The Iraq War

Share your thoughts on the Iraq War, its escalating violence, increasing/decreasing troop numbers, having permanent military bases, partitioning Iraq, elections and democracy in Iraq, the Bush administration's plans for Iraq, pretexts for war, etc.

Original responses by 23 Houghton College students.
Comments to these responses by Inti Martinez (IM) and Christopher Krowka (CK)

NOTE: CK tends to be on the "right" of the political spectrum. IM tends to be on the "left" of the political spectrum. These experts' comments were crafted independently from each other.

---------------------

1- It don't think the last question is fair. The US did not hang Saddam, that was an Iraqi trial and decision. We do not know enough about Iraqi laws etc ... what do you mean, "WAS IT RIGHT"?

The question simply asks if you thought it was right to hang Saddam Hussein. It does not hint at the US carrying it out. At any rate, what is "legal" is not always what is "just" or "right." The question probed whether or not students approved of the death penalty for Saddam Hussein.
-IM

Since most people aren’t informed on current Iraqi jurisprudence, my guess is that the question wasn’t referring to the legality of the matter, but the morality.
-CK

2- No matter what happens we can't just rip on the President and the our soldiers. I think the President is trying to do what seems the most right and our troops need to know that we are behind them or else they have nothing to fight for. It's ok to have constructive criticism but I am extremely fed-up with people complaining about our president and the war in Iraq. Why don't we pray for him instead?

Yes, prayer is a great thing and I believe all Christians should be praying for world leaders. However, blind faith in leader X or leader Y will not lead us to a better world. Supporting troops does not mean you will agree with everything going on in a war. You can support your troops by exercising your democratic right to vote for a representative that will vote in Congress to withdraw troops.
Everyone does what they think is right in their own eyes. But, judging by the reality of the war in Iraq, it takes a lot of discipline to support this terrorist war.
-IM

How about we pray for him *and* voice our complaints? I would prefer dialogue between both camps, instead of liberals assuming immediate withdrawal is the best course, and then complaining that Bush isn’t immediately withdrawing the troops, and conservatives uncritically following Bush’s lead.
-CK

3- They should have tortured Saddam first. PMZ 
Are you sure about that, PMZ? Saddam claimed in court that he had been mistreated several times. Does that make you feel any better?
-IM

Yeah, I always thought death by hanging was a bit too easy. Too bad Saddam is dead; you two would have got along great.
-CK


4- Who can truly judge whether we ought to have begun our campaign in Iraq or whether all has been carried out effectively and in the best way possible? What I do know is that having the troops gone from their native soil for so long and so frequently is definitely having an adverse effect on themselves and their families. Divorce rates are now greater than 50%, as men and women face long and frequent separations, wondering whether they will actually see each other again, and whether their spouses will remain true to them in their absence. Communication between husband and wife is limited while one is deployed, and this puts a real strain on a marriage. What I would like to see President Bush work on is a plan for decreasing the amount of time a spouse is separated from his or her family, whether by decreasing the number of possible deployments of a soldier, or by decreasing the duration of a deployment.

I agree with your statements past your first sentence. Well put! I'm not sure how much the nationwide divorce rates are affected by deployment, but I'm sure it does affect marriages for those in the military.
Your first sentence can be answered by saying that overwhelming majorities in the US and around the world have already judged whether it was right to invade Iraq and whether the best decisions were taken in this war. I'm sure your question was merely rhetorical, but anyway...
-IM


5- I realize pacifism is not at all a viable ideology with which to run a modern nation/state, however I believe strongly in making a serious effort to exhaust other diplomatic and peaceful alternatives to war before engaging in such. That being said, I don't think that this was the case in Iraq. Our own citizens, as well as those who live in Iraq die each day each defending thier own ideology. I suppose the only thing to do now is join the side that is going to win.

Which side is going to win? What does it mean to win?
If we are to do what you suggest, then we ought to not support the Bush administration's war and give support to bin Laden, al-Sadr, Ahmadinejad, etc. If America continues to believe that squelching Iraq's violence involves using military force, they're in for a surprise: losing the war.

