In scientific experiments, design dictates that there be a set of givens and hypothesis about a particular treatment. Then you set up a control group (one that gets no treatment or a placebo) and the experimental group (the one that gets the full treatment that you believe will cure the ill). Then you execute your experiment with the main purpose to prove that your hypothesis is either correct or incorrect.
In the case of Iraq, we know what the givens were and what the hypothesis was. Problematically, there is no control group because the experimental dose was applied wholesale. Even so, because we can look back in history, we can use Iraq before the invasion as the control and post invasion as the experimental group. So, let's set up the equation for analysis and have at it.
Oh, by the way, incase you are already thinking this, lets forget the facts that the givens at the time have now proven false. That's a subject for another post. What we want to do is set up the experiment so that we can conduct a fair analysis with the articulated givens of the day, before the experimental does was applied.
- Given 1 - We were in eminent threat of danger of terrorist attack because Saddam was in power in Iraq.
- Given 2 - Saddam was accruing weapons of mass destruction.
- Given 3 - Stopping terrorism as a primary goal necessitated the war be broached on two fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq.
- Given - A - We have been at war in Iraq for nearly 4 years.
- Given - B - Saddam is set to be executed and is in captivity.
- Given - C - The end to this engagement is no where in sight.
- Question 1 - Has the hypothesis been proven false?
- Question 2 - Given what you know about pre- and post-invasion Iraq, is America better off?