Could Forgiveness have Prevented the Iraq War?

After nearly nine years, the war in Iraq is declared over.

On March 20, 2003,  the U.S. invaded Iraq… based on intelligence that has since been proved faulty at best and non-existent at worst. We were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and had connections to al Qaeda, so therefore along with the war we were already fighting in Afghanistan, we needed to go to war with Iraq to prevent terrorist attacks.

Side note: We were told repeatedly that the war had nothing to do with our oil supply, but yet why did I hear a reporter say that some of the people staying over there (even though the war is declared over) will be there to protect our oil interests? 

I didn’t lose any loved ones on 9/11. Maybe if I had, I’d think differently, but I’m trying to wrap my brain around some numbers today.

After almost 9 years of fighting in Iraq:

  • no WMDs were found
  • 1.5 million U.S. troops served
  • 4,500 U.S. soldiers killed
  • 300 coalition soldiers killed
  • 40,000 Iraqi soldiers or insurgents killed
  • 1,500 private contractors killed
  • 130 journalists and 50 media support workers killed
  • 105,000 to 115,000 Iraqi civilians killed
  • 30,000 U.S. soldiers wounded (some will have long-term physical effects, all will have lifelong effects)

.These numbers are based on various sources from here,  here and here.  Some organizations have estimated that the combined death toll could be close to 1,000,000.


All the lives lost directly due to the war is heartbreaking and hard to comprehend.

Now add to that the tremendous financial cost and it’s next to impossible to comprehend.  If we took some of the estimated 1 billion to 1 trillion that we spent on the Iraq war and used it for food for people starving here and around the world, how many lives could have been saved?

So how was this war worth it?

Which brings me to a question … Why is it that many applaud the way the Amish community forgave the person that harmed their innocent children, their world and their way of life in the Amish school shooting … but many cheer our president when he declares war on people that harm our innocent children/people, our world and our way of life?

Wars have been around since the beginning of time… and they don’t seem effective, plus the cost in lives is too big. So maybe it’s time to try something new.

Is it impossible for a country to respond with kindness and forgiveness?

 

Bookmark and Share
  • Rob

    Janet,

    I understand the attractiveness of the ‘give peace a chance’ philosophy,  It’s very seductive.  We Americans (and Europeans as well) spend most of our lives in an environment where the rule of law provides for a relatively peaceful and secure existence.  As an Air Force Office during the 90′s I spent a lot of time in the Middle East so what I’m about to say comes from first hand experience in both that culture and also from an understanding of military history.

    We assume because we are reasonable people that others think like us and are reasonable as well.  When you are dealing with people (and some would argue, a culture) that treats life and liberty with disdain, then the rules of common sense and decency as we see them no longer can be applied with predictable results.

    I’m sure you can Google Saddam Hussein and read what his troops did to the citizens of Kuwait (women in particular) during the Kuwaiti invasion.  You can also read what his sons did to their national soccer team when they lost and how they treated their own citizens  who did not share their ethnicity.  These are not individuals who see forgiveness as a virtue.

    Historians have plenty of material to cover in the missteps in decisons, planning and execution of the Iraq War and I don’t think I’ll have any disagreement with them.  But it’s a hard truth for those who live in peace and security to understand is that the only language ruthless people understand is strength.  Could we have shown that strength differently?  Yes, but we must continue to show strength on the world stage because if we don’t then we’ll be living our lives in fear of those who do and do not share our love of liberty and compassion.

    • http://www.JanetOberholtzer.com Janet Oberholtzer

      Hi Rob,
      Though I have read about many of the things you mention, you have experiences and a perspective from an angle that I don’t have, so thanks for sharing your thoughts.I know on a large scale, like country to country, any type of peace/forgiveness/etc would have to look different than person to person … but yet I believe that something other than war could be used to solve attacks/conflicts/etc.I can’t help but wonder if all humans aren’t the same deep-down and if anger/evil is met with kindness, even in the ‘meanest’ culture… couldn’t it result in a change in that culture? After all, aren’t cultures a group of people collectively believing similar things, often for centuries? And if they always get the same reaction, of course they will continue believing (and acting) like they always have… but who knows what could happen if they got a different reaction! 

      • Rob

        I agree completely, I ponder these things as well.  It’s great to wonder what might happen if countries could sit down and settle their differences in a thoughtful, civilized way.  But can our own politicians, in the same branch of government, set aside their differences and act in the common good?  I think you know the answer to that question and that answer then leads me to look at World politics with much more cynicism.

        I really liked the way you started your last sentence ‘..but who knows what could happen’.  You nailed it…’who knows’…I for one don’t want to risk the safety and security of my wife and children based on intellectual speculation. 

        I’m a realist so I look at the security of my country in the same way I look at the security of my home.  If you come into my house, intending to harm those I love, I will do anything necessary to protect them and neutralize the threat you represent.  When dealing with those determined to commit evil acts, appeasement always has dire consequences on both a personal and global scale.

