Here's How I Think George Bush Jr. Could've Handled Iraq Better

Let's just say a murderer on the loose is running from the police. Suddenly he grabs a hostage, a young woman, and uses her as a shield. The police fire a shot, hoping to get lucky and hit the murderer instead of the hostage. However, the young woman gets hit. The policemen in this scenario would be doing what they have to do to get to the murderer, who, if they let him live, might murder more people. This may sound cold, but if you refuse to kill a certain terrorist because you'd also be killing 4 other people, and later that terrorist does a car bombing that kills 10 people, you should've killed him along with the 4 other people. The 9/11 Perpetrators killed 3000 people. I don't remember how many of them there were, so I'll just say there were 10 of them. Let's say that we could've prevented the September 11 Terror Attacks by drone striking each one of those terrorists, but four extra people, or even ten extra people, would be killed for each one of those ten terrorists. You end up killing 100 civilians in the process, but the deaths of 3000 people is prevented in doing so. I'd say this is the right thing to do, or at least a necessary evil. As for what the world community thinks, the world community hates Israel with a passion and yet Israel's still alive. I don't give a heck whether a bunch of Middle Eastern dictators guilty of mass murder think that we're inhumane. -A little info about myself outside this debate, but relevant given your example. I'm a Marine, but my job in the Marine Corps is Military Police. There are two sides to this job - One is Garrison (Squad cars, badges, traffic enforcement, response to emergencies, writing tickets, etc.,.). The other is Field Side (Relatively capable of performing the same functions as infantry, but specializing in the handling of enemy detainees, prisoners of war, convoy security, and forward operating base security). -I worked as a Garrison Military Policemen at Camp Pendleton, California for about three years. What's unique is about our job is that we enforce not only the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Base Regluations, but state law as well. While working at Pendleton, I responded to a variety of calls ranging from homicide (being the worst) to the "The neighbor's dog won't stop barking." In other words, you have to receive a specific set of training in order to perform this function. -With that being said, I find it HIGHLY unlikely - and do not know any police department which would condone firing at a murderer who has an innocent bystander hostage as a shield. Such actions get department heads thrown in prison, and departements to include the city sued. -The hypothesis of preventing 9/11 is irrelevant, simply because terrorism was a distant thought at the time. Also, drones were rarely, if ever, utilized to conduct the same operations taking place in the present. This debate is circling around what we "could have" done in Iraq. -We are not just concerned with what Middle-Eastern countries think about our actions. Our actions get broadcasted all over the world. How we conduct ourselves during warfare, and the nature of our warfare makes or breaks potential realtionships and current relationships we possess with other nations. Refer to my previous argument about saying one thing, and doing something contrary to what we are trying to accomplish. The bad gets highlighted regardless of the good achieved. -Your logic somewhat reminds me of "The needs of the Many outweight the needs of the Few, or the One." This isn't Star Trek, and you aren't Mr. Spock... I think. Needless to say, that logic is not concrete as we are subject to emotions and empathy, and that's what makes us human. We don't deal with absolutes on most occasions when it comes to relationships - friends or foes. Only one time in our history as a nation have we used that thinking and put it in action: The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Even then, it wasn't an easy choice. However, the only reason it worked it, was because it was isolated to a specific country. There's is a difference between fighting a country, and fighting a radical belief spread out over many countries. The truth is, if we did what I suggest, Iraq would've fallen to Al-Qaeda. We did it the "right way" that cost trillions of dollars, and guess what: Iraq's still going to fall to Al-Qaeda. Staying in Iraq after Hussein was defeated was a waste of money that accomplished little. The only thing that truly lasted was the removal of all WMDS from Iraq, Millions of lives are saved from potential biological and nuclear weapon attacks that would've been perpetrated by Saddam Hussein. -I disagree. If we did what you suggested, the country of Iraq would not have been as stable as long as it was before falling back into Al-Qaeda's hands. We would have been the tyrants of the world, and alienated what allies we do have because of our brutish methods. Our occupation was key following the war in preventing lawlessness in a country that had lost a government which dictated its laws. The only reason it fell back into the hands of Al-Qaeda was because we did not stay there longer. America did not achieve its military might, security, or government overnight. It was a gradual progression of changes and policies that occured with time, and with the assistance of allies. Why would Iraq be any different? -All right then, I admit that letting Iran handle Iraq would be a bad idea. But Russia could, and would, because Russia's notorious for intervening in the Middle East. And even with their poor human rights record, they pay more attention to the international community and human rights these days than they did 20 years ago. -Russia has a great track record with Muslim countries. You should read about their war with Afghanistan. Why would a country that does not want Muslims in their country be interested in running a Muslim country? Why would we agree to them taking over? I would predict genocide and eventual abandonment in the future with that course of action. -I think the whole debate, as interesting as it may be, is futile. I hear a lot of people criticize the war, and why we went to war. They still debate and argue about it today. Why we went, how we conducted the war, and the products of it are not going to change. What we should really be debating is what we learned from it, and how we apply what we learned in future engagements. Thanks for the debate.