Howill Americas invasion of Iraq be portrayed in the history books?

[CheScott]

See: Iranian Monarchy; 1941-1979

Liberals like to over-simplify it by saying it was about Oil, because addressing the reality of the matter would require they do a bit of their own self-analysis, since Vietnam wasn't entirely different in it's real justification.

It's not oil. Not hardly. Our oil companies didn't make out bad, but they certianly didn't make out good enough to justify it and anyone involved would have known that. However, it wasn't about security or WMD's either. The invasion of Iraq was thought out well before 9/11 by the Project for the New American Century.

Iraq was about further destabilizing the middle east, building military bases in the area and the immense financial rewards reaped by the contractors and paid for by John Q. Citizen. Effectively getting you to pay for a lot of shotty worksmanship in rebuilding Iraq, which can be extra shotty since you'll never have to use it and don't give as much of a damn about the Iraquis as you might pretend to.

These three factors, along with a lot of more nuanced finessing, are the only logical explanations for Iraq that I've been able to figure.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Depends on the outcome.

Also, if it was about oil, why aren't we getting any more than we did before? We could have gotten oil from elswhere, or even on our own soil. It just wouldn't have been worth it to start a war over Iraq's oil when there are plenty of other places to get it. The Bush admin. probably just wanted to have a stable, preferably democratic ally, in the heart of the middle east.

Well, it's does not have to be about sucking the oil now, but securing the supply for the future when other places that have oil start to run out.

 

[onejayhawk]

I think it will be seen as just another obvious excersize of political muscle. With 20-20 hindsightthe USA will have removed a destabilizing factor in a critical region, while gaining an ally and a base of operations. It is a no brainer, for anyone not immersed in a political soup.

J

 

[WICKLC1]

Well, it's does not have to be about sucking the oil now, but securing the supply for the future when other places that have oil start to run out.

I still don't see why we would invade Iraq over oil while there is plenty of oil elswhere. There must be some other reason.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

It's not the only reason - but still, invasion would not have happened if ME would not be the oil barrel of the world as no one would care about the area.

 

[Bast]

It all depends on who's writing on it. If if were were written in the future like how a modern historian would write about Rome, I would bet it would be shown as just another foolish and ill conceited war. It will be portrayed as a war that ended the American empire, much like how the Afghanistan invasion ended the Soviet Union, and how the world wars basically ended the French and British empires, an end of an era kind of thing.

America isn't dominating the world militarily - well it is but that's not the primary reason why it's dominating. It's dominating the world through creativity, economics and a form of cultural imperialism. This isn't going to end anytime soon.

The Iraq war will be just a minor footnote in history whether you think it's a success or disaster.

 

[WICKLC1]

It's not the only reason - but still, invasion would not have happened if ME would not be the oil barrel of the world as no one would care about the area.

Yeah, having Iraq as a stable ally in the heart of the middle east does go a long way towards stabilizing the whole area. The invasion of Iraq was just another attempt by a superpower to forward their interests in the world.

 

[RedRalph]

Just because the US isnt doing well oil-wise dosent mean that wasnt a factor in the invasion. they never expected such resistance, you cant retroactively apply that knowledge. they didnt know when planning that they were going to f*** it up so badly, so they couldnt have known how badly it would go for them in respect to oil.

 

[Loki130]

I think it will essentially set the stage for warfare on the new century: super-powerful armies being proved useless by guerilla tactics. As for good or bad, i think some of the world may view it as another attempt by America to police the world, though it will probably be successful in some way.
One other thing: Vietnam was a proxy war between 2 superpowers. While there may be other powers than the coalition at work in Iraq, it isn't part of a global struggle in the same way as Vietnam.
remember this: people see what they want to see, regardless of what's in front of their eyes

 

[RalofTyr]

إن أع تهي إنفدلس إنفدد إرق إن ا فيلد أتتمبت وسنقر إت. أخ تهير فولسه مستكي سسد ان إسنمس دبرسسن أند إن أئ, أندر ا أن مندتي, سدي أربي أند دبي وإري أبلي وبرسهسي تهي أنتد ستتس وإته الل تهي مني تهي هفي أبتيند سللنق بترلم أفر تهي دسدس. تهي فندد تهي قلرس إسلمس سلبهتي أف أمرسا. بريسي بي والله.





Translation

In 2003 the infidels invaded Iraq in a failed attempt to conquer it. 2015 their foolish mistake caused an economic depression and in 2021, under a UN mandate, Saudi Arabia and Dubai were able to purchase the United States with all the money they have obtained selling petroleum over the decades. They founded the glorious Islamic Caliphate of America. Praise be to Allah.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not that they would call it the Caliphate...

 

[Aleenik]

It all depends on who's writing on it. If if were were written in the future like how a modern historian would write about Rome, I would bet it would be shown as just another foolish and ill conceited war. It will be portrayed as a war that ended the American empire, much like how the Afghanistan invasion ended the Soviet Union, and how the world wars basically ended the French and British empires, an end of an era kind of thing.

