Current Events > What's the consensus on going into Iraq?

(+) Yeah! (+)

No. We should have never went into Iraq.

It was absolutely wrong. There was no evidence of WMDs, and Bush did nothing to admit the truth.

It was one of the stupid things the US has ever done, greatly damaging its own reputation and turning the middle east into a (larger) mess.

Bad.

We went into Iraq just to appease the oil companies' hunger for more, and to settle the Bush family's grudge against Saddam from H.W.'s Gulf War. Nothing more, and nothing less. Saddam was a real piece of shit himself, but that still didn't justify going into Iraq the way we did, and then leaving it behind even worse than we found it.

Iraq was about as unjust as a war can be short of involving a desire to wipe out an entire group of people.

There's definitely an argument to be made for going into Afghanistan after 9/11 but not Iraq.

Even if you only care about US geopolitical interests and are amoral concerning war and its consequences, the result is bad for the US because Iraq went from being an ideological enemy of Iran and radical groups like ISIS to having large, powerful factions friendly to one or the other. It's essentially a hotbed of US geopolitical enemies now.

Sadaam Hussein was a monster who killed way more people than the Iraq War did. If the US had actually gone in trying to help Iraq rather than using it as a rationalization to exploit them for oil, it could possibly have been justified. You could also make a case that even if the chances of them having WMDs were low, it was better to go in and prevent it just in case. I would disagree, but if the USA had been transparent and honest about what they were doing it would at least have been somewhat justified.

But we all know what actually happened. The invasion was founded on lies about the WMDs and weasely, deceptive insinuation that Iraq was linked to September 11th. And they fucked it up in every way imaginable. The Bush administration thought that as soon as they toppled the regime, corporations could immediately move in and turn it into a venture capitalist paradise. They grossly underestimated the troops and resources necessary every step of the way. They ignored experts on the region and listened to yes men who gave them the rosy predictions they wanted to hear. In terms of sheer incompetence, it may be the worst executed military operation in US military history. Certainly the worst one ever carried out on that big a scale.

Lol we only invaded to surround Iran.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9ea068e5.jpg

The goal was to pincer Iran via the east in Afghanistan.

And from the west in Iraq.

The neocons like Bill Kristol and PNAC really want endless war.

The WMDs claim was so obviously false from the beginning. "Wrong" is an understatement.

Trelve posted...

There's definitely an argument to be made for going into Afghanistan after 9/11 but not Iraq.

Weren't all the high jackers from Saudi Arabia? Why didn't we retaliate against the right country? Poor people wondering why they were getting invaded.

ZEROWOLF posted...

Weren't all the high jackers from Saudi Arabia? Why didn't we retaliate against the right country? Poor people wondering why they were getting invaded.

Most, but not all. There are still classified sections of the 9/11 commission related to Saudi Arabia. Their role was likely such that the public would have been outraged if they knew the depth of involvement. Further proof it was all about geopolitics and not revenge for 9/11.

So with this all in mind isnt safe to say we were the bad guys during the Iraq war? Imagine the outroar had Russia / China done something similar.

Especially considering there were over 100k collateral damage during the war depending on what source you look at.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#

Going into Afghanistan was a mistake, Iraq was a straight up abomination.

SHRlKE posted...

So with this all in mind isnt safe to say we were the bad guys during the Iraq war?

Yes, this was clear to many people at the time as well.

SHRlKE posted...

So with this all in mind isnt safe to say we were the bad guys during the Iraq war?

MrMojoRising posted...

Yes, this was clear to many people at the time as well.

I'm going to disagree because saying we were "the bad guys" implies a good guy vs. bad guy dynamic, and that is the wrong way to look at the Iraq War. I would say that kind of thinking is part of what got us into that war in the first place.

Because Sadaam Hussein was an absolute monster who slaughtered and tortured even his own people, hundreds of thousands of them, that mindset allows you to see yourself as "the good guys" as long as you're less evil than him. Make no mistake, Sadaam Hussein did worse things than the US did in Iraq, but that doesn't justify anything we did. Especially because the US utterly failed to give Iraq a new, stable government.

The people that the US fought against were also not "good guys." They were largely terrorist groups. ISIS came out of these groups. Many of them were no doubt intentionally trying to increase the death toll and make the US look bad.

