Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
More than seven years after the United States invaded Iraq, President Obama will confirm next week that the final American combat troops have departed. From the current issue of The Economist:
Mr. Obama always considered this a “dumb” war, and events have proved him largely right. America and its allies may have rid the Middle East of a bloodstained dictator, but Saddam Husseins’ vautned weapons of mass desctruction turned out to be a chimera and the cost in American and especially Iraqi lives has been hideous. Iraq, it is true, is no longer a dictatorship. Thanks in part to Mr. Bush’s lonely refusal in 2007 to heed the calls to cut and run, the sectarian bloodletting that followed the invasion has abated. But the country’s new democracy remains chronically incsecure…which is one reason why some 50,000 American “support” troops are to stay behind to shore it up.
Two questions—and I intend these questions as genuine, not in any way as leading or tendentious. I’d truly like to know what Ricochet members think. And I’d like to know how they think—how they frame the costs and benefits.
QUESTION ONE: Knowing what he knew at the time, was President Bush right to order the invasion of Iraq?
QUESTION TWO: If President Bush had known then what we know now, would he still have been right to do so?
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
1. Yes. The WMD issue alone was justification.
2. Yes. Iraq was a festering mess, and we had been caught up with them since the first Gulf War. We were going to have to do something about it sooner or later, and it might has well have been sooner.
Jul '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Peter,
I've still got a bloody snout from addressing exactly these questions on a VDH thread a few days ago. But, OK: here goes.
1. Knowing what he knew, Bush was within his rights to invade. Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire. But he wasn't right to do so. Iraq represented no clear and present danger and could have been dealt with otherwise.
2. No. What we know now - and should have recognized then - is that Iran was the greater threat. And now we've wasted zillions of dollars and thousands of lives vanquishing the wrong adversary.
The whole WMD thing was Saddam's ruse to fend off his true enemy, Iran.
The reason he didn't want the UN inspectors poking around wasn't that he didn't want to give up his WMD's. It was that he didn't want Iran to know he didn't have any.
All Saddam wanted was his palaces and his bad-boy cred among the Arabs.
The Iranians want us dead.
Jul '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
1. Yes.
2. Yes. You don't know what we know now.
Jun '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
1) Yes, even though far too much is made of what Bush knew then versus what he knew later and far too little of the selective myopia involved in this then versus now criticism. It's also strange that much is made by certain elements of the Iraqi deaths supposedly caused by the war and not enough of the foughly quarter million Iragis Saddam killed annually.
2) Absolutely, the only problem I see is that the US did not also move against Iran. Given the logistics and cost, both in terms of blood and treasure, of spreading the war into Iran, I can understand the reticence, but the reality is that Iran was then and remains to this day the biggest threat to US security. The greater pity is that the world does not also recognize Iran as threat.
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth, a couple of quick questions please, and I don't mean this in a contentious sense at all:
1. Would you concede that, post 9/11, if we wait for an adversary to become a "clear and present danger," we might be too late and end up with thousands slaughtered, another smoking hole and a city in ruins here at home?
2. If you concede the above, don't we then have to take into account an adversary's past actions when deciding whether or not to take action ourselves? In Saddam's case, he had used chemical weapons on his own people and invaded a neighboring country.
3. Do you think Iran poses a clear and present danger now?
As I say, nothing contentious here. You raise excellent points and I wanted to explore them a bit further.
May '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
#1: Yes, but for the following reason: It was (and is) vital that America send the message--in the new 9/11 era--that we are not to be trifled with. The Gulf War ended in a cease fire contingent upon agreements that Saddam was ignoring. Our fundamental foreign policy doctrine needs to be "demonstrate resolve," and our credibility--and its deterrent effect--is shot if we allow ourselves to be openly mocked by an outlaw. WMD and democracy promotion, while important, were not the top issues.
#2: Yes, but only if there's follow-through, which we cannot know at this point. Resolve that endures through successive administrations is essential, as we had (mostly) during the Cold War. We'll prevail if steadfast, and we'll look back and say, yes, it was worth the sacrifice. But this is where this era's segregating of "hawks" and "doves" into the respective parties is such a problem. Those old liberal hawks are now neo-conservative Republicans and demonized by the Democratic establishment. Big problem for consistent, resolute foreign policy.