There is a very thin line dividing diplomacy from appeasement. I do not, however, have any idea what your last two sentences mean.
-CK

6- Our military is overstretched in Iraq and cannot adequately deal with a renewed Taliban on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border or any new threats (Iran, even North Korea) that may arise. I agree that an increase in troop levels is needed if we are to have any hope of taking back Baghdad--but I'm skeptical that we can still achieve any favorable outcome. Hence, I moderately oppose raising troops levels in Iraq and would favor a phased withdrawal. Sending more troops also means that we continue to send men and women from disproportionately poor backgrounds who have not had equal opportunity to succeed in America. If you support sending more troops, I would suggest you consider supporting conscription as well. It is an American moral failure if we continue to send the less fortunate among us into harm's way and allow middle- and upper-class 18-year olds to enjoy their XBoxs and Mountain Dew.

I couldn't have said it any better!
-IM

First, withdrawing troops merely to have them ready, because something *might* happen requiring military intervention? That seems a bit sketchy. Also, if the US withdrew its troops to wait for something, what are the odds the US would enter another large combat situation after Iraq? If we pull out now in preparation for something else, it sends the message that we can’t finish the job, and would therefore probably not intervene in before mentioned instance. Second, you would support conscription over voluntary service based on economic percentages? Shouldn’t you want to find a way to increase the economic conditions of the poor instead of taking it out on the middle- and upper-classes?
-CK

7- Hanging Saddam Hussein was not a good idea. He has become a martyr, a role model for his followers, and he is now more than ever being hailed as a hero. He should've just been locked away for the rest of his life.

True. However, some people believe that by not killing him and locking him up, his followers would continue fighting in Iraq with hopes he would return to power someday. I believe that now that Saddam's dead, there's much more motivation for Sunnis to fight for their cause, than if Saddam had been locked up.
-IM

I think you are embellishing Saddam’s potential for hero status. If he was locked away, that creates its own set of problems—such as prisoner exchanges and ransoms for his freedom.
-CK



8- The public circus surrounding Saddam's execuction was uneccessary and harmful. An execution was not wrong, but Saddam's hanging resembled a lynching more than an execution.

Yeah, I watched all three videos and they were pretty gory. However, it's customary for Iraqis to carry out executions the way they did: taunting Saddam and dancing around his dead body. Sunnis were very ticked off at the execution and the fact that it was taped.
-IM

What can I say, Iraqis really hate Saddam.
-CK


9- Although the war may have been just barely justified, it is in our best strategic interest to get out as soon as possible. However, with that said, the key word we must focus on in "as soon as possible" is "possible". If we leave or dramatically reduce troop numbers without having established a stable government we would be passively committing a grave human rights atrocity, since in the present state an Iraq left to its own defense would surely descend into first civil war, and then totalitarianism. Because of this it seems we have to be committed long term no matter how distaseful as that idea is to us all.

Do you think America can establish a stable government in Iraq? What if Iraq is partitioned and ethnic groups are given sovereignty? Kurds can have their own sovereign Kurdistan. Sunnis and Shiites can live in partitioned Iraq with distributed oil wealth. Contrary to popular belief, most Sunnis and Shiites coexist with each other (and often intermarry) peacefully. However, there are some extremist factions in both groups that pit the groups against each other, causing so much trouble and death in Iraq.
-IM

Okay.
-CK


10- Saddam Hussein definitely deserved his punishment, but I don't think it's entirely necessary to have the death penalty.

I don’t quite get them meaning of this non sequitur.
-CK


11- I believe the idea of doing nothing is wrong, we went in and now we need to help- we can't make this a Germany after WW1 situation, letting people fend for themselves, particularly people who have only known a violent government.

Oh, yeah, everyone believes the US should do something to help the situation. The debate is on the how. By withdrawing troops from Iraq? Increasing troop numbers?
-IM

While I am not sure the Germany example is apropos, you have the right attitude. I like that you accept the fact that the US went in and, regardless of how you feel about that, are focusing on what to do now.
-CK


12- The Iraq war is something we should never have entered. Not only is this "war" unconstitutional, but President Bush's reason for invading was an exeedingly poor one (WMD? The U.S. has the worlds largest collection of such weapons! Why begrudge them to other countrys?). The U.S. should stop trying to be world policeman and focus on its own issues instead.

