Was Iraq a mistake?

[We The People]

Knowing what you know now and regradless of your prior view on this, do you think Iraq war exercise was good or bad move?

[S2]

Eye on the Ball

An irredentist baath-fascist regime headed by Saddam Hussein and his sons/cronies in Tikrit is no more. No more Iraqi invasions of Kuwait or Iran. No more gassing of Kurds or Shias. A democratic government possibly emerging. All vestige of WMD removed for the forseeable future.

All that's changed for the better in five years and can continue to improve if carefully nurtured. Will you do so?

[We The People]

You are right, Saddam/Secular Bathist regime is no more ( though we are allying with Bathist elements/sunni insurgents again lately and employing them lately reversing first 3-4 years strategies), now we have an Islamic Revolution SCIRI/Dawa regime that is closely allied with Iran and has been harboring Hezbullah. Saddam was a horrible dictator and there are many horrible dictators in the world, should we go oust all of them?

My question was consiidering the overall results for America, was it the right move?

Oil price was under $20 before start if Iraqi freedom and is now threatening US/Western economies as it approcahed $150 p/b today. Iran will likely go nuclear in years ahead and has been one of the biggest benefactors from removal of Saddam as a new Iraq-Iran alliance emerges. What exactly did America/American people gain from removal of Saddam's bad, secular autocracy that would make the great cost of this exercise worth it?

[Officer of Engineers]

My question was consiidering the overall results for America, was it the right move?

I don't know if it was the right move but it was the best move. The US will not allow Saddam to do a 11 September.

[Shek]

Can you define your question more? Does your question allow for executing the war using a different strategy, or does it simply ask that if you took the exact same sequence of events that puts us on the ground today what do you think?

If it is the latter, given that we now know that Saddam was bluffing on WMD in hand, I think the pendulum tips in favor of giving more time. However, on the other hand, given that the programs were dormant and awaiting the day of no sanctions, the "no WMD" card, which is really "no stockpiles of WMD", had a fleeting, temporal quality to it, meaning that to a degree, it still was a ticking bomb question.

As to emboldening Iran, while absolutely true in my mind, this is a result of playing our hand poorly. We still wouldn't have ended up with the dream vision of the most vocal advocates for the war, but it certainly wouldn't have taken five years to see promise in the war. On the other hand, the Salafists have been dealt a severe blow, especially given the defeat of the virtual caliphate.

[Bluesman]

It was always a GREAT idea. The biggest miscalculation of the war was not understanding the depth of venality in the disloyal opposition here at home. Had I known what they were capable of, and how much more effort it would've taken to rally The People against a max effort by the Democrats to hang a defeat around the necks of he Republicans, I would've either passed the absolutely excellent opportunity to re-make the world with a genius master-stroke, OR would've counseled a max counter-effort to tell the country that they were being lied to by a political class that loves power more than they love their country.

THAT was where we went wrong in this very just and justifiable war.

[S2]

We The People

"...though we are allying with Bathist elements/sunni insurgents again lately and employing them lately reversing first 3-4 years strategies),"

Says it all right there about you, hoss.

"We The People", eh? How "we the people" is it to determine that YOU'VE got a right to exclude 1/3rd of the power triumvirate from the political process? You hardly seem as broad-minded and inclusive as your moniker suggests.

"...now we have an Islamic Revolution SCIRI/Dawa regime that is closely allied with Iran and has been harboring Hezbullah."

Step up to the plate and prove your allegations. I look forward to your linked sources.

"Saddam was a horrible dictator and there are many horrible dictators in the world, should we go oust all of them?"

Is that even a question? Of course we should. All that we practically and prudently can. I'm sure that we'll only get better with practice at this thing and the emerging results in Iraq alone are quite encouraging, wouldn't you agree?

"Oil price was under $20 before start if Iraqi freedom and is now threatening US/Western economies as it approcahed $150 p/b today."

Hope you're an economist. We've a couple here that will likely look at your numbers. Still, even I would suggest that Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons has had little impetus by OIF. It's an independant and long-developing issue that's been accelerated in light of 9/11. If that's affected the surge in oil, it's an issue that would have done so regardless of OIF. Secondly, global demand has markedly changed in this same period without corresponding matches in production/refining. This is commonly known by those who take these subjects seriously. Why aren't you aware of these mitigating arguments to your dubious conclusions? Very confusing...

"Iran will likely go nuclear in years ahead and has been one of the biggest benefactors from removal of Saddam..."

Really? Can you point me to the energized Iranian economy? How does being a net IMPORTER of refined POL on this same market while subsidizing the costs to Iranian consumers to "keep up the faith" pay Iran when the rest of it's economy is in tatters and only getting worse?

Meanwhile, perhaps you can explain to me and interested others how the presence of two emerging democratic nations on either border is a comforting thought to the mullahs? Also, would you help me understand how the combined military presence of NATO and the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea has benefited the Iranian government and military? I suppose the Iranian military has a target-rich environment for all their new-fangled gizmos but, somehow, I'm not impressed. Meanwhile, our troops throughout the region have a notorious reputation for shooting back at those who shoot at us.

