Indeed. It's telling that you even have loud-mouthed conservative pundits who've let this fact slide down the memory hole.
Posted on 03/20/2013 8:25:22 PM PDT by neverdem
Except in a few neoconservative hideouts, the Iraq war is generally regarded as a mistake.
The war has cost over $800 billion so far, with more than 4,400 U.S. soldiers killed and around 32,000 wounded. Hard to argue that the United States has acquired security gains commensurate with that sacrifice.
So, why was the Iraq war a mistake and what lessons should be learned from it? The 10th anniversary of the initial invasion has occasioned considerable discussion of those questions. But most of the discussion is wide of the most important lesson to be learned.
--snip--
George W. Bush told Palestinians they had to elect new leadership, so they choose Hamas.
Sometimes the time fuse on our unintended consequences is long. In 1953, the U.S. helped depose a democratically elected government in Iran and install an autocrat, the Shah, to run the country. That meant that, when the Shah was deposed in 1979, the revolution was reflexively anti-American. And now the anti-American ruling elite that took over wants a nuke.
The United States favored Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, then went to war against him twice.
It’s often said that the United States has no option but to be deeply engaged in the region’s geopolitics. Certainly that’s where the international terrorism that threatens us emanates. But effective counterterrorism can be selective and targeted. And Middle East oil, the other rationale usually cited, is far more important to Europe than the United States, particularly if we more aggressively developed domestic sources.
The larger U.S. role in attempting to micromanage the region’s geopolitics only even arguably makes sense if we can confidently intervene in ways that are productive rather than destructive. There’s a 60-year history that says we can’t, Iraq being just the most costly example.
(Excerpt) Read more at dyn.realclearpolitics.com ...
The “war” itself was a huge success. The rebuilding mire after not so much.
It should be noted that in World War One the allies took that many casualties in hours. The Vietnam total in not more than two days.
This guy obviously never lived under Saddam.
Hey,,i have a great idea. Next time we invade a country, how about we kill -everybody- with a weapon, period. And we don’t allow them to have a government, a police, a military, or islam until we leave. Run it under absolte martial law until we decide to leave.
NO rebuilding.
The real lesson? Don’t telegraph your move that allowed all those trucks to go to Syria carrying your evidence.
The article got that part correct. In "real" conservative hideouts, we would have destroyed the country and let someone else "rebuild". Oh, and yes, we should have sucked them dry of oil since we were accused of that and many in the world still believe it. I call it war reparations. Personally, I don't give a damn about any Muslim, living or dead anywhere. So putting them firmly back into the 8th century without any means pay their way in the world completely works.
I never agreed with this idea. That we can directly influence macro-events there is a "fallacy of control," and I do not see our "engagement" with Muslim nations bringing any benefit to the USA whatsoever.
I don’t understand your logic. War is not fought for the sake of war. Saying the war itself was a success without regard to whether we’re better or worse off having fought it is as if my construction company built a house that collapsed on its residents, and I responded with, “Well, the building part was successful. We got it up there. Whether or not it crushed a family to death down the road is another matter.”
If that’s the only measure—was Saddam a bad guy or not, and would you rather live under him or be a protectorate of the US empire—does that mean we hafta kill every bad guy in the world? Why did we leave Saddam in charge from 91-03, is a better question, if the badness of living under him is tge sole concern.
The “winning hearts and minds” nation building exercise was a huge failure. Far too expensive in blood and treasure for what was achieved. The decision to disband Sadamn’s military, rather than use them for security should also be re-examined.
What you say makes sense for Afghanistan. I was always of the let’s bomb em and leave party. Should they let Al Queda back in and build more camps, no biggie; bomb them again. But it doesn’t apply to Iraq. Bombing their gubmint out of business would serve no purpose. They had nothing to do with 9/11, didn’t harbor Al Queda, and actually could have been better used as a Strong Man to stand against more fanatical, less anti-Western blocs like the Iran Gang.
Unless you really, really bought into the WMD thing. But that was only ever half the casus bellies at most. The other half we couldn’t address directly, because Bush the Younger had run against Clintonian nation building. I’m convinced erecting a US backed and to a large extent controlled “democracy” in the heart of the Middle East was the main goal. Because since WWII that’s the only way the Powers That Be can imagine keeping the peace, aside from world gubmint.
Bombing and running would not have a nation built. And without nation building the entire effort was futile. Unless, again, you bought the WMD rationale. Tge trick, by the way, was not yo outright lie about them. I’m not saying there were no WMDs. We know there were at some point, since Saddam used them. The lie was that they posed an imminent threat. Apart from the specious and question begging argument for war from Iraq breaking the 91 truce (why enforce it now, instead of any if the number of alleged breaches between the two Iraq wars?), there was no oldfashioned Just War reason for Iraq, Part II. So they had the WMD thing, because nation building for its own sake never seems enough of a justification for ground war, though for some reason we can go to war in the air when fancy takes us.
Whoops, I meant more, not less, anti-Western.
You’d think that if the entire history of the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire taught us anything, it’s that intervention from the West doesn’t work. We’re like Bernanke on interest rates, though, and tge only answer is the price of money just hasn’t been zero for long enough. We just haven’t invaded and cut up the Middle East enough. Invading the next country will do the trick.
Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe intervention is part of the problem? Maybe one of the reasons terrorists wanna bomb us is that we constantly break into their houses, rearrange furniture, and leave behind Frankenstein’s monsters like the tri-ethnic Iraqi state. Gosh forbid we should step back for a second, for fear of OPEC ransoming us or our ally Israel having to stand on its own two feet for once after 60 or so years.
Indeed. It's telling that you even have loud-mouthed conservative pundits who've let this fact slide down the memory hole.
I have no doubt what we did in removing Saddam was right, and the typical Leftist denigration of the efforts and sacrifices of our service personnel after the fact stinks to high heaven. We saw that with Vietnam, too.
We, however, should perhaps rethink "nation building". Go in, kick a$$, neutralize our enemies, and then let the people decide what they want (bring our folks home).
Well, that approach didn't work when Germany occupied Yugoslavia in 1941. And it didn't work when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan in 1978.
Bottom line is that MacArthur was right: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."
If necessary, use the USAF to target every structure built after 1900. But no more invasions. No more boots on the ground.
We went to war along side Stalin and then spent billions and decades fighting him and his.
Saddam Hussein was repeatedly in violation of the terms of the Gulf War negotiations. He restarted the war.
Gaddafi ended his WMD program voluntarily after Saddam was toppled.
Why did Barack take us to war against Gaddafi and are things safer there since HE declared (at the UN) “mission accomplished”?
Iran under the Shah was a civilized place. When you consider what replaced him, he was George Washington by comparison.
His overthrow was Carter's gift to humanity.
It should be noted that electing Dinkens as mayor of New York City cost more lives than that. heck, The difference between Dinkins and Giuliani was more than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.