50 Things I hate about the Iraq War

[recycle]

1. It diverted attention, troops, and resources from the Afghanistan War. We should have gone into Afghanistan with 350,000 troops, sealed the border, put a tag and a barcode on everything bigger than a mouse, found the bad guys, strung them up, and then gotten out. Instead, we are still there, 8 years later.

2. The Iraq war began on false principles. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And even if there had been weapons of mass destruction, we should not have invaded. See #3.

3. The whole “smoking gun” idea was wrong. President Bush famously said, “We can’t wait for a ‘smoking gun’ in the form of a mushroom cloud.” In fact, as a democracy, we are obliged to wait for the smoking gun, before we violently engage others. Pre-emptive war is as untenable a notion post-9/11 as it was before. Remember, for decades we faced nuclear weapons pointed at us, from the Soviet Union, without flinching. Remember General Leslie Groves and his idea of foreign policy? Not a good idea, either before or after 9/11. Unfortunately it was enacted in the wake of the WTC attacks.

4. Democracies must have the moral high ground, or at least think they do, among a majority of the constituent citizens and voters. Else support for foreign adventures will be lagging. By attacking another country before they attacked us, we lost the moral high ground.

5. All the hidden overseas prisons where we can torture people “out of sight, out of mind”.

6. Abu Ghraib. A terrorist recruiter’s dream.

7. Related to # 6, another massive PR blunder was during the pulling down of Saddam Hussein’s statue. An American soldier first climbed up and put an American flag over Saddam’s face. I watched this scene unfold on television, which continued as the video cut to scenes of Arab men weeping, who were watching the fall of Baghdad on televisions in Cairo and Damascus. I remember thinking, “Another ten thousand guys just joined El Qaida.” Really dumb thing to do.

8. It is embarrassing, how fast we forgot the lesson of Vietnam. Don’t get quickly caught in costly foreign adventures. Then, if you must go in, go in quickly, with overwhelming force, and then leave. General Schwarzkopf, where were you in 2003, when we needed you?

9. Speaking of old warhorses, it made General Colin Powell look like a patsy, going up to the United Nations and giving his speech about Nigerian yellowcake.

10. It violated the principle of operating within the international system. Our allies were reluctantly dragged in, and then got out as soon as they could. President George W. Bush said, “We are willing to go it alone.” Really dumb thing to say.

11. We love the troops, and support them. They are our brothers, our sisters, our sons, our girlfriends, our fathers, our uncles, our neighbors, our school buddies. But they don’t belong there. They belong somewhere else.

12. Speaking of #11, of belonging somewhere else – when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, and drowned New Orleans, the Louisiana National Guard was over in Iraq, looking for weapons of mass destruction.

13. It made our U.S. Congress look like a bunch of silly idiots (not that they needed much help), lining up and making speeches about how we needed to invade Iraq, and show them who the boss was. Later, when things turned south, some (e.g. John Kerry) recanted their support, and Bush said that they “flip-flopped”; i.e. they were weak and vacillating. And the soap opera played on…

14. It squandered whatever reservoir of good will we had in the international community, post-9/11.

15. It advanced the erroneous notion that somehow fighting is preferable to talking. Children in sandboxes and playgrounds everywhere are watching us.

16. It created an unlikely martyr of Saddam Hussein, who had previously been one of the most odious and perfidious of men. Now his portrait hangs in honor next to Nasser and Khomeini.

17. Dick Cheney’s “They will welcome us with open arms.” Earth to Dick: read your history books. It usually doesn’t work that way. If China invades the U.S. tomorrow, most of us won’t welcome them with open arms.

18. If someone else invades us, and we resist, we are patriots. If we invade someone else, and they resist, they are terrorists. Got it?

19. Troops in Iraq - Total 49,700 U.S. troops as of August 23, 2010.

20. U.S. Troop Casualties - 4,420 US troops.

21. US Troops Wounded - 31,926, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries.

22. US Troops returning with Serious Mental Health Problems - 30% estimated

23. Between 100,000 and 1 million dead Iraqi civilians, depending on who is counting.

24. Cost of war: $900 billion dollars.

25. I could only think of 24 things. But I was gunning for fifty because I woke up in a bad mood this morning and wanted to grouse.

Home

[Clodhopper]

Actually, I think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. I am in a minority of about one as far as I can tell. But dictators who torture at their whim are fair game as far as I am concerned.

