ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For the sake of discussion, let's all accept that. Everything happening in Iraq can and must be laid at our door. Cool.

By that logic, are we (the U.S., U.K., and France) obliged to make a generational commitment of unlimited treasure and blood? Even if the Iraqis themselves do not want to be our colony? Do we stand over them, protecting them, shouldering the white man's burden indefinitely, in the hopes that they will grow into something that more resembles our ideals? How long can we sustain that? How long will the Iraqis tolerate it?

Infinite occupation of a place that doesn't really want you there has not worked out well for: the U.K., Russia, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and many other would-be colonial powers. Why do we imagine indefinite occupation of Iraq would be different?

No, not an indefinite commitment, but a "generational" commitment was required, that being roughly 25 years - and America in particular does not spend blood if it can spend bombs instead - this is a flaw in the American doctrine of occupation from at least Vietnam onwards.

What is required to persuade the Iraqis that America are the "Good Guys" are lots of dead Americans, considerably more than five thousand, in particular what is required are dead American soldiers instead of dead Iraqi Civilians.

The requisite narrative you need Iraqi mothers to tell their sons is, "The Islamists came and killed your father, but then the Americans came and fought them off."

What Iraqi mothers actually tell their sons is probably more like, "The Americans found some Islamists here, so they dropped some bombs and one killed your father."

To Americans, yes, Americans are more valuable than Iraqis. I don't sere how that's amoral or wicked; every society values its own a bit more. You'd be more shocked by a guy down the street getting run over than you would be by 300 people dying in a ferry accident in Bangladesh. That's not some horrible racist thing; that's a perfectly normal response. I'm sure Iraqis value Iraqi lives more than they would American lives. And why on Earth not?

Maybe you'd find that more shocking - I find the fact that we think using unmanned drones to drop bombs to be an effective form of assassination pretty shocking, and I find it even more shocking that we use air power in occupied areas rather than infantry.

It's stupid - it shows that we aren't willing to die for our principles, we'd rather risk collateral damage than the lives of our own men. It's no wonder they hate us.

As a general metric, I would say that the Iraqi civilian, or any civilian, is worth roughly two American soldiers at least. So, if your bombing strike kills 10 Iraqi's you would need to show that going in and finding those guys on foot would cost 20 American lives before you could reasonably say that was the best choice, operationally.

This isn't a moral question so much as a practical one - there's no point occupying somewhere at all if it's not going to have a net positive affect on the occupied. 5,000 dead Americans and a few hundred dead Brits is nothing compared to the thousands of Iraqi's who died and continue to die.