US Involvement in Iraq: A Scaled Assessment (poll)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The following 4 summary perspectives should be used to answer the attached poll.

Summary #1: The US invasion of Iraq is part of the overall effort to combat extra-national terrorism. Regime change was necessary for the long-term safety of everyone and the development of a democratic state in the Arab world will have powerful long-term benefits. Though there are some aspects that should have been better planned/enacted, the overall effort has been worthwhile.

Summary #2: The US effort in Iraq, though connected to the war on terror, was not the most effective avenue for US military effort. While there will be positive results, and the removal of Saddam will be of value to the Iraqis, the linkage of this conflict to the overall war on terror has not been as clearly established as it should have been and portions of the effort have been ill-thought and minimally effective.

Summary #3: US efforts against the Saddam regime in Iraq, though technically correct under a strict reading of UN agreements with Iraq and resolutions passed by the UN, were poorly thought out as to long term consequences and effected despite the opposition of most UN members. A democratic Iraq would be a good result, but it is far to likely too splinter into separate enclaves and end in bloody civil war – regardless of what the US hopes.

Summary #4: US efforts against Saddam were an administration goal well prior to the terror attacks of 9-11-2001. The war on terror was simply an excuse for the US to smash a regime it disliked and to project US power into the Middle East. No consistent explanation of US efforts has been made because the only consistent explanation – a power grab – wouldn’t sell to the American electorate. If anything, the Iraq conflict has sidelined the “war on terror” or even made it worse. Any efforts after Afghanistan that the US has been involved in are largely – or totally – unjustified.

[Kagemusha]

I voted for combination of summaries 2&3. I think that a Nation that have been held together by force will break up in Ethnic peaces. But i dont think that it will happen as long as the coalition forces are in Iraq.But they cant be there for ever. So basicly i see the development this way: In Southern Shia areas Irans influence will grow steady. In the Northern Kurdish area the separatistic feelings are already there. In the Central Sunni areas there is an huge possibility of the extremist Nationalist to take power, becouse the population is unhappy becouse their former glory has gone with the Saddams regime.
That is the reason that in my opinion Iraq should be divided in two countries: The Kurdistan and Iraq. I believe that in the long run the Shiias and Sunnis can remain in one State. But i believe it is simply wrong to force the Kurds to live in a state they dont want to be part off.

[ichi]

A combo of 3 and 4, altho I don't agree with all of the pieces of either, they best describe my opinion.

ichi

ps Seamus, did you guess right?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A combo of 3 and 4, altho I don't agree with all of the pieces of either, they best describe my opinion.

ichi

ps Seamus, did you guess right?

Yep -- though I disagree with you a good bit, you do express yourself clearly #1.

[Soulforged]

Though this has been discussed many times I say 4. Not saying it will be a symptom of blindness (IMO), and of course a contradiction to my previous posts regarding the matter.

[ichi]

Yep -- though I disagree with you a good bit, you do express yourself clearly #1.

*bows*

It is possible to disagree and still respect; You do good yourself mate.

ichi

[QwertyMIDX]

I voted for a combination of #3 and #4, although I think there is more to it than either summary contains. I'm also more strongly against the war than such a vote would led one to believe, but my reasoning is rather different than the condemnation in summary #4.

[PanzerJaeger]

Summary #1 is the most accurate.

[Franconicus]

4 is an excellent summary. Thanx!

[Red Harvest]

Why does PJ get to vote twice? It's showing him twice for #1. Wondering how that happened?

[PanzerJaeger]

Its called status... same reason OJ got off. Us VIPs eat nobodies like you for breakfast.

(I honestly have no clue, but I like it.)

[Adrian II]

Unsurprisingly, I voted for a combination of three and four. I do not believe in single-motive or single-effect analyses of foreign policy, although sometimes it is hard not to speak or argue about it in such terms.

On a side-note I am happy to see that our elusive Mormon has voted in the poll, thus proving that he is not entirely lost to the .org. They seek him here, they seek him there...

[dgfred]

I went with #1.

[Ironside]

#3 and #4 combo. Although I suspect that the invasion had more to do with very idealistic thinking (that seems to plague this goverment when it comes to foregin policy) and finishing "daddys job" and a few other stuff, than a speciffic power grab.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

1 and 2

[yesdachi]

#2-3 combo for me

#4 is a joke IMO

[Grey_Fox]

3 and 4. It wasn't a power grab for the sake of power grabbing, but it has sidelined the real war on terrorism by sucking in resources that should be better used elsewhere. Once coalition forces leave, I believe there will be a civil war, as is usual in these circumstances.

[Tribesman]

A combination of 3&4 apart from......
Any efforts after Afghanistan that the US has been involved in are largely – or totally – unjustified.
that should be "some efforts are counterproductive and some efforts are unjustifiable"

[Ice]

Most likely a mix of 2/3.

#4 is absurd.

[Kralizec]

I voted for the 3&4 combo, though I don't think Bush would have dreamt of invading Iraq before 9/11 (though I do think the choice was made shortly afterwards) and I don't think it was a power grab, either. If I were to guess, it wass misplaced idealism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Panzer did vote twice.....

I thought such things could only occur in Florida or Cook County, IL

Truthfully, I did not set up a multiple vote option, unless it was accidental. If so, I'd appreciate a moderater note so that I can avoid repeating the mistake.

[Pindar]

On a side-note I am happy to see that our elusive Mormon has voted in the poll, thus proving that he is not entirely lost to the .org. They seek him here, they seek him there...

Hehe

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth... John 3:8

[Red Harvest]

Panzer did vote twice.....

I thought such things could only occur in Florida or Cook County, IL

Or Texas...well, not twice...but he could vote after he was dead.

[Spetulhu]

Panzer did vote twice.....

But it doesn't appear to help his position any. There's 8 votes right now - and 9 voters counting Panzer twice. Weird are the ways of the vote.

[Watchman]

3&4 for me - I'm fully willing to believe the Bush Adminstration, or rather the individuals therein calling the shots in the context, had both noble and base motives - and even more willing to believe both sorts can cheerfully coexists in the same person.

Doesn't alter the fact they made a horrible mess out of the whole thing. And it seems to be getting worse by the month - not necessarily down in Iraq (where it seems to be something of a "nothing new on the Western Front" kind of situation), but in what it does to the heads of people involved.

[Ronin]

3 & 4 combo.....4 providing the motives and 3 the cover for it.

[Adrian II]

Hehe

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth... John 3:8

Ancient ancestor say: 'Small wind can raise much dust'.

[Pindar]

Ancient ancestor say: 'Small wind can raise much dust'.

This sound like something an uncouth pagan would say, or perhaps....the Devil?

[Adrian II]

This sound like something an uncouth pagan would say, or perhaps....the Devil?

Foreign devils of little concern to future master race.

[scooter_the_shooter]

I say option 2.