what are the acceptable losses for no good cause at all...?

My response in a different thread a few minutes ago started me thinking about this question and I decided that it needed a thread of its own. The answer seems like a no-brainer-- there is no acceptable number of lives thrown away for nothing-- but everyone's plan for either "succeeding in Iraq" or their calls for "eventual withdrawal" or "phased withdrawal" implicitly accept that more will die during the interval of continued occupation, on both sides.

So I wonder, if the people who've been killed already-- on both sides-- died for nothing, then how can the death of even one more person be justified? What are the acceptable losses for no good cause whatsoever? How many lives can we simply toss away like waste, how many futures can we condemn for nothing before it becomes too many? One must always assess the human cost of war against the benefits of struggle, but what are the legitimate costs when there is no benefit whatsoever? When every death is a waste? When everyone dies in vain?

When each day of continued occupation, while politicians in Washington pound their chests and try to prove themselves brave and true while avoiding any "negative perceptions," when each hour of occupation means more dead and maimed for absolutely nothing, how can ANYONE suggest any course other than full, immediate, and unconditional withdrawal from the meat grinder we've created in Iraq? It's not a question of fortitude-- it's a question of decency. To paraphrase John Kerry, "how do you ask the last man to die for nothing?"

...during the democratic '04 debates while everyone else was balancing on the fence and tip-toeing about when was the right time to bring the troops home, Sharpton answered with something like "the right time to get out is now because it was wrong to be there in the first place". Maybe not the exact quote but same message.
Kucinich was the next loudest opponent with a clear message.

We have been told we must fight and win this ambiguous war. We've been told the loss of life and sacrifice is worth ridding the world of evil-doers and giving freedom to the oppressed. We've been told if we don't fight terrorists there, in Iraq, we'll have to fight them here in our streets.

Unfortunately, a lot of people believe what we've been told. Let's hope that changes, and people start asking the questions you've listed in your post.

:hi:

Another favorite quote often used and questioning or denying it means that you're "unpatriotic". Never mind that it means your freedom of choice, freedom of speech is being discouraged and that you're phone calls are being tapped.

That's right. Or, more specifically, Everybody but me! Simple as that; everything else is self-delusion/rationalization.

:sarcasm:

of Bush, Cheney, almost every Republican in congress, and the robber barons who have bought and paid for them. They couldn't care less who, or how many die, as long as they can hold onto their power and increase their wealth.

And in order to really understand them, it's necessary to grasp the fact that they'll never have enough power or wealth. No matter how much they have, they'll always want more.

But I still can't understand why even most of the opposition-- the democrats in Congress-- advocate either continuing the senseless killing indefinitely, or continuing it for a defined time period longer. What's the point in staying in Iraq until July 2007, for example, if nothing can be achieved during a further year of occupation except more needless killing? More lives thrown away for nothing? Will those new deaths somehow contribute meaning to all the ones that died before?

virtual silence for the past few years has only aided and abetted the thugs in power. Not that the media would have paid that much attention to them anyway.

Kerry had as big a soap box as any Dem could hope for during the 2004 election but he didn't come out swinging with everything he had. This put him on the defensive and you don't win by playing defense. (Then again, I go along with Bobby Kennedy. The 2004 election was probably stolen, but that's a different subject.)

They are no more or less important than people killed in car accidents. "Conservatives" do not give one flying dog fuck about how many more of our kids die. Oh, and these are pro-lifers.

How many more must die before those who have already died have not died in vain? "Conservatives" just don't care. The thought process interferes with their flag waving.

Can you tell me that? Because I can imagine alot of really bad scenarios, but also really do not know what would happen. Isn't leaving Iraq as a country that looks like Mexico or Venezuela a worthy goal?

Why should our occupation of Iraq be more nefarious than our occupation of Germany or Japan if the goal is the same - to create a peaceful and free nation which previously was ruled by a hostile tyrant?

Of course, the above discussion assumes a Democratic administration and not the present arrogant, fascist and imperialist one.

Probable civil war, chaos, death. Iraq was held together as a national entity by that "hostile tyrant" largely against it's own wishes. Unless another tyrant emerges to repeat that process, I think the destruction of Iraq is inevitable, or at least a lengthy spasm of violence. The tensions in Iraq are at least as much sectarian as they are nationalist opposition to occupation. Whether we pull out tomorrow or stay in Iraq for five more years, the outcome will be the same-- Iraq is going to have to go through the process of settling its own matters or through the process of creating another tyrant. But a western style democracy? It won't happen.