They killed more people than the US army. Still, the US is partly responsible because the chaos we created allowed them to thrive. If we had done the war more competently, they probably would have been far less effective. And again, this does nothing to justify American torture, American war crimes, or the decision to outsource much of the combat to mercenary groups made up of people who thought the US army wasn't violent enough.

The USA was wrong. There is no need to compare us to other sides in the conflict and ask who is "the bad guy." It's irrelevant.

I mean thats great and all but why do I always see that response as a defence for the US conducting arguable questionable wars?

Imagine if you tried to use that defense for recent Russian / Chinese antagonisms round the world.

American exceptionalism leads people to excuse even the most horrible invasions and wars because of the belief that America is inherently more moral, free, distinct, etc. so the rules don't really aply to them.

It wasn't just about the decision to invade Iraq, but the months/years that followed and how the US mismanaged the country and utterly failed the people of Iraq, ignoring guidance from experts.

SHRlKE posted...

I mean thats great and all but why do I always see that response as a defence for the US conducting arguable questionable wars?

Defense? I wasn't defending anything. I was basically saying two wrongs don't make a right.

It was one of those decisions that makes sense and has a certain degree of moral justification on paper. But when that piece of paper is the back of an envelope, and the decision costs tens of thousands of lives because you think that "mission accomplished" simply means successfully taking a country apart without needing to know how to put it back together again, then it's a bad decision.

Vampire_Chicken posted...

It was one of those decisions that makes sense and has a certain degree of moral justification on paper. But when that piece of paper is the back of an envelope, and the decision costs tens of thousands of lives because you think that "mission accomplished" simply means successfully taking a country apart without needing to know how to put it back together again, then it's a bad decision.

Exactly. Also Saddam was a murderous shithead no doubt. But we saw when we pulled out the power vacuum that was created and ISIS were arguably worse. Getting rid of Saddam just to have him replaced with ISIS wasnt a good outcome. It caused the entire region to destabilise. I guess the only two questions that matter are

Is Iraq / Middle East in general in a better place than before we went in.

Is the western world a safer place now than before we went in.

Im not sure it hard to suggest things are worse now than before. Hell look at Afghanistan where we spent 20 years, trillions of dollars and thousands and deaths to replace the Taliban with... the Taliban.

As Biden has told Bibi, invasion invites sequels (ISIS) & branches (Syria).

Israel's invasion of Gaza has put its own citizens on watch for the next 50yrs.

SHRlKE posted...

Exactly. Also Saddam was a murderous shithead no doubt. But we saw when we pulled out the power vacuum that was created and ISIS were arguably worse. Getting rid of Saddam just to have him replaced with ISIS wasnt a good outcome. It caused the entire region to destabilise. I guess the only two questions that matter are

Is Iraq / Middle East in general in a better place than before we went in.

Is the western world a safer place now than before we went in.

Im not sure it hard to suggest things are worse now than before. Hell look at Afghanistan where we spent 20 years, trillions of dollars and thousands and deaths to replace the Taliban with... the Taliban.

You seem to be ignoring a ton of context here about how the US bungled up the country after the invasion. Theres some pretty interesting documentaries and deep dive articles about the whole thing.

Trelve posted...

There's definitely an argument to be made for going into Afghanistan after 9/11 but not Iraq.

Even with Afghanistan we didn't need boots on the ground with a 20 year occupation afterwards. We could have supplied, equipped, and given air support to the already existing anti-taliban faction, The Northern Alliance, and gotten things done just as well.

Wasn't the whole idea of going to Afghanistan so they could try to find Osama Bin Laden?

Then many years later he was found in Pakistan and eliminated and dumped at sea.

If you've got time, this is worth a listen: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m001k0ch?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Goes into the invasion and occupation of Iraq and talks to key figures in the White House, 10 Downing Street and Iraq itself. The bit that stood out to me is that right from winning the election in 2000, the plan was to always invade Iraq. Afghanistan was just a bump in the road.

Do you have any your recommend?

I think the biggest folly is expecting we can go into these countries, bomb them to the ground and rip out the existing institutions of government etc and expect democracy to just magically take hold. It didnt happen in Afghanistan. It hasnt happened in Syria and it hasnt happened in Iraq either. The way a lot of these countries are set up there are loads of different warring factions and only by the leaders being strong (read treating them like shit) do they keep a semblance of peace. Of course going in and removing guys like Saddam seem like a no brainer but you also have to have an exit plan and like Im guessing your documentaries suggest that was bungled up in numerous cases over the last twenty years.

