The Iraq War

[War on Want]

Was it a smart strategic desicion to invade Iraq?

[Daniel Adams]

Ja.

Iraq is now free, the threat Saddam Hussein posed to our security and the security of his neighbors has been eliminated, al-Qa'ida has been humiliated and much of their credibility among Arabs destroyed, and we have a potential great ally in a troubling region of the world.

I'll be the first to admit the Bush administration's planning for the post-Saddam era was dismal, but that does not mean the liberation itself was wrong. I'm glad he eventually chose the path to victory (unlike Johnson & Nixon in Viet Nam, but that's another debate).

[War on Want]

My answer is of course no, it was an uncessecary war, that should not have happened, that distracted us from fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as focusing on other international terror hotspot. It also mostly wasted billions of dollars and anything gained from a democratic Iraq as our ally was counterbalanced by the surge in terrorism against us and sour feelings from the EU, NATO and the rest of the world.

[War on Want]

I would also like to throw in that the idea that we drained resources from Al-Qaeda here is an extreme fallacy. All that it meant was that Al-Qaeda had a new recruitment tool that was very affective, a large percentage of a populace that for 4 years agreed with many of their actions and a new place to wage war against America. Meanwhile as a result nothing new has been accomplished in Afghanistan with the focus shifting and there has not been any significant revisions in strategy since.

[Daniel Adams]

that distracted us from fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban

I'd argue that our presence in Iraq led al-Qa'ida to commit a strategic blunder by sending them men to terrorize the local population there. Ordinary Iraqis rose up against al-Qa'ida and helped our troops defeat them. Their credibility has been destroyed in much of the Arab world, many of their followers are dead, and now what remains of them is hiding in Waziristan.

, as well as focusing on other international terror hotspot.

Strategically, it's easier to fight in Iraq than in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

It also mostly wasted billions of dollars and anything gained from a democratic Iraq as our ally was counterbalanced by the surge in terrorism against us and sour feelings from the EU, NATO and the rest of the world.

I don't think the sour feelings of the Europeans quite counterbalance a free Iraq, but it's hard to tell at this point.

I would also like to throw in that the idea that we drained resources from Al-Qaeda here is an extreme fallacy. All that it meant was that Al-Qaeda had a new recruitment tool that was very affective, a large percentage of a populace that for 4 years agreed with many of their actions and a new place to wage war against America. Meanwhile as a result nothing new has been accomplished in Afghanistan with the focus shifting and there has not been any significant revisions in strategy since.

It was good recruitment for a while, but now that they have been defeated and discredited it will become harder for them to recruit new terrorists. They are now on the defensive in both military and ideological terms. Several jihadists have criticized bin Laden's approach, including:

* Sayed Imam Al Sharif, a mentor of al-Zawahiri and indeed of al-Qa'ida,
* Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, a mentor of al-Zarqawi,
* Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who issued a fatwa against joining al-Qai'ida's fighters in Iraq,
* Sheikh Salman al-Oudah, one of bin Laden's heroes, who has declared al-Qa'ida an enemy of Islam.

The list continues.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

In 2003, it was not a smart decision to invade Iraq.  If Bush had planned better, and gotten more international support, than we could have invaded in 2004/2005.

[War on Want]

In 2003, it was not a smart decision to invade Iraq.  If Bush had planned better, and gotten more international support, than we could have invaded in 2004/2005.

We couldn't have gotten more international support because it was a flawed war that had little reason.

To your first response Daniel Adams, that is very ridiculous. Our credibility our the world has been hurt severely and Al-Qaeda was already very unpopular in the Arab World at the time of our invasion but its popularity went up after we invaded making them look like "freedom fighters" at the same time other Sunni insurgent groups arose that would not have existed without our invasion of Iraq.

To your second response, I have to disagree to a small extent. It was just as hard in Iraq except it was uncessary and why did we invade Iraq, instead of say Sudan to draw terrorists to. It is just a stupid argument. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded and look is it not possible if our congress and military had spent more time redrawing plans in Afghanistan and using a more robust strategy that we could have descivley defeated them there with our credibility not being hurt except in Pakistan. I say yes.

It certainly does, besides a stable Afghanistan without a focus on Iraq plus hightened relationship with Europe cancells out a free Iraq. Also democracy in the Middle East could have been more cooperative with us without Iraq.

