non-aggressors would rarely be popular The Iraq war was just that and popular for far too long.
Robin, Elizer or other moderators: if you are unhappy with how the thread has developed, make a note of it and I will move the discussion to my blog unless others would like to have it at their blogs.