“It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself – hard to imagine.”
-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (February, 2003)
“The insurgency in Iraq is in its last throes.”
-Vice President Dick Cheney (June, 2005)
“The year 2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history or Iraq, the history of the Middle East, and the history of freedom.”
-President George W. Bush (December, 2005)
Have you thought about Iraq recently? Of course it’s easy to ignore news from that country now that U.S. forces are no longer involved in the war there. But there is still a war in Iraq, and it is not going all that well for the government the United States put in power as part of its post-Saddam plan to bring democracy to the country.
Actually, the plan (or at least the expectation) was that democracy would spread from Iraq through the rest of the region. You’ll recall that was one of the many justifications the Bush administration provided for the invasion of the country. (Others, all untrue, were that Saddam was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks, that he was building a nuclear weapon, that he had stockpiles of WMDs, and that his continued reign was a threat to the United States.)
Well, the democracy, such as it is, hasn’t exactly brought about the desired results. In fact, the news from the ground in Iraq suggests that the country is at risk of becoming a haven for al Qaeda, unless it continues to emerge as a puppet for the theocratic regime in Iran, or unless it just breaks up into smaller independent geographic units, with the Kurds establishing their own state in the north and the Sunnis and Shiites making a checkerboard of the rest of the country.
None of those possibilities, should any of them develop, would vindicate the decision to invade the country to overthrow Saddam. Nor would the living conditions for many Iraqis now as opposed to then (the humanitarian justification for the war) vindicate it, since most Iraqis were no worse off under Saddam than they are now, with war, terrorist attacks, and pervasive fear all around them.
Let’s remember what the real conditions were in Iraq before the Bush administration conducted its illegal war (which, as a matter of international law, it clearly and definitively was). Saddam was a nasty, brutal dictator, of that there can be no doubt. But he was primarily interested in his own power, not in an ideological mission (as is the case with the Iranian theocracy and the North Korean socialist state, for example). Saddam was just one of those ruthless dictators who killed those (including even his sons-in-law) whom he perceived to be threats to his reign. As for the rest of his country’s citizens, he was at worst a corrupt and ruthless leader with little interest for their welfare. Much the same can be said for many third world autocrats.
But because he was so intent on retaining power (and so non-ideological), the al Qaeda movement was anathema to him. He was, in that respect, an implicit (if unrecognized) post-9/11 U.S. ally, as he would not have allowed an al Qaeda base to form in his country, lest it threaten his regime.
Moreover, as to any hostile designs he might otherwise have had on the United States, he had been emasculated by the first Gulf War and by the sanctions the U.S. and its allies had imposed on Iraq after that war. In particular, he was militarily unable to extend his power beyond his borders, since his use of air space was severely restricted to the country’s defined borders and his army had been decimated by the war.
In sum, in the years leading up to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, Saddam was a paper tiger as to the U.S. He was also a brutal, even monstrous dictator as to his own citizens, albeit most of the purges by Saddam that left a quarter million Iraqis dead occurred before the first Gulf War. (As an aside, I would note that even as to the Sunni-Shiite divide in Iraq, Saddam was not heavily antagonistic to the Shiites, so long as they did not pose a threat to his regime; most of his pre-Gulf War brutality was aimed at rebellious Kurds and perceived political enemies.)
Yet President Bush insisted that the Saddam regime must go. And the cost of that effort? By the most conservative estimates, the war cost one trillion dollars. It also resulted in 4,500 U.S. deaths and over 32,000 wounded, many of those permanently maimed or disfigured. And, to date, at least 110,000 Iraqi civilians (many estimates are much higher) have died violently from the effects of the war.
All of which would be “water under the bridge,” so to speak, were it not for the still-developing results of the war. And they are not pretty, because in the absence of U.S. military force, the “democracy” that President Bush so fervently believed would take hold is struggling with an on-going war waged by, among others, al Qaeda. Just last week, al Qaeda-aligned militants claimed the western city of Fallujah to be their new independent state, as they routed government forces. This week government efforts to re-take Fallujah were hampered by defections of some tribal militias to the al Qaeda side of the conflict.
Why is the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki encountering such fierce resistance? The main impetus is antagonism to the Shiite-dominated government that the Prime Minister’s administration has fostered. Democracy in Iraq, it seems, hasn’t taken hold quite as President Bush apparently envisioned.
With added historical perspective the judgment of all presidential administrations can undergo revision. In hindsight some decisions can be seen more favorably, some actions viewed more charitably. Nevertheless, the decision of George W. Bush to invade Iraq so as to dethrone a sovereign government and to replace that government with one in his own country’s image should always be viewed as a catastrophic miscalculation, if not the action of a war criminal.