So? It was their fault for terrorizing the populace that it rose up, if they had not done that the Awakening Council concessions wouldn't have happened and it would have been back to square one for us. Also none of this changes the fact that much of Iraq was a blunder by us and we are on the defensive militarily in Afghanistan and ideologically around much of the world.

[Sbane]

In 2003, it was not a smart decision to invade Iraq.  If Bush had planned better, and gotten more international support, than we could have invaded in 2004/2005.

We couldn't have gotten more international support because it was a flawed war that had little reason.

Which is exactly why we rushed into the war in the first place. They knew if we waited 6 more months the war would not have occurred, mainly due to the american public.

[War on Want]

In 2003, it was not a smart decision to invade Iraq.  If Bush had planned better, and gotten more international support, than we could have invaded in 2004/2005.

We couldn't have gotten more international support because it was a flawed war that had little reason.

Which is exactly why we rushed into the war in the first place. They knew if we waited 6 more months the war would not have occurred, mainly due to the american public.

Yep if anything we would have been discredited more.

[Daniel Adams]

In 2003, it was not a smart decision to invade Iraq.  If Bush had planned better, and gotten more international support, than we could have invaded in 2004/2005.

We couldn't have gotten more international support because it was a flawed war that had little reason.

And because Saddam was busy bribing officials of the UN, France, Germany, and Russia.

To your first response Daniel Adams, that is very ridiculous. Our credibility our the world has been hurt severely and Al-Qaeda was already very unpopular in the Arab World at the time of our invasion but its popularity went up after we invaded making them look like "freedom fighters" at the same time other Sunni insurgent groups arose that would not have existed without our invasion of Iraq.

No, al-Qa'ida was quite popular among Arabs before the invasion because they were seen as freedom fighters against America . They underwent a surge in popularity between 2003 and 2006, which helped them recruit, but after news spread of their increasing brutality their popularity quickly collapsed. Their credibility among Arabs was destroyed after ordinary Iraqis started fighting back, first in Anbar, then in Baghdad and the rest of the country. Look at the number of jihadists who influenced several key figures in al-Qa'ida but now criticize that group because of the horrific crimes they have committed in Iraq. The importance of al-Qa'ida's defeat in Iraq is enormous.

To your second response, I have to disagree to a small extent. It was just as hard in Iraq except it was uncessary and why did we invade Iraq, instead of say Sudan to draw terrorists to. It is just a stupid argument. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded and look is it not possible if our congress and military had spent more time redrawing plans in Afghanistan and using a more robust strategy that we could have descivley defeated them there with our credibility not being hurt except in Pakistan. I say yes.

We invaded Iraq rather than Sudan because Iraq posed a significantly larger threat, of course. The fact that al-Qa'ida went to Iraq and was eventually humiliated was never part of the plan, but was rather something of a lagniappe (to use Torie's favorite word).

It certainly does, besides a stable Afghanistan without a focus on Iraq plus hightened relationship with Europe cancells out a free Iraq. Also democracy in the Middle East could have been more cooperative with us without Iraq.

Regarding the former, it would have been hard to stabilize Afghanistan more than we already did. As I have said before, fighting in the Pakistan border where the Taleban have fled is extremely difficult. Regarding the latter, I'm afraid I don't understand exactly what you're saying.

So? It was their fault for terrorizing the populace that it rose up, if they had not done that the Awakening Council concessions wouldn't have happened and it would have been back to square one for us. Also none of this changes the fact that much of Iraq was a blunder by us and we are on the defensive militarily in Afghanistan and ideologically around much of the world.

It matters immensely that al-Qa'ida is now being criticized even is circles of extremist Islam. It is they who are really on the defensive now, having lost support even from their ideological mentors. And the fact that several pro-US leaders have been recently elected in Europe flies in the face of your allegation that we're on the defense ideologically.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

In 2003, it was not a smart decision to invade Iraq.  If Bush had planned better, and gotten more international support, than we could have invaded in 2004/2005.

We couldn't have gotten more international support because it was a flawed war that had little reason.

And because Saddam was busy bribing officials of the UN, France, Germany, and Russia.

You seriously believe that?  Proof?

