Barack Obama first declared that the lives of American soldiers lost in Iraq were "wasted", but then scrambled to take the statement back.
During his first press conference as a presidential candidate at Iowa State University, Obama, discussing his opposition to the Iraq war, said the war "should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.'' ...Obama, in an interview with the Des Moines Register right afterward, told the paper, ''I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term,'' he said. ''Their sacrifices are never wasted. . . . What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership that would give them a clear mission."
1. to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.
Perhaps Senator Obama will soon explain to us how the returns we've gotten in Iraq for the lives of our soldiers have been useful, adequate, and profitable.
It's not PC to say that 3,000 lives (plus hundreds of billions of dollars) were "wasted" probably because it hurts the families of those killed, but the reason it hurts is because it's true. People get knee-jerk reactions because they don't want to think the soldiers died for nothing, so they state "freedom" as the product of their work, which is just a farce when you consider the price:
US military:
Monday
Friday
Thursday
Iraqi civilians:
today
yesterday
Mistakes happen:
Friendly fire
Good intentions are one thing, but returns-on-investment are another. Perhaps someone, maybe you, could explain the trade-off.
michellen: I guess part of the left's problem is accepting the fact that 3000 lives is actually very few. Has the war gone perfectly? No, and we haven't accomplished everything we'd have liked to. But considering the rather low cost, it has definitely been worth it. There's still a chance that the Iraqis might choose to make peace with themselves. We took a risk, and there was a huge potential payoff (a functioning Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East)... it didn't work the way we'd hoped, but that doesn't mean we were wrong to take the risk.
Iraq looks like nothing more than an *expensive* demonstration of the "You can lead a horse to water..." adage.
We've led the Iraqi people to freedom and democracy.. but they don't seem to be drinking it up, or terribly interested in ever doing so.
MW: It's not how many lives were or were not lost, it's the fool's errand on which those lives were sent. A stable democracy in the middle east brought about by simply liberating people with deep sectarian grievances and surrounded by countries with regimes bent on curbing democracy? Ha! Good luck.. you're gonna need an ocean of it.
Was Iraq worth the risk? Under different circumstances, perhaps it would be. But with the way it has been handled and (un)planned? Not a chance.