What was a complete, stupid, and really inexcusable f**k up was the idea that the military defeat of Saddam Hussein was the end of the story rather than the start. What I remember was US companies lining up licking their chops at the (apparently) open markets to exploit, and the pictures of US soldiers giggling at the mistake of firing some hand held ordnance at a building an old lady had just gone into. There was no conception of having to give the people the chance of a better future when all they knew was how to live under a dictator.

When we beat Nazi Germany we were there for a few decades, and taught the German people how to be democratic and how to run a successful economy. And your forefathers had the wisdom to offer the Marshall Plan, which saved Europe as much as the Allied fightback did. What was offered to Iraq? Corporate greed.

[koan]

Invasion for the purpose of regime change is a war crime. If you think the Iraq war "was a good thing" you support war crimes.

[Clodhopper]

So no matter how bad the regime is we shrug and do nothing? By your argument the Allies had no right to invade Germany in 1944/45. Push them back to their borders, yes. Cross the border, no. Is that your opinion?

[koan]

It's not rightly a matter of my opinion, it's a matter of international law. You see, after a while, a few governments got together and made up a few guidelines.

[koan]

also, I'm no expert on WWII but didn't Germany start the invasion of other countries first?

[Clodhopper]

I'd like to see a link to the law that says regime change is illegal. It's not that I doubt your word, but the issue seems to be a matter of debate, not certainty. And I can't find anything except various press articles having a go at Blair (ie, politics, not law). Even Article VII of the UN Charter only outlines procedures and doesn't mention regime change: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Agression (maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?)

Yes Germany under Hitler invaded other countries. So did Iraq under Saddam. But the Western Allies could have made peace with Germany before invading Germany (the Nazi leadership had convinced itself that the Western Allies would make peace with them rather than let the USSR take over much of Germany); and the Allies invaded Germany with the specific aim of changing the regime. By your argument, every soldier and country who took part in that invasion is guilty of a war crime. Which might come as a bit of a shock to a lot of veterans.

I think the true failure involving Iraq was the total lack of a coherent follow up to the change of regime. Incredibly stupid.

(I am bunged up with cold and feeling rotten, so apologies if I'm just gibbering)

[koan]

Regime change is a war of aggression.

[recycle]

Clodhopper;1335827 wrote: Actually, I think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. I am in a minority of about one as far as I can tell. But dictators who torture at their whim are fair game as far as I am concerned.




Dear Clodhopper,

I was no fan of Mr. Hussein, I can assure you. Yes, he was a dictator who tortured on whim, as well as other crimes.

But to invade on those grounds means we should have also done the same to Duvalier (Haiti), Amin (Uganda), Milosevec (Serbia), and a whole host of others. We did not, because to do so is politically untenable for a democracy. It is the same reason we don't invade Cuba and North Korea today.

One country doesn't just pro-actively invade another country because they don't like the leadership. Except for us, with George W. Bush, post WTC attacks. Somehow he and the U.S. Congress thought the metric had changed. It had not.

[Scrat]

The objective of the invasion of Germany in WWII was the complete destruction of the Nazi regime and the German government in power at the time. This was the one thing all of the allies agreed upon. In the book The Fall Of Berlin by Vasili I Chuikov he goes into the last days of the German Reich and the attempts by Krebs and others to make a deal with the Russians.

The invasion of Iraq was to say the least simply stupid. We allow even today murderous dictators to stay in power if they're obedient and we have in the past, so long as they remained obedient. Saddam was not obedient and he was a leader of a powerful nation that became a threat to us. It is also a fact that he kept the country stable by any means necessary, look what we got when he was removed. What we have now is more of a problem than he ever was. We have done more damage to the ME than he ever could have.

What I hate most about the war was the incompetence. It is staggering and fingers can be pointed at all involved and it continues to this day. Half the Iraqi population doesn't have clean running water or reliable electricity, the politics of the country is little better than the Chicago mob of the 1920s.

The second thing I hate most is the the Great Game for central Asian resources which both our conflicts are simply a phase. America isn't going to win it, not in this century, not in this millennium yet we still don't seem to get it. The major governments of CA are wise to the game and know that their best bet lies to the east. That'll never change.

[recycle]

Scrat;1336127 wrote:

The second thing I hate most is the the Great Game for central Asian resources which both our conflicts are simply a phase. America isn't going to win it, not in this century, not in this millennium yet we still don't seem to get it. The major governments of CA are wise to the game and know that their best bet lies to the east. That'll never change.


