Exploring the opposition mind on the War in Iraq.

[Pindar]

I oppose the war in Iraq because...

Which of the above identify your feelings most closely? Multiple selections are available if someone feels strongly about several options.

[CrossLOPER]

Where's my free oil?

[Lemur]

An awful lot of people are going to fall into the "originally supported it" category. Pindar, I don't know if you're a poll-smoker, but here's some info that might be of interest to you.

I voted "wrong focus," since that most closely matches my misgivings. I'm not going to bother elaborating, since I have done so elsewhere, and since positions seem to be rather hardened at this late state of the game.

The Onion, as usual, has a rather brilliant comment on the President's conduct of the campaign.

[Pindar]

An awful lot of people are going to fall into the "originally supported it" category. Pindar, I don't know if you're a poll-smoker, but here's some info that might be of interest to you.

That is interesting. Those Mormons are a tricky bunch. But, given South Park proclaimed them the ones going to Heaven, looks like Bush is in trouble.

[CountArach]

Illegal and Impractical - Can't succeed.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why are all polls anonymous nowadays? I like to see who voted what.

I voted:
It is an impractical war: cannot succeed.
It is an impractical war: wrong focus.

[econ21]

I'm not sure there is a war in Iraq. Are you referring to the initial invasion? Or the continued presence of Coalition troops?

The issues are somewhat different. You could say one is about breaking and entering, the other about squatting.

[Pindar]

I'm not sure there is a war in Iraq. Are you referring to the initial invasion? Or the continued presence of Coalition troops?

I'm referring to the use of arms from the initial invasion through to the present.

[econ21]

I'm referring to the use of arms from the initial invasion through to the present.

I still think one needs to separate the two. There is the world of difference between invading a sovereign state (Saddam's Iraq) and providing troops to maintain the internal security of a sovereign state (post-Saddam Iraq).

That said, I oppose both.

The invasion was immoral. To attack another state, you need a pretty good reason and there was not one in this case. In fact, it is hard to think of what would constitute a good reason. Only two possible come to mind.

The first is to avert a humanitarian catastrophe - a Rwanda-type situation. Saddam's Iraq did not qualify - yes, he had done nasty things to his own people but most of the mass atrocities seemed to be dated around the Iran-Iraq War or Gulf War I, and there was not evidence of ongoing genocide or anything equivalent.

The second potential justification for an attack on another state is for national security. I guess this was the official reason for the invasion, but it never seemed plausible to me. I was not convinced Iraq had significant quantities of WMDs it could use against the US and the UK. I don't think anyone - in either the UK or the US government - was convinced of that. They hid behind legalisms and technicalities. (They might have thought Iraq had a few left over WMDs, but did not think Washington or London could be hit by them.) The Blair reasoning that Iraqi WMDs might leak out to terrorists seemed tenuous and hypothetical. The case of Afghanistan was very different - given that the Taliban was harbouring the perpetrators of 9/11 and allowing them to plan further attacks. Further, Afghanistan was never really "invaded" by the US - "bought" might be a better word. The Taliban had a much more fragile grip on their country than Saddam and the US was able to operate through strong proxy forces in a way that was inconceivable in Iraq.

Ex post, it seems clear that on both counts - humanitarian and national security - the war has made things worse. Mortality estimates imply the invasion has made the humanitarian situation much worse. The invasion (and Abu Grav etc) have inspired a whole new generation of terrorists and make the terrorist threat worse (especially for the poor Iraqis). That was certainly suggested by some opponents of the war at the time, but it was not obvious to me that this would be the case, so it is not the essence of why I thought the invasion immoral. It does reaffirm that thought though.

I oppose the occupation on pragmatic grounds. The continued presence of coalition troops is opposed by the majority of the Iraqi people (and, AFAIK, the politicians - at least the ones who will come out on top). Most think removing the troops will improve the internal security situation. Many support attacks on coalition troops. I agree with the majority of Iraqis: taking the foreign troops out will reduce one reason for conflict. It may also allow a sustainable political settlement to be made, when the power of the US is not providing a temporary crutch for the incumbents. The incumbents will have more of an incentive to build up their own security forces and/or do political deals with their opponents to settle disputes.