"...as a new Iraq-Iran alliance emerges"

That's the beauty of polling stations. We'll see what emerges from the elections this fall. They should prove interesting as sunnis go to the polls in numbers for the first time. That's the insidious nature of creeping democracy at work for you. Once guns are gone from the street, groovy things happen. Puts the Kurds in the cat-bird seat too. Something they won't give up easily without a requisite quid pro quo.

"What exactly did America/American people gain from removal of Saddam's bad, secular autocracy that would make the great cost of this exercise worth it?"

Two democratic muslim nations, one of them arab, where none had existed before for the cost of one medium-sized battle in W.W.II. That's a good investment of America's blood and capital for one of the world's most critical regions that was rapidly becoming the open pus-sore of mankind. All this accomplished despite the likes of you.

Evidently, freedom isn't much valued by you.

Oh! Last thing. You mentioned Iran as "one" of the biggest benefactors. Who else, just so we know the full range of your delusion?

[Bigfella]

Iraq is a mixed bag. I went for 'other', though I lean toward 'good idea' much more strongly than 'bad idea'.

Getting rid of Saddam had much to recommend it. A nasty guy with the potential to pose a threat. If Iraq is not better place without him already, it will certainly be better in a few years. He might have become a threat capable of troubling America in time. Perhaps. Was an invasion necessary? no, but it can be justified.

The real issue here is not about justifiability, but competence. Had the Administration not so arrogant & insular we would not even be having this discussion. Its attitude toward anyone who didn't agree with its particular view of events resulted in a monumentally botched occupation & tremendous damage to America's internatrional reputation. It could all have been done a great deal better simply based on available information at the time.

Had things continued as they were in 2005 we would not be having this discussion. Iraq would be a much bigger hole & Administration supporters would still be blaming everyone but the people who were actually responsible for the mess (some still are). We would still be talking about the breakup of Iraq. The failure to properly manage the occupation also dealt a blow to the major reason for the war - reshaping the strategic & politcal makeup of the Middle East. It remains to be seen if any future Administration can salvage that particular project.

Fortunately strategy & tactics were changed. It now seems possible that Iraq may become a functional democracy. In time perhaps it will also be peaceful & prosperous. In itself that might not be enough to say this was a good idea. The real bonus was the self-destruction of the AQ organisation that sprang up during the occupation & the damage this has done to the image of AQ in the Muslim world. This might have been achieved in another place or time anyway, but the fact that it was achieved is a significant win.

There are still too many 'what ifs' to make any final judgements. if Iraq falls apart in the next few years then this will all be seen very differently. As I said, a mixed bag, but still in the 'plus' column.

[Blue]

The real issue here is not about justifiability, but competence. Had the Administration not so arrogant & insular we would not even be having this discussion.

Don't forget congress' part in holding back the reins. I think they are why we've been there so long. Nice to see you again BF. All in all, well put.

[Blue]

"...though we are allying with Bathist elements/sunni insurgents again lately and employing them lately reversing first 3-4 years strategies),"

Says it all right there about you, hoss........................

Good reply S-2! Although I can't believe you had to say it!

WTP, quit listening to air america.;)

[astralis]

no, iraq war wasn't a mistake. it was a great idea, and had the execution been better would have remained a great idea. as it is....still a good idea.

if all goes well by 2012 or 2013 we should be able to reverse the current trend of iran riding high.

[Ray]

While I don't buy the WMD, Saddam with terrorists and other theories, which in my opinion, is mere smokescreen, I totally buy the theory of strategic compulsion.

The Cold War imperatives are out. It is controlling multi nation flash points that will rule the waves.

Iraq is in the centre of ME and that gives the flexibility to address US interests militarily anywhere in the ME. It also bolster the security of Israeli, the only steadfast US ally in the region.

Iraq is ideally located to influence the nations of CAR and push Russia underbelly northwards and ensure no Chinese influence spreading into the CAR region. Coupled with Afghanistan, the US can influence activities in Xinjiang.

China, thus, will have a different area to focus than Taiwan. ;)

India is coming on board.

Look at the bigger picture.

Masterstroke!

What more could anyone want?

[bolo121]

I must say I agree with Ray Sir, iraq was indeed a good strategy. It was sad that it was so poorly done. If only the US had gone with one front at a time, it would have been a famous victory.

[Herodotus]

I never bought into the Saddam was or could be a threat to the US meme. Our nuclear deterrent and ocean moats were enough to dissuade him from any WMD attack, clandestine or otherwise. It was an unnecessary war for national security purposes, even if executed to perfection, which it certainly wasn't.

On the other hand Iraq is stabilizing now and has the potential for a strong free market economy and strong rule of law via democracy. I am still skeptical of the utility of introducing Western-style governance through force of arms, and hopefully this experiment will not be repeated, but I am optimistic that the Iraqis can improve their country, and resolve their issues.

Whether that will make Iraq a less-warlike, less prone to terrorism ally of the US instead of Iran state is another matter. Democracy has its limits and is not a cure-all for terrorism, or disaffected groups, of which Iraq has had plenty. The diagnosis is still out for me; the patient is out of the coma, but isn't yet walking around.

[Herodotus]

Don't forget congress' part in holding back the reins. I think they are why we've been there so long. Nice to see you again BF. All in all, well put.

The Republicans had the majority in both houses for 2003-2007 during the worst parts of the war, so if you are going to blame Congress just make sure you get the right party.