Edited on Aug 28, 2010 at 10:50amJul '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Dave, I would never hesitate to engage with you. You're one of nature's gentlemen.
Rather than address each of your questions individually, allow me to say what I think Bush should have done, knowing what he knew:
Depose or kill Saddam in a quick campaign. Install a new military strongman, in firm control of a reconstituted Baathist Army. Immediately swivel, invade Iran and depose the Mullahs.
Indeed, this is what I thought Bush intended to do at the time..
Instead, he fell for the siren song of nation-building, believing that a shiny new Jeffersonian democracy in the land of the Tigris and Euphrates would somehow go viral throughout the Middle East.
Finally, I believe Iran has constituted a clear and present danger at least since the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
Edited on Aug 28, 2010 at 11:06amMay '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth
Instead, he fell for the siren song of nation-building, believing that a shiny new Jeffersonian democracy in the land of the Tigris and Euphrates would somehow go viral throughout the Middle East.
Kenneth, I still have faint hopes for this myself, though they get dimmer with every headline about sharia in Iraq and cooperation with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of your suggestions - they're better than anything I've got - I must agree that little else matters so long as we fail to face Iran.
Jul '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Looking back over my comments, I realize that a clarification is in order:
Bush was right to invade Iraq - as a prelude to invading Iran.
Where he went wrong was the extended occupation and nation-building.
Aug '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Peter Robinson: QUESTION ONE: Knowing what he knew at the time, was President Bush right to order the invasion of Iraq?
In my fantasy world, here's what I would have done had I been President at the time:
I would have given the UN two choices:
Either the UN cracks down on rulebreaking dictators like Saddam Hussein (by denying their countries aid, kicking them out of the UN, etc), or the US leaves the UN, taking all our UN funding with us. The United States has no need to be part of a club where the least well-behaved members get the privilege of not following the club's rules.
It would have been a gamble that, as much as the UN seems to exist to thwart the US and her allies, the UN needs our money more. By threatening to withdraw funding, we maybe could have forced the UN into taking effective "multilateral" action against thugs like Sadam.
But such a move would have been so daredevil that I understand why it wasn't taken.
Jul '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Jason Hart
Kenneth
Instead, he fell for the siren song of nation-building, believing that a shiny new Jeffersonian democracy in the land of the Tigris and Euphrates would somehow go viral throughout the Middle East.
Kenneth, I still have faint hopes for this myself, though they get dimmer with every headline about sharia in Iraq and cooperation with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of your suggestions - they're better than anything I've got - I must agree that little else matters so long as we fail to face Iran. · Aug 28 at 11:07am
The omens are not favorable. Since our occupation began, we have Hezbollah in control of Lebanon, Somalia in flames, Yemen teetering on the brink, Iran resurgent, Sudan firmly under Islamist control, Hamas in charge of Gaza and the Saudis ever scheming, scheming....
Jun '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
#1: Yes
#2 (2006): No
#2 (2010): Yes
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth, I'm hard pressed to disagree with you. I'm also hard pressed for time, since I just got a load assignment to take a truckload of beer down to the Florida panhandle (this means there will be lots of Jerry Reed music flowing through the truck tonight).
One point, about the "siren song of nation building." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it is a difficult thing to resist. Jefferson wrote of rights that are given by our Creator, and I can't argue that this fundamental need to breathe the air of freedom isn't universal, but rather somehow only intended for westernized cultures. Still, I understand that the closer this yearning gets to actual application in various cultures, it becomes tricky, and the costs prohibitive.
With that, and with advance apologies to Peter for throwing this into the thread, I'm East Bound And Down.
May '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Kenneth
Depose or kill Saddam in a quick campaign. Install a new military strongman, in firm control of a reconstituted Baathist Army. Immediately swivel, invade Iran and depose the Mullahs.
So easy to write, Kenneth, but so hard to do. What strong man? How do you know the army and its leadership would be loyal to him with Saddam on the loose for 9 months? And maybe Saddam would have remained uncaptured had we not stuck around en masse. And "easier said than done" does not even begin to describe the phrase "swivel, invade Iran, and depose the Mullahs." With much respect, I think you're being far too glib.