ScazarMeltex posted...

Even with Afghanistan we didn't need boots on the ground with a 20 year occupation afterwards. We could have supplied, equipped, and given air support to the already existing anti-taliban faction, The Northern Alliance, and gotten things done just as well.

if thats the case then why are the Taliban back in power? The west tried to train a new Afghan army of which the northern alliance were a part of but it never worked out. In not sure my faith in your plan is as great as yours.

Using yellow cake mix to justify the invasion was evil as shit and all of them should have been tried in from of the hague

Im not gonna go there unless they pay for it and really show me all their best stuff no dumb shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJlzDiNPacw

Listen to Blowback, season 1

Trelve posted...

If you've got time, this is worth a listen: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m001k0ch?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Goes into the invasion and occupation of Iraq and talks to key figures in the White House, 10 Downing Street and Iraq itself. The bit that stood out to me is that right from winning the election in 2000, the plan was to always invade Iraq. Afghanistan was just a bump in the road.

I fucking knew it! Fuck, I wish ten-year-old me wasn't such a dumb Kool-Aid-swiller. At least I still had the good sense to want Kerry to beat Dubya back in '04, even though I couldn't do a damned thing about it myself.

It was a monstrous crime.

Antifar posted...

Listen to Blowback, season 1

So good

ZEROWOLF posted...

Weren't all the high jackers from Saudi Arabia? Why didn't we retaliate against the right country? Poor people wondering why they were getting invaded.

"Why didn't we invade the country all our oil comes from?"

ZEROWOLF posted...

Weren't all the high jackers from Saudi Arabia? Why didn't we retaliate against the right country? Poor people wondering why they were getting invaded.

Ironically Saudi Arabia is in the middle of a being modernised. There's still a lot of shit to criticize them for and stuff they do that's backwards but they are moving in the right direction at least. It's why I strongly believe you can't just invade a country and expect more liberal and democratic notions to simply take hold because it has to be done at a cultural level. Not a military level.

SHRlKE posted...

So with this all in mind isnt safe to say we were the bad guys during the Iraq war?

The US has not been in any justifiable armed conflicts since WW2

TotallyNotAGirl posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJlzDiNPacw

that video title is odd
there was nothing "accidental" about it, in my opinion

AnsestralRecall posted...

The US has not been in any justifiable armed conflicts since WW2

Kosovo?

AnsestralRecall posted...

The US has not been in any justifiable armed conflicts since WW2

The Korean War was an aggressive action by the North, so I wouldn't exactly call the US response unjustifiable.

Listen to Blowback Season 3

kawalimus posted...

The WMDs claim was so obviously false from the beginning. "Wrong" is an understatement.

This, and plenty of people were calling it bullshit back then.

The Iraq War was a war crime & Dubya's worthless ass should be in prison for mass murder.

itll take another 30 years or so to know for sure if it was a net positive or negative, but it sure as shit seems like a huge negative

Cost trillions of dollars, millions of lives, all based on the deliberate lie of corrupt government leaders who even threw undercover CIA agents under the bus for not complying with the lies. Not our finest moment

SHRlKE posted...

if thats the case then why are the Taliban back in power? The west tried to train a new Afghan army of which the northern alliance were a part of but it never worked out. In not sure my faith in your plan is as great as yours.

It's almost like there is a difference in the perception of a group placed into a position of power by outsiders vs one who put themselves there with a bit of outside help.

No Government that we put in power there was going to be viewed as legitimate by the populace.

ScazarMeltex posted...

It's almost like there is a difference in the perception of a group placed into a position of power by outsiders vs one who put themselves there with a bit of outside help.

No Government that we put in power there was going to be viewed as legitimate by the populace.

Yes exactly my point. Same applies to Iraq as well.

Antifar posted...

Listen to Blowback, season 1

I came in to post this essentially. Anybody defending the Iraq War please take the time to educate yourself on the matter.

Anybody even interested in truly learning about how bad US foreign policy decision is operated, just listen to all of the seasons, those guys are fantastic.