I wish the US could behave like any other nation: Carry out its national affairs fairly and peacefully, and not interfere with other nations' business unless it's requested by an international organization such as the UN. The belief that all nations want to be the hegemon is unwarranted. Very few nations in the world actually want to carry out their business in such an intrusive and violent fashion as the US.
-IM

In 2003 this comment would have made more sense, but since the US did invade Iraq, the current question is “What do we do now?”.
-CK


13- While I'm not sure the begining of the war was handled the best it could, I believe it is in the past and people should focus on getting Iraq stable. Many people just want to pull out now to bring our troops home. Then all the lives that were lost would be in vain because there is a slim chance a respectable government could be created without help from an outside source. We need to stay in Iraq until the Iraqes (sp?) can stand on there own. Rushing things will only cause more chaos.

No, Iraqis will not stand on their own while the US insists in keeping Iraq together as one nation. Yes, the US should require Prime Minister al-Maliki to not protect Shiite militias, but to enforce the law.
-IM

Good analysis.
-CK


14- W is for war.
This is either extremely demented or incredibly insightful.
-CK


15- Based on the tales of those who have studied Islamic culture or who have lived it themselves, Bush is making a grave mistake. Even the hanging of Sadaam Hussein has created an even larger power vacuum that we cannot fill no matter how many troops we send in. It almost seems like Bush is just biding his time until his term is up, since he cannot drop any lower on the approval rating scale anyway, and then will leave this mess to the next president. Let's try Rumsfeld for crimes against humanity shall we?

Yes, let's try Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Powell, Bush and many other strategists who led the US to this fiasco. Besides, Rumsfeld & co. were full supporters of Saddam when he carried out his most horrendous crimes in the '80s.
-IM

One problem with citing authorities regarding certain issues is that, invariably, there are authorities on the other side of the issue as well. Since you didn’t actually give an argument, I guess I’ll have to agree with you that somewhere, someone with experience in Islamic culture had a good reason for thinking Bush is making a mistake.
-CK


16- Vague questions. Potentially misleading. rephrase for more direct and speciifc questions next time.

Many of the questions were taken directly from reputable polling companies like Gallup, Ipsos, AP, and others. Could you email me and let me know how they should've been rephrased?
-IM

Your comment is vague and potentially unhelpful. Please rethink for next time.
-CK


17- I think it was wrong to hang Saddam Hussein not because of my opinions of the war, but because I am against capital punishment.

Respectable. As Christians we're supposed to spread grace and truth to others. Violence and death is no longer viable for us under a new covenant.
-IM

Okay.
-CK


18- I think that it is important for the citizens of the U.S. to remember all of the positive impacts that our military has made in Iraq. No one "likes" war, but in this case it is important that we try to keep their country "afloat" because without us, Iraq will just go back to their old ways- unless we instill a government for them. They are used to having a dictator control them, so they are confused as to how a democracy will work. If we pull out now, they may never know and the country might self-destruct.

It's very difficult for a country to get much worse than Iraq today--900 attacks per week, 100 deaths per day. It's foolish to believe Iraqis do not understand democracy and do not know how to live in it. Several surveys point out that Iraqis do not want a cleric-lead government (a theocracy of sorts). What a large number of Iraqis want is a multi-party democracy like in Europe and Asia, with influence from clerics but no direct support from them. More info here.
The US cannot build a government for them. The US can provide some guidance and assistance, but building a government is not like building a house. National cultural and ethnic realities have to be taken in to account, and we all know how knowledgeable the average American is about other cultures around the world.
-IM

Good comment, though I think you underestimate the importance and ability of Iraqis in the government building process. Or at least I hope you do, because if Iraqis are going to keep anything set up while the US is in their country, they need a significant role in it.
-CK



19- When this war started, I believed that we were justified in going after the people involved in the planning and execution of 9/11. However, President Bush and his administration deemed it appropriate to expand this war to fight not only those responsible, but to battle an ideology. The talk is that it is the War in Iraq, and that makes it sound like we are one nation fighting another nation. That is not the case. It is one nation fighting an idea, and that means that wherever terrorism is present it becomes a potential target for our troops to move into.
Bush has also not put together a solid exit strategy. His plan is to throw more troops at the situation, and to me that is the act of someone who is desperate.
Instead of throwing more troops in, what we should be concerned about is establishing a government that works over there. The parliamentary, constitutional system works well for places like Britain and the United States, but not in the Middle East. If we could help the Iraqi's establish a stable government that works with what they know, that will not work toward dictatorship, that would be the best course of action we can persue.
-Christopher Cole

