I've just read the comments of JK and Silence Dogood at "Got Him" below, about the capture of Saddam Hussein and how it is viewed by someone who opposed taking action in the first place. They agree that his capture is a great thing, but JK asks if the outcome is worth the sacrifice. Ahem...
"Worth the sacrifice?" WHAT sacrifice! The sacrifice of America's 'cherished' position as an arrogant upstart child allowed to sit at the grown-ups table at the UN, only so long as we 'behave' and mind our elders from old Europe? The sacrifice of the pitiful excuse that Saddam's multiple brutalities must be tolerated in the name of 'stablitity' in the Mid-East? The sacrifice of the affection and admiration of the 'international community' because we've come to behave like 'Rambo Cowboys?' Oh, now I get it. You mean the "sacrifice" of billions of dollars and the five hundred forty two military casualties since the first day of fighting. Bull. This is no sacrifice, it is an investment in a peaceful future. It is a small price paid now, at a time and place of our choosing by individuals trained and equipped for the job, to eliminate a more expensive problem later. Sure I realize that Americans have no obligation to liberate Iraqis, but we had no obligation to liberate France and Germany from the Nazis either and nobody questions that immensely larger "sacrifice."
I must also challenge Dogood's claim that "whether it is worth the sacrifice depends entirely on the Iraq that comes out of the ashes." Dismantling the Hussein regime and, ultimately, jailing the treacherous bastard was the right thing to do. Investing in Iraq's future and encouraging representative government there is also the right thing to do, but any future Iraqi failure will have no bearing on the value of the liberation that preceeded it. The people of Iraq will have simply failed to capitalize on the opportunity of a lifetime. Should this calamity come to pass, however, you can bet that whatever bully succeeds Saddam won't be so dismissive of clear warnings from the White House. And this goes for all of the other bullies of the world as well.
Posted by JohnGalt at December 15, 2003 06:29 PMAhem! Sacrifice and investment are not mutually exclusive. If I spend new guitar money on a roof and gutters for my house it is a good investment -- but it is still a sacrifice.
Our Blood and treasure was a noble sacrifice but it was still a sacrifice.
Posted by: jk at December 16, 2003 09:12 AMI stand by my claim that the Iraqi nation that is born from this liberation will determine the worth of the sacrifice. Our goals go way beyond the liberation of the Iraqi people, we hope to increase our own security by removing a haven for terrorists and perhaps even change the politcal makeup of the middle east region away from tyranny and toward democracy. Both of these additional objectives require a democratic, friendly,and stable government with legitimate control over the whole country. The current Afghani government for example does not yet meet these criteria. To get true value out of the liberation we must ensure that all of these objectives are met.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at December 16, 2003 04:03 PMI think you are forgetting the approx. 10K Iraqi civilians and 20 - 30K (or more) Iraqi soildiers killed. Not figures that are obvious to find as the US ordered the provisional government to stop counting them (it could only be bad news couldn't it?).
Posted by: yankinlondon at December 17, 2003 07:44 AMI must disagree, JK. Sacrifice and investment are mutually exclusive terms. An investment is an expenditure made in the hope of receiving a greater return. A sacrifice is an expenditure made with the expectation of little or no return. Your example is not one of sacrifice, but of preservation... of an existing investment.
Did we expect little or no return on the investment of blood and treasure in Iraq? Perhaps the Axis of Weasels had this view, but those who understand that peace can only follow victory had a laundry list of expected returns. To enter into such an operation without these expectations, i.e. in sacrifice, is not noble. It is idiotic.
Silence, I am heartened that you have dropped the word "entirely" from your statment, but I still believe your prescription for a "stable government with legitimate control" is misguided. Enduring stability of a nation occurs only when all citizens enjoy individual liberty. Individual liberty is severely restricted by the dictates of Islam. I am fearful that the rush for "freedom of religion" will trample the necessary condition of freedom FROM religion. I have previously stated that we will know Iraq is safely on it's way into freedom and stability when the first Wal Mart Supercenter is constructed there.
Finally, yankinlondon's concern for the number of Iraqi civilians and soldiers killed in the liberation is specious. The BBC, and other anti-war (i.e. anti reality, anti prosperity, anti self-defense collectivist) organizations float these inflated estimates in order to challenge the morality of forcibly liberating millions of people. Only those who believe individual liberty is granted at the pleasure of the state can believe that a dictator and his murderous apparatchiki could be dislodged without killing any of said apparatchiki or the civilians they hide behind and amongst.
Posted by: johngalt at December 23, 2003 12:08 PM