Was Iraq a mistake?

[zraver]

zraver,



i'm not sure how this follows as a result of the Iraq War?

We started talking with Iran over Iraq, in Iraq a couple years ago. The scope was limited to Iraq's security issues but it was American and Iranian diplomats talking to one another.

[Big K]

if US is really dreaming the security of Iraq(which is very very doubtful) by force i would say that US leaders are very naives.

every single people who live in Iraq know that US will not stay there forever. and they are waiting.

after the retreat the influence of US will be weaker than ever so US is not willing to retreat.

Considering that US has played to wrong cards because of its incompetent(?) leadership i can say that hard days coming soon for the region.

[astralis]

zraver,

We started talking with Iran over Iraq, in Iraq a couple years ago. The scope was limited to Iraq's security issues but it was American and Iranian diplomats talking to one another.

plenty of good reasons for the war but that wasn't one of them. if we wanted to talk to iran, we could have done it without the war from a stronger position. as it was, those security talks were partially because of iranian militia influence and EFPs.

this would be a stronger point if bush had pressed the iranians right after we took baghdad. instead, we were shaking that stick really hard, and at the time no one was sure if that was for show or if we were really going to go east and take out tehran.

[JAD_333]

zraver,plenty of good reasons for the war but that wasn't one of them. if we wanted to talk to iran, we could have done it without the war from a stronger position. as it was, those security talks were partially because of iranian militia influence and EFPs.

this would be a stronger point if bush had pressed the iranians right after we took baghdad. instead, we were shaking that stick really hard, and at the time no one was sure if that was for show or if we were really going to go east and take out tehran.

Of course, you are right. No one goes to war to force talks. However, Xraver is right also, in a sense. The war forced talks. Yet Iran was very much part of the reason for the war, as was Syria and, of course, the whole spectre of state-supported terrorism.

The Iranian equation went flat when the going got unexpectedly rough for us in Iraq. And for that matter, the whole equation went awry as we poured all our attention into Iraq. Bush never had much of a chance to drag Iran to the table on his terms. But we won't know whether they would have played ball until the historians sort it out.

[S2]

JAD_333 Reply

"But we won't know whether they would have played ball until the historians sort it out."

Or they detonate a nuke.

[zraver]

zraver,



plenty of good reasons for the war but that wasn't one of them. if we wanted to talk to iran, we could have done it without the war from a stronger position. as it was, those security talks were partially because of iranian militia influence and EFPs.

this would be a stronger point if bush had pressed the iranians right after we took baghdad. instead, we were shaking that stick really hard, and at the time no one was sure if that was for show or if we were really going to go east and take out tehran.

When did this thread become about reasons to go to war? I was talking some of the positives that resulted from the war. We didn't fight WW2 to advance plastic surgery but that was one beneficial result.

[S2]

Swift Sword Reply

William,

"Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan look different, but ... Regionally, the status quo appears to be in full force."

I'm sure I said this-

"...however slow by our impatient standards..."

Does that description fit you?;)

"Over the last Century, the U.S. has failed at nation building on the order of 4:1. All going right would be exceptional, not normal, based on what we already know."

Perhaps you're right but the very notable exceptions have already been highlighted by gunnut and they merit consideration- a lot of it. More to the point, it's working here in spite of ourselves.

"Instability and uncertainty in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan that can be attributed to U.S. action would seem to favor transnational, violent non state actors."

I agree that these conditions, whether attributable to America or otherwise, would do so. Key is attribution and you've a hell of a case to make proving that all this lies at our doorstep.

"Pan Islam and the Bush Administration are working to the same goal: a network of weak states susceptible to overarching, transnational control and/or meddling."

Not at all. We'd be more comfortable integrating these countries as net contributing members to the globally connected economy. Can you find that thought at a mosque sermon this Friday, please, so that I might see the symmetry of objectives?

"Furthermore, replacing strong, authoritarian regimes with weak, proto democracies is not exactly helpful to the counter terrorism cause because the latter class of regimes is historically the least able to combat terrorism."

The assumption being that we'd prefer that they remain "weak, proto democracies." How does replacing a strong, authoritarian (rather mild for the Taliban and Hussein don't you think?) regime with a strong, sovereign democracy work? Do the arabs prefer a "firm hand", as the Brigadier suggests? I'm sorta hoping that you're not suggesting that kind of thing.

"We solved a whole bunch of problems for them [Iran]."

While also creating a veritable bevy of new problems. Our presence has cut both ways for Iran.

"A good case can be made that the old status quo was a superior framework within which to combat the transnational terror problem."

A better case can be made that "the old status quo" failed miserably on 9/11. That should be sufficient without reminding that it didn't involve nuclear weapons over NYC or D.C.

"If rolling back terrorism was the agenda, then regime change in Iraq in Afghanistan was contraindicated."

You misunderstand WOT. It means "War on Tyranny". Taliban or Hussein, no contraindication.

"Those Neocons think they can defeat an abacus with a sword which is usually the sign of a pretty dim bunch."

Interesting if oblique reference there to Japanese imperialism. As to lightbulbs, not all neo-cons, including moi, felt that our grand ambitions were properly nuanced. Poorly handled is the common consensus. Practice shall more closely bring perfection.

[Shek]

Sir,

The core assumption therein would seem to be that removal of Mr. Hussein was an imperative to begin with. In strategic terms, there is most certainly reasonable doubt that such was not the case.

William,

I agree and was merely trying to inject some feasibility discussions over courses of action. Talking about others being a proxy for a major conflict and actually make it happen are two very, very, different things.

