“We did it to make the Iraqis’ lives better!”

Yep, we invaded their country, and look at how well it’s turned out for them (my emphasis):

The number of terrorism incidents in Iraq — and resulting deaths, injuries and kidnappings — skyrocketed from 2005 to 2006, according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday.

Of the 14,338 reported terrorist attacks worldwide last year, 45 percent took place in Iraq, and 65 percent of the global fatalities stemming from terrorism occurred in Iraq. In 2005, Iraq accounted for 30 percent of the worldwide terrorist attacks.

But there has to be a silver lining, right?

Almost all of those incidents involved the death, injury or kidnapping of at least one person. All told, the number of people killed, injured or kidnapped as a result of terrorism in Iraq jumped 87 percent, from 20,685 to 38,713.

The State Department’s annual report — which included an assessment of the five years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — said the invasion of Iraq has brought “measurable benefits,” including the removal of “an abusive totalitarian regime with a history of sponsoring and supporting regional terrorism.”

And with Saddam gone, we’ve now handed the country over to… what, exactly? Is anyone or anything really “in charge” of Iraq right now? You’ve got Sunni insurgents who’re pissed off that they’re no longer top dog. You’ve got Shiite death squads who are out to kill off the Sunnis. You’ve got random jihadis roaming the place, blowing up markets and beheading hostages. You’ve probably got a billion little different militias who provide security to different ethnic neighborhoods. The result of this is that you’ve got a country that contains 65 percent of the global fatalities stemming from terrorism.

Heckuva job, assholes. Heckuva goddamn job.


Comments: 19


How come nobody on the right ever does a cost benefit analysis on this one? It’s always, “Sure, we destroyed a nation but we got rid of Saddam that’s gotta count for something.” Sometimes it is even weirder like, “If we didn’t get rid of Saddam in 2003, his survival would have emboldened him soo much that he really would have become the next Hitler for sure despite having an 8th rate military and no WMD programs whatsoever.”


Just goes to show you Bush was right when he said Iraq is where the terrorists are.


His Grace- I’m developing a new sabermetric stat for the likelihood that any given despot will morph into the Next Hitler. It’s called “Hitlers Over Replacement Dictator” (HORD) and I hope to have it ready to roll the next time I’m invited to speak at AEI (which will be never). I’m even working on a stat that will compare modern day Hitlers to Hitlers of the past (I call it HLR+).

Smiling Mortician

Yeah, but His Grace, he would have been emboldened. It’s magic. Oh, the stuff you can do if you’re emboldened. Guys that are emboldened? They can do anything.


I’m enjoying the crazy ‘Saddam-really-had-WMDs-but-they-got-stolen-and-Bush-was-too-embarrassed-to-say-anything’ conspiracy theory that’s making the righty rounds these days. It’s like, having abandoned the WMD thing right away when it, you know, turned out to be bullshit, and been forced to abandon the subsequent ‘democracy & freedom’, ‘regional stability’, ‘fighting al-Q’aeda’, and ‘making the country better than it was under Saddam’ justifications for war when they turned out also to be bullshit, they’ve sort of come full circle.

“Hitlers Over Replacement Dictatorâ€? (HORD)…modern day Hitlers to Hitlers of the past (I call it HLR+).

The Society for American Dictator Research will come down hard on you if you forget important SADRmetrics like HANP (Hitlerity Adjusted for National Population) and ESA (Earned Stalin Average, which calculates monstrosity based on total number of government-funded social safety nets).


Well, the Pius People (aka Talibangelicals) would probably tell you that all those dead Iraqis have gone to a far, far better place where the streets are paved with gold and everybody enjoys harp music. See, for instance, the Supreme Court’s “better off dead” argument against slutty American women who should be aware that their health means nothing when compared to the Glorious Platonic Ideal of *Motherhood* — i.e., that the “sanctity” of an already-dead fetus trumps the safety, sanity, or life of an existing woman. Why should the ongoing slaughter of a bunch of non-white non-Americans be allowed to interfere with the Glorious Platonic Ideal of a *free and democratic Iraq*?


I’m not sure which is more disturbing. That 65% of the global fatalities stemming from terrorism are in Iraq, or that ONLY 65% of the global fatalities stemming from terrorism are in Iraq. Maybe it is me, but it seems we are not getting the full picture, and the GWOT isn’t very effective.

Of course, I shoulda known that. Right now, Osama is waiting for the “Whitney Houston’s Greatest Hits” CD to arrive at his POB.


Ah, but they have run the cost/benefit on this, Yer Grace. They look at the draft of the Iraqi Parliament’s proposed oil law– with its guarantees of foreign (that’s us) investment– and say “Meh, what a few thousand more dead in the grand scheme of things”.


His Grace, I believe the proper righty response to your cost/benefit query is this:

*fingers in ears*




I keep trying to grasp the importance of your ’emboldened’ idea, but all I end up thinking about is mustard. ‘Bold’ mustard with ‘bold deli taste.’

I blame myself. I’ll keep at it.


In a recent interview with Foreign Policy, Richard Perle tried to portray Iraq as an advance in the global war on terror.

FP: Francis Fukuyama wrote in the New York Times last year that “Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists.� Do you agree?

RP: I’m not sure whether that’s true or not, but it’s an improvement if it is. Let me explain: Afghanistan was certainly a magnet, and jihadists traveled there from wherever they originated. They were welcomed there, they were trained there, and they worked under very favorable circumstances, with lines of communication and the ability to plan and organize. Now, the jihadists who have flocked to Iraq are themselves in constant danger, large numbers of them are killed, and they’re certainly not in a position to plan operations against American territory. So if you ask me whether we are safer with jihadists converging on Baghdad or jihadists converging on camps in Afghanistan and planning events like 9/11, there’s no doubt that we’re a lot safer because they’re converging on Baghdad.

Because once they enter Iraq, they can never leave or communicate with anyone on the outside. It’s like a Hotel California for jihadis. And just ignore the other 55% of last year’s reported terrorist attacks.


You’re onto something, Mr Wonderful. Or it could be that I’m eating lunch.
But my napkin claims with jaundiced eye that emboldened, mustardy terrorists will stain all of Western Civilization yellow with its turmeric of perfidy.


How come nobody on the right ever does a cost benefit analysis on this one?

Mitt Romney’s done one of these for Bin Laden.


Guys that are emboldened? They can do anything.

They usually have very flashy cars and buy that Enzyte crap.

Hysterical Woman

Iraq: Too dangerous for the terrorist now.


it seems we are not getting the full picture, and the GWOT isn’t very effective.

Now that’s just unfair, and unduly harsh. Look how successful other campaigns against violent methodologies have been. The Global War on Artillery has saved millions in the last century. And that whole Global War on Aerial Bombardment? You oughta be thanking your lucky stars for that brilliant fight, ’cause otherwise you’d SURELY be dead. And that whole Global War on Amphibious Invasions. That one was a beaut.



Up next: the Global War on War. Look, it’s not a war when we start it, libtards.


98% of Iraqis HAVEN’T been killed since the U.S. invasion, and dammit, that’s something.


“… 65 percent of the global fatalities stemming from terrorism.”

Their killing them over there so we don’t have to kill them over here. (The right them, not the wrong them.) No, wait — they’re killing us over there so they don’t have to kill us over here (the wrong us, not the right us). No, wait, they’re dying over there so we can die over there instead of live over here (the wrong there, not the right here). No, wait…


(comments are closed)