I think your question about how Iraq compares to postwar Germany and Japan is a good one. My personal sense is that South Vietnam is a better model for what's happening in Iraq. Germany and Japan were exhausted and drained by massive war efforts prior to their occupations-- they needed administration and rebuilding. While one might argue that Iraq also needs administration and rebuilding just as badly if not more so, it was attacked without provocation, and although occupied, it has never been subdued. Imagine trying to occupy Japan or Germany in 1938 rather than 1945, before the fighting had bled off so many and so much of the remaining people's resources. In Iraq we have a beligerent and energetic population under garrison occupation by a relatively small force. No one ever surrendered the nation to its invaders and now no one ever will. We and they will continue to bleed until we leave, and afterward they will undergo further spasms, probably very bad ones. They will hate us for generations to come. This is the legacy we have created-- I do not believe we can change it or outrun it, and the longer we try to maintain the occupation, the worse the situation will eventually be when it inevitably falls apart.

One other point I'd like to make-- the war against Iraq is seriously damaging America. It is costly-- it will strap our children with crippling debt for generations, and America very well might never recover from that burden alone. It is severely depleting our military in a variety of ways. It is fueling the neocon attack on fundamental American values and freedoms.

I am not sure that we should not expend some lives and money, at this point, to try for a "soft landing" instead of pulling out and letting it crash. Perhaps more like the Phillipines though. We did not do any good trying to stay there.

I do not think it compares to South Vietnam, because there is no equivalent North Vietnam, unless Iran fits that role.

I do not believe that anything is inevitable, but neither do I believe that the BFEE has either good intentions or realistic plans.

And what kind of "soft landing" would justify their sacrifice? I agree with you that if there is a mission worth accomplishing, we should accomplish it-- that's the only thing that will give any meaning to the deaths that have already occurred. But I don't believe there ever was any honorable mission-- the invasion of Iraq was variously Bush's personal smash-up and the neocons' opportunity to try out some of their pet theories with real firepower and real bleeding victims. It was a chance to consolidate presidential power-- long an objective of despots like Cheney and Rumsfeld who recognized the potential for subverting the constitutional checks and balances by concentrating power into a single office. It was a vast money well waiting to be pumped by the civilian contractors of the military industrial complex. It was a stage set against which to implement an American security state-- we're at war, after all, so everyone should expect to sacrifice some of their personal liberties. It was a game. It was geopolitical theft. It was a crime against humanity.

I have never heard even a single well articulated argument for invading and occupying Iraq that doesn't devolve into something dishonorable, or into simple chest pounding. So if there is something honorable to be achieved in Iraq, by all means lets work toward it and get it done. But someone will have to tell me what we're trying to achieve, first.

to safely withdraw all troops and equipment, by all estimates I've seen from credible sources. A lot of people forget this important part of the equation. We are interwoven into the fabric of the society there, and the phased withdrawl, whenever it starts, will need to be done in a way that does not do more harm than good.

The U.S. could evacuate Iraq much faster if it had to. Leave much of the equipment behind if necessary. The war is a crime-- one doesn't call for criminals to phase out their crimes. Again, no justification that I've heard is worth the lives that will inevitably be lost during the interim of any "phased withdrawal." You're presuming that there is something to be accomplished by not leaving immediately, and that begs the question of whether we should leave at all. If there's something to be gained by staying, it needs to be articulated, planned, and achieved. Otherwise there is no reason to stay, and if there's no reason to stay, there's no reason to drag our feet leaving. People keep dying for nothing.

Are you certain they are dying for nothing? Many serving in Iraq would disagree with you.

Just raising the question....

Yes, I am certain that they're dying for nothing. I've asked many times just what is the mission in Iraq? What is the objective that people are dying to achieve-- and in this context I'm only talking about the invaders and occupiers, not the Iraqis. I think that's consistent with your question too.

What are they dying for? To defeat the insurgency? Our presence in Iraq creates and maintains the insurgency, so that is a mission that cannot be accomplished until every Iraqi who chafes under occupation has been put down. Is the mission to defend America from..., well..., what? Terrorists? When was America ever attacked by Iraqi terrorists? From Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or any of the other lies put forth to justify the invasion initially-- all that tripe and balderdash in the preamble to the IWR? That's all been so thoroughly discredited that it's hardly worth mentioning. To remove Saddam Hussein? Quite aside from the question of whether we had any legitimate right to do so, it was done some time ago. Is the mission to create a western style democracy in a country with no democratic tradition or the cultural basis for sustaining a western democracy? Again, notwithstanding whether we had any right to decide what sort of government the people of Iraq require, that seems hardly likely to succeed, and indeed is fueling the civil strife in Iraq at this moment.

Is the mission to create a puppet government in the middle east? To provide Americans access to Iraqi resources? To steal their oil? Is it simply to enrich the military industrial complex by funneling enormous amounts of the American people's money into corporate and Pentagon coffers? Is the mission simply to enrich puppeteers like Cheney? Is that what Ameican service men and women are dying for? Is the mission simply to not admit that there was no genuine mission, or none that was honorable? Are any of these "missions" worth tossing away lives for?