May '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
etoiledunord: #1: Yes
#2 (2006): No
#2 (2010): Yes · Aug 28 at 11:29am
#3 (2011): ?
#4 (2013): ?
Etc.
This is why "resolve" is the alpha and the omega.
Aug '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
If the United States could have exposed how pathetically wea Saddam truly was including that his vaunted chemical weapons program was almost entirely a sham, then invasion wouldn't have been called for. I doubt he would lasted long. But really, how could we have known that and convinced anyone that it was so. Everyone believed Saddam had chemical weapons and the willingness to use them promiscuously. Post 9-11 we just couldn't let that kind of threat stand or every two bit enemy of the US would strike on the smell of our weakness. Even now with all the war weariness, the fact that we overthrew Saddam and then beat back a protracted insurgency must give our enemies pause. Final answers: 1 yes 2 possibly know but how could we have known?
Jul '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Scott Reusser
Kenneth
Depose or kill Saddam in a quick campaign. Install a new military strongman, in firm control of a reconstituted Baathist Army. Immediately swivel, invade Iran and depose the Mullahs.
So easy to write, Kenneth, but so hard to do. What strong man? How do you know the army and its leadership would be loyal to him with Saddam on the loose for 9 months? And maybe Saddam would have remained uncaptured had we not stuck around en masse. And "easier said than done" does not even begin to describe the phrase "swivel, invade Iran, and depose the Mullahs." With much respect, I think you're being far too glib. · Aug 28 at 11:34am
Well, the first part was swiftly accomplished.
As for installing a strongman, the people of Iraq had long-proven that they were inclined to be supine to a dictator. With lavish amounts of American carrots, they'd have been quite content to continue to cower under the Baathist stick.
Iran's armed forces, in 2003, would have been easily over-matched by our military.
Of course, these types of disagreement are inevitable when we speculate about what might have been.
May '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
#1 Given that it should have probably been done back in 1991, yes.
#2 No. By most historical measures, even at its worst points, it was an effective war and we've nominally achieved its immediate objectives. That being said if one concocted a cost-benefit ratio for the war, I'm not sure it would favor its pursuit. Aside from Iraq itself (tentatively), the neo-con "spread of democracy" theory has so far proven wrong and the region appears progressively more likely to break out in conflict. The opening of the Iraqi oil reserves doesn't seem to have had any overwhelming benefits to Americans that I can tell. Moreover, domestically it played a big role in getting Obama elected.
Jul '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Dave Carter
One point, about the "siren song of nation building." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it is a difficult thing to resist.
The only workable examples I can recall are Germany and Japan.
It worked there because we utterly destroyed their military capability and terrorized their citizens into realizing that resistance was futile.
We may still have the capacity to destroy our military foes.
But we have long since lost the will to wage the sort of total war we waged in World War Two.
General Petraus is proof positive of that lack of will, when he touts the number of Afghan girls in school, the number of Afghan children vaccinated and the number of cell phones in Kabul as metrics of victory.
These may seem like the nascent building-blocks of democracy to Petraus, but mark my words: when we eventually leave the Afghan people to their own miserable devices, they will still be slicing off the noses of recalcitrant child brides and executing burkha-clad women before stadiums of cheering onlookers.
Jun '10
Re: Seven Long and Bloody Years Later: Was it Worth It?
Given that these questions are by their nature subjective, I'm inclined to answer "yes" and "yes." I don't say that lightly, nor do presume that I will always think as such. We are confined to the prism of our experience, predisposition, and worldview. Nobody really knows what tomorrow holds; we don't know what seeds will take root, what fruit will be produced from the sacrifices we've made. Some assume democracy will not take hold, but at this point, we don't know that. So the exercise of retrospective judgment is not - and cannot - be determinative.
Iraq is on a journey of self-determination. They may fail. They may not. If by some measure they prevail as a democracy, albeit unique, then perhaps their history will record the decisions and actions of an American president and the soldiers under his command in a far more favorable light than some among us may be inclined to do.
We make decisions based on the information we have in the moment. The debate of if and how the U.S. chooses to use force in the world will continue. In Iraq, only time - and perhaps purple fingers - will tell.