I agree. It's a suckers game; the payoff is never going to equal the bet. The Iraq invasion reminded me of nothing so much as Custer galloping off after Sitting Bull at Little Big Horn. The only question was how badly he was going to be mauled before it was all over.

[Clodhopper]

The final section of the article Koan posted is as follows:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court lists the crime of aggression as one of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

However, Article 5.2 of the Rome Statute states that "The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations."[19] The Assembly of States Parties of the ICC adopted such a definition at a review conference in May 2010.[20]

A United Nations factsheet on the ICC states:

What about aggression? Isn't it in the Statute?

Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression.


So it would seem from this that a definition of aggression and the circumstances in which this applies have only just been decided upon. That at the time of the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime there might have been ideas and intentions, but certainly no useful law.

And - this is just my opinion - there should be circumstances whereby one country or a coalition of countries can act to remove a government which terribly abuses its own people.

This is an evolving area of international relations and law. I think we should have a responsibility to intervene when a government gets too horrible. I appreciate this is not currently the case.

I also know that most people seem to think that no matter what a government does to its people we should not intervene militarily. But to me it seems that to abandon a people like that is a terrible thing, because once a a population is oppressed to a certain level, it seems impossible for them to get out of it unless they have outside military help.

I have chuntered about the incompetence before. No need to repeat. But there should certainly be a legal responsibility on the intervening states to rebuild after the intervention.

[recycle]

Clodhopper;1336150 wrote: The And - this is just my opinion - there should be circumstances whereby one country or a coalition of countries can act to remove a government which terribly abuses its own people.

This is an evolving area of international relations and law. I think we should have a responsibility to intervene when a government gets too horrible. I appreciate this is not currently the case.


I agree. There is a certain point where the onlooking world itself looks bad when it allows things to deteriorate within an area technically called a "country" but with either no functioning state apparatus or one which is blatantly criminal.

In recent memory I can recall both the Rwandan massacre of 1994 (more than 500,000 were killed) and the Serbian ethnic cleansing. I think there's a certain point where the international community should look at each other and say, "You know, we really aren't much of a community at all if we don't do something." And doing something should include the use of force.

How much can you really enjoy going to the theater, or watch the football game on the telly, knowing that elsewhere tens of thousands of innocents are being slaughtered by some madmen? So I appreciate your concern.

But none of this seems to have been met in the Iraq case. The international community was not pushing for intervention. Bush said, "We are willing to go it alone"; a clear signal that this was unilateral. The only reason he got a brief "fig leaf" of international support was the sympathy for our losses in the WTC attacks. But that support ran out quickly, and deservedly so: as far as I know there are currently no other troops in Iraq besides U.S.

I think if we'd gone in with overwhelming force in Afghanistan, and cleaned out the scum, and then left, it would have sent a good message to Saddam and his ilk. Don't mess with us. Instead, we look like dithering idiots, unable to defeat a foe (Taliban) much less than our match militarily, and this emboldens all those who would love to foment violence themselves.

And the true cost to our nation of the Iraq invasion and occupation, in money, materiel, and human lives, is nearly incalculable. After the Vietnam experience I thought we'd never be so dumb as to repeat such a reckless foriegn adventure. I was wrong. And that's another thing I hate about the Iraq war. I hate being wrong.

[Clodhopper]

But none of this seems to have been met in the Iraq case. The international community was not pushing for intervention. Bush said, "We are willing to go it alone"; a clear signal that this was unilateral. The only reason he got a brief "fig leaf" of international support was the sympathy for our losses in the WTC attacks. But that support ran out quickly, and deservedly so: as far as I know there are currently no other troops in Iraq besides U.S.


The last of ours left in June this year, I think, and we were the last. But hammering the Taliban in Afganistan and then leaving would not have stopped Saddam gassing the Kurds or massacring the Marsh Arabs or torturing anyone he or his sons felt like. And hasmmering the Taliban in Afganistan is only the start - move out and the Taliban move back in, terrorising villages, killing teachers and visible women in the name of God. Helping the Afgan security forces get set up is one thing, but stopping them becoming a solution as bad as the problem will take a generation: The Afgan army needs to learn to stay out of politics and that it it is there to protect all the people. It could be done with the right training and back-up, but it is a long term proposition. 20 years or more.

As for the governments of both Iraq and Afganistan - they need help. Democracy is not natural, it needs to be taught. Bureaucracy without bribes...all sorts of things people there take for granted because they have known nothing different. Police not being a way of running a protection racket on your patch, etc, etc.