[Хahar 🤔]

No, it certainly was not. The "War on Terror" is a distraction. Terrorism is not the cause; rather, it is an effect. What the people of Iraq want (just as people everywhere want) is jobs. The whole idea was immensely misguided, since the only way to wipe out extremism is to eradicate what causes it. We went to war over abstract ideals, but the dead bodies coming home are not abstract; they are very real. What's more, we are in a losing battle to try to keep together a country that is not and never has been a nation. We shouldn't be fighting to keep together entities drawn a century ago by a bureaucrat in London.

[The Mikado]

I supported Bush's Iraq policy (as it was publicly revealed) until Sept 2002.  His successful browbeating of Iraq into accepting the return of international weapons inspectors, which had been a major failing of President Clinton's second term, was masterful.  If only he had stopped there...with inspectors in Iraq embarrassing and harassing the Ba'ath regime, a growing military presence in Kuwait, and the growing international pressure against rogue states, Iraq would've been more thoroughly contained than ever before.  Weapons inspectors in Iraq would've set the precedent for the same policy towards Iran.  The impotence of Saddam would've lowered his reputation with his neighbors.  We could've had a larger footprint in Afghanistan.

[dead0man]

If we had done a competent job of it, it would have been worth it.  As it stands now, clearly it was not worth it.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

Strategically? Probably not. But that's not the only consideration.

[John Dibble]

Well, one can't look at just the short term to see if Iraq was a strategic success - strategy involves the big picture over the long haul, after all. I'm going to try to look at this as objectively as I can since this is a strategic analysis, cutting out things like ideology and whether the war was actually justified or not from a personal standpoint.

COSTS
- A decrease in international credibility.
- US and allied soldiers killed. From a military standpoint, the rate at which we lose them isn't that big compared to most other wars we've fought, but from a PR standpoint it hurt US morale and trust in the current government.
- Money. The Iraq war has cost us a lot of it, increasing our annual deficits and our long term national debt.
- Surge in Al-Queda Iraq presence from roughly 2003-2006, which cost lives of soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
- Change in focus may have allowed Al-Queda and Taliban in Afghanistan to stay out of our reach for longer.

A lot of these costs could have been lessened had the post-invasion planning been better.

BENEFITS
- A dictator who was at least semi-hostile to US interests was removed from power.
- Though unstable for most of the occupation, Iraq seems to finally be stabilizing. This means we may have a potential new ally in the region, as well as a functioning democracy. If this works out it should restore at least some of our international credibility that we've lost, and combining this with a new president to replace our currently unpopular one opinions of the US should improve abroad in the long term.
- Al-Queda has lost a good deal of credibility, at least in Iraq, due to their brutal actions against the civilian populace there.

There's probably some more I could put in both categories, but those are probably the big ones.

Ultimately, I have to give the answer of "maybe" - we have had a lot of short term costs and a few long term ones, but we have some pretty big long term benefits, but not all of them have come to fruition and some of them may still yet fail. We'll have to wait and see how things play out over the next decade or so to be certain one way or the other.

[Franzl]

In 2003, it was not a smart decision to invade Iraq.  If Bush had planned better, and gotten more international support, than we could have invaded in 2004/2005.

We couldn't have gotten more international support because it was a flawed war that had little reason.

And because Saddam was busy bribing officials of the UN, France, Germany, and Russia.

hahahaha...

who says the left is made up of conspiracy theorists?

[Daniel Adams]

In 2003, it was not a smart decision to invade Iraq.  If Bush had planned better, and gotten more international support, than we could have invaded in 2004/2005.

We couldn't have gotten more international support because it was a flawed war that had little reason.

And because Saddam was busy bribing officials of the UN, France, Germany, and Russia.

You seriously believe that?  Proof?

Oil-for-Food program & arms sales.

Russia: A Senate investigation found that "[m]ore than 30 percent of Iraqi oil allocations ended up going to Russian officials, political parties and businessmen." Alexander Voloshin, Putin's former chief of staff and head of the Russian Presidential Council, got oil allocations and made $3 million in profits between 1999 and 2003. Oil allocations were also received by the pro-Putin Unity Party (90 million barrels), the Communist Party (110 million barrels), the Liberal Democratic Party (53 million barrels), and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (55 million barrels). The oil allocations were personally approved by Saddam, for whom they were "compensation for support". After the Russians vetoed a Security Council resolution to restrict illicit trade in Iraq's borders in 2000, for example, their oil allocations were increased.