If the US wants to win this battle against radical Islam, it needs to withdraw all its influence from the region and no longer support authoritarian and totalitarian regimes like in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. When this happens, radical Islamists will have no reason to fight, since their holy Muslim lands will not be tainted by liberal Western presence. However, these extremist groups should not radicalize the Muslim world either. Very few Muslims actually support bin Laden and the like. Overwhelming majorities of Arab Muslims just want to live a decent life with their basic needs met and a morally consistent society established. Very slim sectors or Arab-Muslim society support terrorism. However, an increasing number of Iraqis approve of attacks on military troops, for the sole reason that the want the US out now--but not because they hate America, per se.
Read my response to comment #18 and check out the suggested website.
-IM

Bush has not made it a secret that he wants to fight an ideology. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp, since for the past 50 years the US has been fighting the ideology ‘communism’. You mention a ‘solid exit strategy’ as a something desirable, but wouldn’t a plan to accomplish what the US originally wanted to accomplish be more desirable? What kind of government do you have in mind? A kingship? An oligarchy? Tribalism?
-CK

20- I believe we need to go in strong and really win the war so that there is no question about who the victor is. Once this is established, we can leave. But, not before because if we just leave, the Iraqi's will view us as weak and come after us.

A military solution alone is not viable. You're not fighting against a distinct army. The US needs to address the reasons behind why Islamists are fighting. Their religion is only a tool for organization. They're reacting to Western influence and domination of their lands since the beginning of the 20th century. They will not stop fighting unless the West drastically reduces its influence in the region and its support for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.
-IM

Good point. Though ‘strong’ is a matter of contention, since this is not conventional warfare.
-CK



21-I may or maynot agree with some of President Bush's decisions but nothing makes me more angry than people not supporting the troops themselves. They have to follow his orders whether they agree with his order or not! SO support the troops when they leave to go, while they're gone, and when they come home and let them know you appreciate them ever if they don't appreicate bush. Love them anyway!

True things you say! However, criticizing the President for not carrying out such a heinous war does not imply one is not supporting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. One can oppose the war, picket and protest, and at the same time support troops abroad.
-IM

Yep.
-CK



22- I don't care about all the politics when it comes down to it you fight for the guy next to you. One NCO once said that once the first bullet flies past your head all the politics go out the window. People join for various reasons such as money and for the love of their families and few are actually concerned with the politics of war. Its because of these brave men and women that these fanatics can even sit there today and say all the negative stuff about the war. Once your in... your in and it stops becoming a war or choice. You do what you are told and do it well with the brother next to you. Let not make the mistake again of not honoring those that keep us free.

Read my comments from #2 and #23.
-IM

That’s great insight into a soldier’s point of view.
-CK


23- In question two you ask about feelings toward withdrawing troops from Iraq "as soon as possible." This question is a little misleading. It seems like an obvious choice to put "strongly in favor," because I definitly don't want the war to go on longer than it needs to. The tension comes in defining what "as soon as possible" means. If you mean a full and immediate withdrawal, then I am strongly opposed, because I think that we have a responsibility to help establish some order and help clean up the mess we made. If you mean withdrawal as soon as the Iraqi government becomes relitively stable and able to maintain a basic level of peace in the country, then I'm strongly in favor. This is not the frist survey where questions have been ambiguous like that. Please be careful to define your terms. Statistics can be very effective tools for guaging public opinion, but they can also end up being misleading when terms and questions are not clearly defined.

When someone says "as soon as possible" he or she usually intends to say "right now" or "immediately." In every survey, students are given the opportunity to suggest PoLaRiS topics or specific questions. They're also give the opportunity to give feedback to me.
Now, like I said in a previous comment, some of these questions were taken from reputable polling companies. Furthermore, PoLaRiS would not be fun if it explained and defined every single word.
Let me ask you a question: Assuming this survey was blatantly biased and deceiving, would you have objected with the same enthusiasm if it had been blatantly biased and deceiving by favoring the opposite side of the political spectrum?
-IM

By “as soon as possible”, I think what was meant was “as soon as possible”. This is just a guess. It wasn’t “as soon as everything is okay” or “as soon as the insurgents are calmed down”. So, since “possible” most likely equates to “a full and immediate withdrawal”, I can assume you are “strongly opposed”. Your attempts to critique this survey are admirable, but poorly done.
-CK

Feel free to post below your comments, questions and/or suggestions. We love you, too!