The problem with your theory is that the US is winning in Iraq now after the Surge..so how is this ending the ''American Empire''

 

[Aleenik]

إن أع تهي إنفدلس إنفدد إرق إن ا فيلد أتتمبت وسنقر إت. أخ تهير فولسه مستكي سسد ان إسنمس دبرسسن أند إن أئ, أندر ا أن مندتي, سدي أربي أند دبي وإري أبلي وبرسهسي تهي أنتد ستتس وإته الل تهي مني تهي هفي أبتيند سللنق بترلم أفر تهي دسدس. تهي فندد تهي قلرس إسلمس سلبهتي أف أمرسا. بريسي بي والله.





Translation

In 2003 the infidels invaded Iraq in a failed attempt to conquer it. 2015 their foolish mistake caused an economic depression and in 2021, under a UN mandate, Saudi Arabia and Dubai were able to purchase the United States with all the money they have obtained selling petroleum over the decades. They founded the glorious Islamic Caliphate of America. Praise be to Allah.

lol? If any 1 buys America itll be Bill Gates..

 

[innonimatu]

The problem with your theory is that the US is winning in Iraq now after the Surge..so how is this ending the ''American Empire''

What, you think the recent relative calm there is some king of victory?

It's a defeat! The defeat of the old "divide and rule" strategy. The whole idea was not to allow a "prosperous, stable Iraq" to emerge. Or to postpone it for as long as possible - that, not incompetence, was the real motive behind the methodical destruction of the iraqi state apparatus. The new occupiers learned from the older british experience of placing a puppet on the iraqi throne: the puppet got overthrown and british interests were taken over by the new rulers. Better not to allow any centralized state to emerge again...

Stable nations have a nasty tendency to produce independent elites interested in taking direct control over their natural resources and foreign policy. And when the local population hates the invader and the neighboring nations are rivals of the invader and have a lot of leverage there, the invader doesn't want stability. Especially not after investing a lot on propaganda about "liberating" the country: what if the new government of the liberated country misbehaves and actually acts as if it was sovereign, demanding that the invader leave, immediately and unconditionally? You can't flatly deny it without exposing the sham and wasting the propaganda.
That's what the iraqis seem to be trying to do for months, now...the different factions there have overcome their differences and stopped fighting so they could get the invader out by negating the justifications used for the occupation. And they chose a good time, for sure (stability, oil prices, and the finantial crisis...).

There isn't even any need to look back to the difficulties of the british empire in the Middle East. In this kind of war the "empire" is always some actor that has sufficient military might to disturb ad decide a regional balance. In this particular war that actor is an intruder into the region, but regardless of that imperial strategy is always the same: create and maintain instability. Unless the empire is strong enough to definitely conquer the whole region (an anomalous situation that actually did not happen often in history), it must depend on playing regional actors against each other and acting as an arbiter, throwing support this or that way, never allowing the situation to stabilize.

 

[Pokurcz]

Unfortunately the war has destabilised the area.

Even though the coalition forcess are having some suxcess right now there is a load of different insurgent groups about with some 50 potential Saddams, Americas ally Turkey is Bombing northern Irak that the USA technicaly is supposed to protect.

Whilst Iran (Americas suppsed top enemy) is gaining more influence in the area because of the large Shia majority in Irak wich technicaly is supposed to be allied with the USA.

This as the the campain against the Talliban is starting to go badly because there never was enough troops there from the start (they went to Irak) wich has seriously destabilised Pakistan, an American ally (and a nuclear Power) because their religious northern tribes are backing the Talliban.

The mess could not have been greater, let us not kidd ourselves!

 

[Ninjatrey]

It will depend on the outcome, If we pull out it will be known as a mess where we abandoned a war torn country for dead, Iraq would be the new Somalia, If we win it will be seen as a great victory over an evil despot and over millitant islam.

 

[citedon]

As more informantion becomes available, historians' opinions about the war will change. At this point we don't even know how it will play out. Opinions about some aspects of WW II are much different today than they were twenty years ago. I can't help thinking that, in the long run, this war will be viewed as little more than a footnote in the history of a part of the world that has seen almost continuous war for over 3000 years.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

On Google translate, your Arabic prediction turned out like this:

The blood thinner Grooming Anfdls Anfdd to a Field Ataatmpt and Gyrfalcon come. Ahern brother Tulsa poor Ssd that Asnms Dberssn End that dialogue, that rarest of a Mando, in vain raise Dubai's End I wear and Barshsai preparing a forum convened Stts and Ate God is preparing me ready adapted Aptind Slnak Waterloo HAVRE Grooming Dsds. Grooming denounced Grooming Klrs Aslms Mhetti F Summers. Chris me and God.


Are you sure you weren't lying to us about that translation?


EDIT: No you weren't, it's just Google translate doesn't pick up hamza or harakat

 

[Ace of Gold]

Man, We should have listened to the French and Germans about Iraq. They were right all along

 

[Babbler]

To pretend to know this is a fools' errand. The war is not even over, much less have the results fully played themselves out yet. This question probably cannot be truthfully and responsibly answered for another twenty years.

I agree. I think a Chinese Communist said that it was too soon to tell what the effects of French Revolution. It's a matter scale, I guess.