Reflections on the Iraq War

[NickyJ]

I had initially supported it although I was still wondering what they had to do with Osama Bin Laden. I've long since changed my opinion and realized it was a terrible idea. At least with Afghanistan, we were looking for the guy.

This. I do think Afghanistan was worth it, because at least we got the people behind 9/11, and hopefully ended any chance of them doing another attack for at least the near future. But Iraq, after discovering that there were no WMDs, was not worth it. Then again, I was seven when we went to war, so my thoughts on the war weren't exactly well-made. (They were basically to the effect of "Shoot the bad guys like they do in the movies.")

Back to the poll, though, I can't really answer yet because it's so vague. Is it asking about our feelings in 2003, or 2013?

 

[MobBoss]

Why should I care if Saddam left Iraq or not?

Well, he was largely the reason we were there in the first Gulf War, and I think he was determined to make us pay for tossing his ass out of Kuwait in some way or another eventually.

In other words, I think Iraq, the region and the world overall is a better place without him being in power.

 

[ace99]

In other words, I think Iraq, the region and the world overall is a better place with him being in power.

I agree.

 

[warpus]

Where there was a dictator there is now chaos and anarchy.

I am not sure which is better, personally. There are plenty pros and cons to be found in both situations, for the people of Iraq, and for the region as a whole.

 

[Borachio]

In other words, I think Iraq, the region and the world overall is a better place with him being in power.

(I think I'll ignore the missing negative in that sentence - for the time being.)

I heard Saddam was greatly surprised that Iraq wasn't invaded immediately following the Kuwait war. He was all set to flee, apparently.

 

[NickyJ]

Well, he was largely the reason we were there in the first Gulf War, and I think he was determined to make us pay for tossing his ass out of Kuwait in some way or another eventually.

In other words, I think Iraq, the region and the world overall is a better place with him being in power.

Eh, I'm not quite sure. Yes, he was a scumbag, but he did help balance the powers in the Mid East. Iraq and Iran were always at each others' throats, which, while being awful for citizens of either country, was beneficial to the rest of the area. I don't think we'd have these nuclear worries with Iran if Iraq was still Iran's equal.

(I think I'll ignore the missing negative in that sentence - for the time being.)

I heard Saddam was greatly surprised that Iraq wasn't invaded immediately following the Kuwait war. He was all set to flee, apparently.

Yeah, I'm not sure why we didn't take him out completely. If you're going to kick Saddam's butt like we did in '91, do it right and remove him completely.

 

[Borachio]

I think they didn't because it wouldn't have been "legal" at the time. I can't remember the details, but I don't think UN Resoluton number whatever covered an invasion of Iraq, just a defence of Kuwait.

 

[NickyJ]

I think they didn't because it wouldn't have been "legal" at the time.

Forgive my ignorance, but how would it not be legal? I thought that all's fair in love and war as long as you don't commit war crimes.

Edit: Ah, yes. The UN. Easy solution for that: Give them a nice big "screw you".

 

[Leoreth]

Edit: Ah, yes. The UN. Easy solution for that: Give them a nice big "screw you".

Yeah, it's not as if ruining your international reputation has any lasting effect.

Like, the last time you did it, which is now ten years ago apparently and still not forgotten.

 

[MobBoss]

Where there was a dictator there is now chaos and anarchy.

No. Iraq isnt Syria right now.

Iraq was never going to be a garden spot regardless; but it does have a democratically elected government that is indeed functioning. And while it may not be a great place to live just yet, its neither 'chaos' or 'anarchy' now as it was for much of the last decade.

Also, many people that the US government had an actual policy of regime change in Iraq (to get rid of Saddam) since the Clinton era when Bill signed the Iragi Liberation Act in 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Which is why I think this war was going to take place sooner or later regardless. Saddam had to go and this was our chance to do it so we took it.

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah, I'm not sure why we didn't take him out completely. If you're going to kick Saddam's butt like we did in '91, do it right and remove him completely.