[Fragony]

Still think the war was justified, but mistake on mistake on mistake..... it shouldn't have been like this. Winning hearts and minds the american way, should have sticked to serving hamburgers.

[KukriKhan]

Since we are

Exploring the opposition mind

let's explore econ21's brilliant post.

I actually don't have much dispute with the first 90%, laying out the fraudulent groundwork used to justify invading (although I think some of the proponents actually believed their reasoning, at the time; i.e. I don't think they deliberately lied).

Once those initial goals were achieved (WMD threat neutralized (ha!), Saddam captured), I don't understand the need for further occupation. OK, stick around to help out with elections. But then? Stick around at Iraq's Gov't request to help out with security? For how long?

At the moment, I feel like we are a visiting bouncer in a bar not our own - having just broken up a fistfight. I've got a Sunni by the scruff of the neck, a Shia in a hammer-lock, and I'm staring down a Kurd in the doorway.

I just wanna leave this joint and have a cold beer, but if I let go right now, these 3 (and others) will burn the place down, I'm quite sure. Do I let them go, anyway? What do I do?

[econ21]

At the moment, I feel like we are a visiting bouncer in a bar not our own - having just broken up a fistfight. I've got a Sunni by the scruff of the neck, a Shia in a hammer-lock, and I'm staring down a Kurd in the doorway.

I just wanna leave this joint and have a cold beer, but if I let go right now, these 3 (and others) will burn the place down, I'm quite sure. Do I let them go, anyway? What do I do?

Good analogy - it's shows that exit not an easy decision. I guess the key thing for me is the visiting bouncer point. Sooner or later, you are going to leave. And you will not be replaced by another bouncer from outside. The Sunni, Shia and Kurd will have to share the bar together, unsupervised. Your exit is a matter of timing and it is not obvious when to go.

A more brutal observation is that the Coalition have not broken up the fistfight. They've shot the leader of the regular bouncers and scared off his lackeys. The regular bouncer was a pretty vile character, so no particular regrets about his fate, but still, it's pandamonium now. As a consequence quite a few of the bottles are aimed at you, but usually they are launched behind your back so you can't see who threw them. Probably some of the regular bouncers who have crept back in to the bar, as well as their Sunni pals. But quite a few bottles seem to have come from the Shia side of the bar, where rival gangs are squaring up to take over when you leave. A neighbouring bar seems to be supplying free empty bottles for some of the Shia to lob at you.

And of course there are not one each of the Shia, Sunni and Kurds but a whole room full of them all. And only one of you. (Well, there's a slightly built Brit watching the south exit, but he's wearing glasses and trying to read his newspaper, smiling politely at the brawny Shias who bump into him.)

[Whacker]

SI just wanna leave this joint and have a cold beer, but if I let go right now, these 3 (and others) will burn the place down, I'm quite sure. Do I let them go, anyway? What do I do?

But it's their place, not yours... If they really want to burn it (and eachother) down, don't you think that's really their right to do so?

Just playing advocate. For the record I think the answer to that is yes.

Voted that the war was/is illegal and immoral to begin with, wrong focus, and completely and utterly impossible goal.

[Pindar]

I still think one needs to separate the two. There is the world of difference between invading a sovereign state (Saddam's Iraq) and providing troops to maintain the internal security of a sovereign state (post-Saddam Iraq).

That is fine, you may distinguish in your reply as you wish. I'm content to go with the standard view which mixes the two given there is a continued martial exercise.

[Major Robert Dump]

Wrong focus, with a nice trail of breadcrumbs to lead to that wrong focus.

Pwnt. Better luck next time.

[macsen rufus]

Illegal & immoral; I thought so before it started, throughout its prosecution, and still do today. At least most of the lies* and hypocrisy** have now been thoroughly exposed, but they were clear from the beginning, as was the Orwellian doublethink of Blair and Bush. I thought the way the media curled up and swallowed the government line was spineless, and as ever, any outpouring of bellicose flagwaving always creates an uneasing feeling for me. The country turned into a mindless, bloodthirsty mob incapable of analysing the facts of the situation.

* WMD and Saddam-Al Qaeda links, faked intelligence etc
** Saddam was a bad man who had to be removed, even though he was just as bad when we were supporting him, oh and all the poison gas he ever had we sold to him in the first place