        • John

          As a naturalized citizen, I’m grateful for the service Rob and our military provide, and I am also thankful for the soul searching demonstrated by Janet.  A nation can not survive with a goodwill alone in this trickery world.  A nation with no soul not only will decay from inside, it will present itself as a threat to others.  No, I am in no way suggesting that our nation has no soul.  On the contrary, soul searching is never “done”; it is a never-ending process.

          Back to the subject of the war on Iraq, our then president provided two reasons (justifications, though they are different in nature, but few seem to be bothered with the differences).  The first, WMD.  But it turns out that we could not find where they are.  That is not to say WMD does not exist nor it never existed.  Here is why I love this country even more so than my birth country, the good sense of justice, even in the name of “collective good”.  The burden of proof is squarely on the accuser.  In other words, if we were to accuse any nation of possesing WMD, WE have to prove the case.  Not the accused country has to establish their innocence – in this case, Iraq has NO OBLIGATION of proving owning WMD!  The failure of proving and finding WMD unfortunately demonstrates the sloppy process we took to rush to war.

          The second reason is the explicit assertion of terrorist connection with the implicit AQ suggestion, though extremely effective in inciting the raw emotion of people under attack.  Again, the administration failed to prove its case.

          To be fair, we may never know if the two reasons the administration provided us are truly false.  Though unlikely, the WMD could still be buried somewhere as of today, maybe it was transported to  another country.  And someday, the President may be vindicated when the terrorist connection is finally proved.

          What we do know now is that we went to war, with our blood and treasure, on two unproven reasons.  And the President knew that American People’s support of the war, regardless the sloppy thought process, was based on these two reasons only.  We, the People, DID NOT AUTHORIZE the war on any other reasons.

          Hopefully someday evidences will be found and the President will be able to look in our eyes and tell us, particularly the families that lose their loved ones, that “I told the truth.” 

          Until then, I wish the President can find peace with himself and we the American People will be able to  live with our tarnished image and rebuild our credibility with humbleness.  And most importantly, We, the People, will be extremely careful in using our formidable armed force next time – no more sloppy thought process, and we will never allow politicians to exploit our unguarded emotion.

          Peace on Earth.  Love our neighbors.

          John

    • Janis

      The thing for me is, are we going to go around dropping bombs on every country where people do things we disagree with — even unjust things?  South Africa treated a good chunk of its population like trash for a long time, too — we never declared war on them.

      We declare war for money reasons and then act like we care about the human rights injustices as an excuse way too often … and when we’re done, we conveniently forget about those injustices and do nothing whatsoever to stop them.

      • Rob

        Janis,

        So you are saying we should drop bombs on everyone (or no one) for consistency sake?  I don’t think you honestly feel this way.  Also I’m sure you also understand that US military resources are limited (especially after the Clinton administration where the Military drawdown was quite drastic and attributed to those budget surpluses during the 90′s).  We need to project force on occasion to protect our allies and US interests and also to conduct humanitarian operations.  That’s diplomacy 101.  We need to pick our battles (pardon the pun).

        To address your war for money argument let me tell you about a personal experience.   I spent a lovely 28 days in Tiranna Albania in the spring of 1999 setting up airfield operations in support of Operation Shining Hope which supported humanitarian efforts and NATO operations during the military action against Slobodan Milosevic.  The military action had nothing to do with money.  People were being slaughtered and the international community (led by the US) acted to suppress those attacks.  You can  Google the details of those events but I find the irony particularly noteworthy that two years after I spent a month in the middle of a warzone helping to protect Muslims against a ruthless ‘Christian’ thug, that a group of Muslims then flew planes into buildings roughly 50 miles from my hometown.  You can understand my angst I’m sure.

        I won’t belabor the point more than I already have but the caricature of the US using military might for financial reasons doesn’t hold water.  Have you seen our national debt?  How much have we gotten back for the billions (trillions?) we’ve spent over the past 9 years?

        • Janis

          I’m saying that your logic of “Saddam was evil therefore the war was okay” compels us to this conclusion … which makes no sense quite obviously.

          • Rob

            Dear Janis,

            Of course that doesn’t make any sense…that wasn’t what I said.  Your comments highlight the problem with most political discussions on the internet, they start out with the facts and then slowly drift off into logical arguments dealing with hypotheticals until all that’s left are opinions based on raw emotion.  And we wonder why World leaders can’t resolve issues peacefully when a simple back and forth internet discussion can get so misconstrued…

            Regardless, Saddam being evil is irrelevant.  Here is a link to the UN resolutions that were violated by his regime:

            http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

            Based on this alone I feel the ouster of his regime was justified.  The World community didn’t agree because many countries (France in particular) were making too much money dealing with him during this time period.  I’ll let you Google for yourself how Saddam and others profited from the Oil-for-Food Programme while the Iraqi people continued to suffer.  So in a sense the proves the converse of your original point.   Money, it seems, is the main reason NOT to go to war.