The UNSC resolution we were operating under was limited to restoring the legitimate Kuwaiti government. The UNSC resolution was pretty essential to make it look like a part of Bush I's 'New World Order' and not 'America invades someone because their oil is threatened'. (After all, we assisted Iraq the last time they invaded a neighbor so saying we were taking the enforcement of international law upon ourselves would have rung a bit hollow.)

 

[Cutlass]

Was against it at the time. Turns out it was one of the worst screwups in American history.

 

[Dachs]

Eh, I'm not quite sure. Yes, he was a scumbag, but he did help balance the powers in the Mid East. Iraq and Iran were always at each others' throats, which, while being awful for citizens of either country, was beneficial to the rest of the area. I don't think we'd have these nuclear worries with Iran if Iraq was still Iran's equal.

So the existence of more threats to Iranian security would not have induced the Iranian government to pursue the development of nuclear weapons? How does that work?

 

[Zelig]

Why should I care if Saddam left Iraq or not?

Well outside of my immediate circle of acquaintances, I care about a random Iraqi citizen roughly as much as I care about a random Canadian citizen.

 

[Patroklos]

The war has saved at least a million Iraqi lives and despite all the difficulties Iraq is a functioning democracy with three particular disparate major constituencies represented within the government which is unheard of anywhere else in the world.

They suffer from terrorism still but in reality their murder rate including this is unremarkable even if the method of the murders that do happen are disturbing and news catching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

We also know that the Iraqi death toll in right around 130K over ten years. That's if we count the last two and also if we count every violent death in Iraq regardless of cause.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/IraqiDeaths.aspx

This is unprecedentedly low relative to any similarly scaled conflict in living memory and quite a bit beyond. Individual tragedies all, but it you are going to qualify metrics beyond "all war is bad" death and destruction is not going to do it.

The real tragedy is not how Iraq turned out, but rather how much better we could have done. I say that with the full knowledge that I am a Monday morning quarterback, and qualify my statement with my single greatest criticism which is the disbanding of the Iraqi Army which would have single handedly avoided the vast majority of the death and violence that did happen. A lost opportunity.

 

[FriendlyFire]

We may not know if it was 'worth it' or not for decades.
Or what may have occurred if the war hadnt occurred when it did. It may have been inevitable one way or another with Saddam Hussein still leading Iraq.

Or the US could have planted the seeds for the next war(s).
57 Dead in one day dose not bode well, If Iraq is still hemorrhaging 10,000 dead per year cant say I rate the odds very high.

 

[Patroklos]

Your perception is far from reality. They are averaging something like 150 deaths a month from all reported violent causes. I personally feel they are probably missing things like honor killing and the like, but ever Middle East country for the most part suffers from that.

Here is July 2011 for an example

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/IraqiDeaths.aspx

There murder rate is better than some European countries.

 

[warpus]

No. Iraq isnt Syria right now.

Iraq was never going to be a garden spot regardless; but it does have a democratically elected government that is indeed functioning. And while it may not be a great place to live just yet, its neither 'chaos' or 'anarchy' now as it was for much of the last decade.

Also, many people that the US government had an actual policy of regime change in Iraq (to get rid of Saddam) since the Clinton era when Bill signed the Iragi Liberation Act in 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Which is why I think this war was going to take place sooner or later regardless. Saddam had to go and this was our chance to do it so we took it.

I don't know man, it's seems like the nation building that was going on ended up in plenty of chaos. It's no Syria, but it's no Pennsylvania either.

It's almost as if there was no clear plan for rebuilding the country after the war... "Shoot first, ask questions later", etc. Not really a good way to go about it.

We'll see how the situation in the country unfolds over the next decade.

 

[Ajidica]

The war has saved at least a million Iraqi lives and despite all the difficulties Iraq is a functioning democracy with three particular disparate major constituencies represented within the government which is unheard of anywhere else in the world.

We could have saved a lot more lives if we hadn't included vaccines and parts needed to repair the water treatment facilities in the sanctions.

 

[Patroklos]

We did exclude them, Sadam sold them for money to build palaces and and buy not so black market munitions and military gear from Russia and China and others.

Look up the oil for food program.

There was literally nothing we could do for those people besides lifting the sanctions entirely or what we did do which was invade and distribute that medicine/fix the swear system/whatever else ourselves.