Invading Iraq was a huge, terrible mistake, regardless of outcome. Now made worse by Obama pulling out and leaving Iraq to Al Qaeda.
Regardless of the Bush mistakes, Obama needed to play the hand he was dealt, and he simply folded, making the loss of human life and cost a tragic waste with nothing to show for it.
Perhaps the only thing we really “don’t have anything to show for it” in the long run is no more young men and women killed, brain damaged or suffering the loss of limbs as a result of trying to monitor a hopeless occupation of a country and people that do not want us there. I see the “tragic waste” for Iraq and Viet Nam every time I have an appointment at the VA.
This is not a game – Bush vs Obama!
The game is next Sunday in Seatlle
Let’s get perspective.
Perspective compels us to consider the countless deaths and maimings that are now occurring and have yet to occur as Al Qaeda gains power and fuels a civil war.
Many Americans were killed expelling Al Qaeda from places now fully occupied by Al Qaeda.
American forces have protected South Korea for over 60 years. American forces protect Japan, Taiwan, and moderate regimes in the Middle East.
American soldiers are the real force behind NATO and UN peace keeping all over the world. Every single American President in the last 70 years has committed troops to battle. The results of those encounters need to be judged.
It appears now that the consequences of the way we pulled out of Iraq will become far worse than maintaining a security force.
That is perspective.
There was never then, nor is there now, a justification for invading Iraq. Recent newspaper stories about servicemen and women watching the disorder unfold highlight questions about whether their investment in the country was worth it. It wasn’t.
A few years back, the movie Jarhead featured some amazing scenes from a fictionalized Middle Eastern war effort that has a lot of links to actual battle experiences. Although the director was supposedly mum about whether the movie was pro-war or anti-war, to me and the Marine who went to see it, it was clear that the main message was that the sacrifices of the military were wasted in the first Gulf War and the second invasion of Iraq.
Anyone who saw that movie cannot forget the scene where the main character, a sniper, eats lunch by himself with only the dead for company. It’s a metaphor for a lot that continues to go wrong in the U.S.’s continuing problems in Iraq.
Um, Tanya – I haven’t seen the movie, but “Jarhead” the book on which it is based, is non fiction. See: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0743244915/
Saddam was in direct violation of 13 UN resolutions, including mass murder. That means any member nation was entitled to do anything they thought necessary, to bring compliance with each item. More than one UN member chose to act.
We find barely a handful of live WMDs, but we did find several new, never used WMD factories ready to go into production on very short notice.
George Piro, a Lebanese/American FBI special agent who was Saddam’s interrogator, reported (on 60 minutes) that Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs as a defensive posture. It worked, fooling not just Iran, Bush, and Blair, but also Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry who both ranted about this on the floor of the Senate.
What most call the war, I separate in to War and Occupation. In war, we succeeded, and quckly. In occupation, not so much. That is, until Gen. Petraeus changed our tactics; at which point we began winning hearts and minds. See: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0980076323/
Mr. Obama pulled us out of Iraq quickly if clumsily. Since that is one of his campaign promises he has actually kept, it may be hard to be harsh on that point. However if I had lost a foot or a son to “Iraqui Freedom,” I might have a very different view of this President’s functionally tossing all that investment in blood and treasure away.
In my first comment, I started by saying invading Iraq was a terrible mistake. That is firmly ensconced in Bush’s legacy.
What did Obama do with the hand he was dealt? Well now Obama’s legacy will include abandoning Iraq allowing Al Qaeda to flow in, and making all the American deaths truly useless.
What will happen with Al Qaeda having a stronghold state? Obama has made one bad decision after another, and this is a big one.
Have you ever heard of sunk costs, Tom? Or, to approach it another way, would you really have wanted Obama to create another South Korea for the United States military? How many troops would you have had him permanently station there? We have 40,000 in South Korea. I’d guess it might take 5 times that many to hold the line in Iraq.
In any event, to say that Bush erred in getting us in and yet insist that the error can only be vindicated with a never-ending commitment of American dollars and lives is an outrageous twist of logic if not completely absurd.
I never said anything about vindication. It’s a simple point. There is (was) a choice to be made by Obama. It is a choice of 2 evils.
Which is worse:
* Keeping a military presence for a decade or more to keep order and deny Al Qaeda a safe haven, or
* Pulling completely out allowing Al Qaeda to flow in, take hold, and bloom.
One option is safer for America, safer for Iraq’s neighbors, and better for Iraqi’s. The other prevents American loss of life (at least for now).
When your decision making starts with “no Americans killed no matter what”, you have very few options, and you are not a realistic President of the United States.
That leaves you out of the running.