ScottL wrote:ladajo wrote:
Nice inaccurate sweeping statement.
I suppose we were spending no money in the "containment" strategy, which was failing miserably. No commitment of miltary forces, over and over again, no shoring up of surrounding and further away states that he continually attempted to undermine, etc, etc, etc. Saddam's place in the game was one which caused us to spend some effort on. From a DIME perspective, he was high on the list of things to worry about, and certainly had wide reaching impacts, that maybe are not so apparent on the surface for those who follow these things via the media and internet.
Leaving him in place would have lead to bigger issues regarding him. AS for cost of war, well go after the congress and lobbies, and those who support them, which allowed for gross inflation of contracts. Where is the accountability? Why is no one going back and sueing on behalf of the taxpayers to get the money back for all the ridiculous over charges? I would say at least half of the money spent was pure unjustified markups. We are corrupt as a nation, and that is the root issue. Not Saddam. Congress supports this, as it gives them contribution money to focus on priority number one, re-election. We can blame ourselves as a people, not the "governement". For they are us and we are them. You know, "Government by the people, of the people, for the people...". "We have met the enemy, and they are us". Now we need to fix it if we can.
Your first paragraph implies a "behind the scenes" view of the rationale and justification for the U.S. led invasion. Up to this point, however; you've shown no signs of being within the Administration, so I'm going to assume you're best guess is as good as anyone else's best guess as to the rationale.
Leaving him in place may have cost us down the road, or it may have not. There was no evidence at the time one way or the other and so you're making an assumption based on your opinion, based on anecdotal evidence. I'm not stating you're wrong, but I'm not stating you're right. We eliminated the possibility of knowing 100%, but evidence leading up to that point points to the fact that we'd have likely saved a large sum of money. I'd like to remind people that we are not the world police and our tactics of pre-emptivity went overboard during the Bush administration.
So yes, Axil had a nice sweeping statement and so did you. Pot, meet Kettle.
If you must ask, then yes, I did have a "behind the scenes view". And no, I do not publicy comment on what I do or where I do it to folks I do not know. Being more visible about myself would result in my becoming less candid. I prefer to be candid.
Yes, I n the simple argument, we could have "saved" money by not taking him on directly. However the indirect approach was costing us, alot even. And it was growing as every week passed by. This metric was being watched as well. So there was evidence, and still is, it is just not readily visible to the public domain. It is the same argument for Libyia. However, we applied lessons from Saddam, and did it smarter. Did it cost us? Yes, but because we got others to help with the grunt work, it helped keep groos costs down. Now that said, it was not "cheap" nor will it be ahead. But it was cheaper that the full court bulk effort press for Saddam.
Now, that said again, it does not mean that "war contracts" were not once again abused. They most certainly were. Contrary to popular conceptions, the government tends to pay more than it should for lots of things. The government does not shop at Walmart. But I would rather go to war with the stuff we but than any stuff anyone else buys. Our stuff is much more durable than the rest, and we get mileage out of it. For example, one of my buddies who was on the Guantlet run in Mogadishu has a great story about how many rounds the HMMV he was in took and kept running. When they got the stadium, and they shut it down, it would not start again, and once they took a look at it, they had no rational explanation for how it made there.
As far as cost of war or not, this is something that is studied and considered in the total look. And when you consider these costs, one must look at the total timeframe of involvement. Sometimes a slow bleed is acceptable, sometimes it is not.
I will be interested to see what happens with Syria and Iran down the road. The dynamic is changing and so are the costs, current and future.
I would guess that you are unaware of the roles and functions of the larger construct of our national defense structure and what it does and how it does it. The decision process leading in to a war is complex and long. It involves many facets of research, debate, breifings, estimates and mulitple levels of reccomendations and decisions. This process is conducted across a wide range of mil and civ entities and institutions. What you see in the media is but a very small piece. Tip of the iceburg. It is not all about, "Hey that guy annoys me, lets go get him." If that were the case we would have been in Iran or North Korea and crushed them a long time ago.
I am glad you are interested in this, but do realize that there is a lot that you do not know about how these things really work. The bulk of the grunt work is not done by sound bite politicians. It is done by career professionals in the military and government. Politicians and political appointees come and go, but the little old ladies in tennis shoes are always there.