[JAD_333]

"But we won't know whether they would have played ball until the historians sort it out."

Or they detonate a nuke.

I like your comeback, non sequitur though it is. :)

[Shek]

if US is really dreaming the security of Iraq(which is very very doubtful) by force i would say that US leaders are very naives.

every single people who live in Iraq know that US will not stay there forever. and they are waiting.

after the retreat the influence of US will be weaker than ever so US is not willing to retreat.

Considering that US has played to wrong cards because of its incompetent(?) leadership i can say that hard days coming soon for the region.

The US will have moderate influence via the military for decades to come. The bonds formed in blood build lifetime friendships. Since this is the most respected government organization across Iraq, it is a plus for the US.

[sebastienhege]

oil , if u guys think its was for free Iraq from a terrible dictator u wrong lol , there is more dictator in Africa , some country of Asia too but they dont have any oil or just a bit maybe . So why we are not seeing U.S army there too :)

Personaly i think it was a good thing to rush Irak , anyway this kind of action to invade a country lieing about dictators , weapons of mass destruction , and such things will be less rare by now , Iraq is one of them , maybe Russia against Georgia in the same theme :P

Iraq is not a misstake its good plan for get more oil .Lets see witch country will be attacked in the next 10 years for his oil ?

[Officer of Engineers]

Since you're a newcomer, you will be given a break but do some research on who got the contracts and who dictates the contracts. It ain't the Americans.

[sebastienhege]

bleh thats why i m saying this .Its a general task to get oil from Iraq ( and other things) , not to free some poor innocent from a dictator like saddam hussein .

I m out of this busisness anyway i not going to do my ressearch and homework of "who got the contract" .Things didnt change with the years , 10 years ago it was more hidden like a long term peace force ( example: Africa and East Europe ) ( hide ? bad english ) now everyone knew its was for oil , gaz , water and territory to build an outpost or such things and everyone agree with this .

ps : its a general think not only applicable to Iraq country

[Swift Sword]

I would argue that by invading Iraq, we forced AQ to meet us over there, on our terms. We forced them to commit resources fighting us on their land rather than conserve that same resources and commit them here in the states. Bush's priority is to protect the homeland, by whatever means necessary.

It's hard to fight terrorists by trying to prevent them from committing an act of terror. It's much easier to force them in the open, meet us on the battlefield, and bleed them dry.

Hello Gunnut,

Apologies for belated reply.

I am not so sure that your argument is entirely sound.

First, even though AQ/related organizations have moved into Iraq since the U.S. invasion, they have still successfully struck in Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia and other places.

Secondly, it should be noted that even with a well supported, forward deployment, the U.S. has not been able to prevent AQ/related orgs. from infiltrating Iraq and operating therein.

Thirdly, the bit about smoking them out to bleed them dry does not exactly add up as "the Arithmetic of the Frontier" is as legitimate today as when Kipling penned it. We are committing far more of our resources to the fight in Iraq than the Pan Islamisists appear to be. While I must admit that I am not privy to the machinations of "The Terrorist's" Ex Chequer, I doubt that they have one half of a trillion dollars to piss away on Iraq or anything else.

We can toast as many "we killed xyz number of militants" or unending littany of "we killed/captured another AQ lieutenant" sensational headlines as we like but the simple fact of the matter is one of ours has considerably more effort and expense invested in him/her than a couple of bus loads of Jihadis.

When the sum total of all the U.S. hard and soft assets committed to Iraq is evaluated, I think you will find that it is we who are bleeding handsomely, not the other guy.

I would say we did a pretty good job rebuilding South Korea, Japan, West Germany, France, and Italy.

We failed Vietnam.

With all of this I can agree.

However, there are still some half bakes like the Phillipines and Panama and a heaping helping of worse when we take into account several cracks at Haiti, Nicaragua, Somolia and others.

Oh yes, Cuba, how could we forget Cuba :)!

Our homeland hasn't been attacked since 9-11. Surveys conducted after 9-11 showed a majority of Americans believed that we would be attacked on our homeland within 6 months. I don't think AQ hasn't tried. It's just that they had to waste resources facing our military in Afghanistan and then Iraq. If they don't, then they would have lost "street cred" in the Arab world.

To say that the U.S. has not been attacked might be a stretch. It certainly appears that way and a tremendous amount of propaganda effort has been expended in that direction but is it really the case?

How many unsolved cyber attacks and food security concerns abound? Anyone of those could be AQ/related orgs. or a worse opponent.

How about all of the counterfeit money going around?

What about periodic reports of Muslims/people with Islamic ties shooting up an airline ticket counter, causing a ruckus at a stadium, plowing a car into a crowd, etc. Should they be dismissed out of hand or do they merit closer scrutiny as possible terrorist acts. Even if there are no direct ties to somebody on a State Department list, "leaderless action" is a well understood phenomenon.

Sure, these points are speculative, but no less speculative than the assertion that the Homeland has not been attacked.

I think a more reasonable question might be "how many Americans have been wounded or killed by terrorists since 9/11/01?" Afterall, we are being pimped a GWOT, not a NORAMWOT.

Hope you have a good afternoon,

William

[rugmop]

The US invasion of Iraq was a masterstroke. After the events of 11/9, all those terrorists threatened to invade the US again and again. Bush said, "Don't bother, we'll come to your joint."

Huge savings were made in air fares, pilot training, accomodation and logistical support for the terrorists, and they got to kill even more Americans. Yep, it's worked a treat. All Americans are able to revel in the genius which is George W Bush, except the dead ones of course.