Even after the UN issued a weapons embargo against Iraq followed the Gulf War, Russia kept on selling weapons to Saddam. In 1998, for example, the Washington Post reported that "top missile experts from Iraq went on a shopping trip to Russia in late 1994 and signed documents to acquire missile engines, technology and services despite the U.N. sanctions against Iraq". Russian's government-owned oil firm Zarubezhneft and private firm Likoil both were involved in last-minute negotiations with Iraq just before the invasion and got stakes in several large Iraqi oil fields. Likoil officials bragged that "the Russian government had assured the company that its stake in Iraq would not be lost if Saddam were ousted".

France: The Senate investigation found that Charles Pasqua, Chirac's former Interior Minister, got vouchers for 11 million barrels of oil. Other French politicians were directly bribed. Diplomat, "ambassador-for-life", and special advisor to Kofi Annan Jean-Bernard Merimee got $156,000 from Iraq, which he used to renovate his Morrocan holiday home. Merimee alleged the French authorities were aware of his deals with Iraq.

French oil companies were also involved in last-minute oil deals with Iraq, hoping that "they would be honored later". Liek the Russians, they also got their oil field. Then there were the illicit but lucrative arms sales, which continued right up to 2003. French weapons were later used against American soldiers.

UN: $1.9 million in cash from Iraqi oil sales. Benon Sevan, head of the Oil-for-Food program, got 13 barrels of oil in vouchers. Kojo Annan also got his share ($2,500 per month for four years). The bribery for UN officials in the Oil-for-Food program has been well documented.

Germany: More than half of the 80 companies that illegally supplied Saddam's Iraq with weapons were German, and several German companies got their share of oil deals in the Oil-for-Food program. The German authorities failed to stop them and even when firms were discovered illegally dealing with Saddam, their punishment was never more than a slap on the wrist.

A good read on the subject is Bill Gertz's Treachery.

[Ban my account ffs!]

While things in Iraq may be going better now than they have in a long time, the war there has drained vital resources to the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan.  We're paying for completely ignoring that country while we focused on Iraq.

Iraq should not have been invaded for the reasons it was invaded, though I can't say I'm not glad that Saddam is gone.

Let's hope we can put this sad chapter of American history behind us and focus on letting Iraq rebuild itself in a free, democratic way.

[AkSaber]

I don't think we should have invaded, plain and simple. I used to be very much for it, but now I can't  tell you how ashamed and disgusted I am that I ever supported it.

What gets me the most is that our case against Iraq was a complete sham. Fabricated documents and perjured testimony was what we used to justify it. Not only that, but since that Hussein statue came down, the President has been making it as difficult as possible for our military to win. And our wounded vets have been getting the absolute crappiest medical care possible. Now while all this is happening, the President's friends have been raking in the cash, hand over fist. The worldwide price of oil has more that quadrupled since the war, so all the oil firms are making 4 times their normal profits. Haliburton is greatly prospering because of the war also. Add to this, we invaded before the weapons inspectors were done. All this makes me think our President had ulterior motives for invading. Besides, doesn't it say something that a lot of neocons have no desire to join the military, and many who are in the military are supporting Obama?

There's something else I think about. Remember when we were told that the war would be self-financing, and rebuilding Iraq would only cost us $2 billion? Even if the President genuinely believed Iraq was getting ready to incinerate the world, to say he's been wrong is an understatement.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It was a good strategic decision, it just midhandled badly.  Had we sent proper troop levels there, Iraq would be thought of in the same light as Afghanistan.

[© tweed]

went with option four as it is the nihilist answer.  my closest personal connection to the War is a second cousin who fought there but has since been transferred to California where he's chillin' out.  technically it cost me a bunch of money but the government would have spent the money somewhere anyone so who cares.  I'm only responsible for myself, not the however many thousand Iraqis who have been killed by the US of A.

[JSojourner]

Didn't you hear ?

"In the 21st Century, nations don't invade other sovereign nations."
                                                                                    --- Senator John McCain

[Franzl]

Didn't you hear ?

"In the 21st Century, nations don't invade other sovereign nations."
                                                                                    --- Senator John McCain

Of course none of these types of rules apply to us, you should know that

[JSojourner]

Didn't you hear ?

"In the 21st Century, nations don't invade other sovereign nations."
                                                                                    --- Senator John McCain

Of course none of these types of rules apply to us, you should know that

Correct.  Do as we say, not as we do.