Iraq war - Do you still agree with it?

Original post by Solarstorm

2 Questions here:

1. Do you still agree with the Iraq war, if you ever did? (If you never did you can still comment)

2. Do you believe the Iraq war was a huge disaster or has there been some success despite the massive loss of lifes?

I have mixed feelings about this. I remember being welcomed as liberator when we went into Basra, The air was like electricity with the people happy that we had come to liberate them from Saddam. There was so much hope for the future.

There was one defining moment in Iraq that turned it from a resounding military success and a force for god to a nightmare.

This ****ing idiot sacked the Iraqi Army en masse as well as anybody in a position of authority who was a member of the Ba'ath party.

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

The Army was the one unifying organsisation in Iraq that crossed sectarian boundaries, united Iraqis and gave them pride, and Bremer sacked them, after promising to pay them outstanding wages and didn't and pushed a several thousand armed, unemployed embittered soldiers onto the streets.

This combined with sacking all members of the Ba'ath party who were in positions of authority because they had to be to hold those positions meant that the basic functions failed such as governance.

It's not like they didn't know this was going to be a problem. Eisenhower had the same idea about de Nazifying Germany straight away. Montgomery and Patton told him to shove it as they knew that chaos would rain. Mountbatten kept the Japanese Army in power in SE Asia after their surrender to keep rule of law in place until additional forces could be sent into keep order.

What happened was a window where chaos was created and once that gets hold it's difficult to stop. Part of me blames the Iraqis for acting like that, but I also know that even in the UK a week of no law and order or basic utilities and mob rule would come to our streets.

The the Iranians got involved with their support to Shia groupings.

Do I agree with us going in? Yes. I believed in the cause. The Intelligence was wrong (ish), but in real life that's Intelligence. It's a best guess. Yes it was spun, but there was something wrong with that regime. It had gassed and killed innocent civilians, persecuted minorities and invaded a neighbour. Saddam should've been got rid of after he invaded Kuwait. But that's what happens when you pussy foot around and don't go in hard when the opportunity arises. You just store up bigger problems for the future.

Ther has been a massive loss of life, but I think it's very important to know that it was Iraqi on Iraqi violence that has created most of this loss of life. However, history tells us that when their is internal strife within a nation, sometimes its best to let the blood run free. Only then will a nation be able to come to terms with it and build a peaceful prosperous future.

I found this on the Internet which sums up what the feeling was. Wish I'd been there for the original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKkILSv54OU

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2

User414413

1. No, I haven't supported it since early last year. The security argument was extremely weak, even without hindsight. Sir Richard Dearlove (head of MI6) said "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy", you wouldn't need to do that if your case was strong. The humanitarian argument was also weak, I'd have support toppling Saadam between 88-92 when he was committing all sorts of mass atrocities but by 2004 he hadn't really done any mass killings for about 10 years. Now don't get me wrong, I know the US administration of 01' isn't the same as the one of '89 but a lot of the key players in Iraq war also had prominent positions in 89' (Wolfowitz was ' Under Secretary of Defense for Policy' and Cheney was 'United States Secretary of Defense'). Cheney said this in 1994:

"Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it - eastern Iraq - the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families - it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."

He clearly doesn't care about the humanitarian side of the argument. Saddam should have to pay for his crimes sure but I think humanitarian interventionism is only justified when there's imminent threat to a lot of civilians not based on historical actions.

2. I'm optimistic about the outcome, I don't think it's fair to judge the war based on current situation in Iraq. I think in a couple of decades Iraq will become a stable democracy, the road to democracy isn't easy for anyone, western nations didn't just adopt it and stick with it with no troubles.

Reply 3

WeeGuy

13

Original post by MatureStudent36

This ****ing idiot sacked the Iraqi Army en masse as well as anybody in a position of authority who was a member of the Ba'ath party.

h
The Army was the one unifying organsisation in Iraq that crossed sectarian boundaries, united Iraqis and gave them pride, and Bremer sacked them, after promising to pay them outstanding wages and didn't and pushed a several thousand armed, unemployed embittered soldiers onto the streets.

This combined with sacking all members of the Ba'ath party who were in positions of authority because they had to be to hold those positions meant that the basic functions failed such as governance.

It's not like they didn't know this was going to be a problem. Eisenhower had the same idea about de Nazifying Germany straight away. Montgomery and Patton told him to shove it as they knew that chaos would rain. Mountbatten kept the Japanese Army in power in SE Asia after their surrender to keep rule of law in place until additional forces could be sent into keep order.

What happened was a window where chaos was created and once that gets hold it's difficult to stop. Part of me blames the Iraqis for acting like that, but I also know that even in the UK a week of no law and order or basic utilities and mob rule would come to our streets.

we didnt have an after invasion plan which caused the problems we still see today. i agree that we should never have disbanded the army by doing it caused more blood shed.

though i dont agree we should have invaded in the first place.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4

ImNew

Anybody that ever really supported the Iraq war was a moron or just saying it because they were paid to.

Reply 5

Willbean

11

It isn't our business.

Reply 6

ckingalt

14

Yes I supported the Iraq war. I did not support it because of WMDs. I did not support it because of the plight of the Iraqi People. I did not support it for human rights, nor did I support it for oil. I supported the Iraq war because I was certain that if we could offer democracy to a repressed people that they would embrace it. I believed that an established democracy in the Middle East would ultimately thrive and prosper economically. Other Arab nations would then be enticed to embrace democracy in the pursuit of their own prosperity. The Arab Spring would have occurred years earlier with advocates of freedom waiting to seize control instead of the advocates of religious zealotry we are dealing with today. I thought the Iraq War had the potential to solve the growing conflict between the Middle East and the West.

I was wrong. Middle Easterners in general do not embrace, and therefore do not deserve, freedom. The Iraq war was a huge disaster because it cost dearly in money and lives, and it failed. If you believed the Iraq war would fail from the beginning, then your insight gave you better judgement than I had. If you are glad the Iraq war failed just because you enjoy seeing the U.S. humbled, then your vanity makes you a greater fool than I will ever be.

Reply 7

Trisha<3

Nope as I believe it wasnt started in our nor their best interests. . It was started over potential money making, power etc

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 8

Epos4

I dont agree it was our business nor was it a wise spending of uk defence budget - however it did remove a mass murderer and also a potential threat to the uk, in the climate of mass islamc terrorism, major attacks like 9/11 and the risk saddam would further supply those groups who were targeting the west. So dont shed a tear saddam is out. just preferred the usa to have done it by themselves.

Reply 9

1. It was wrong from the very beginning. It was illegal in terms of international law, Bush and Blair deliberately mislead half of the world. It's been a major crime.

2. 80% disaster, 20% success. Only time can show, but as the death toll has been rising again recently, most probably Iraq is facing another decade or so of insurgency or even civil war.

It could've turned out so well had the US just applied the COIN theories properly, Petraeus style. They had all the tools at hand and then Bush, Rumsfeld and especially Bremer f*cked it up massively.

Reply 10

Original post by Sir Fox

1. It was wrong from the very beginning. It was illegal in terms of international law, Bush and Blair deliberately mislead half of the world. It's been a major crime.

2. 80% disaster, 20% success. Only time can show, but as the death toll has been rising again recently, most probably Iraq is facing another decade or so of insurgency or even civil war.

It could've turned out so well had the US just applied the COIN theories properly, Petraeus style. They had all the tools at hand and then Bush, Rumsfeld and especially Bremer f*cked it up massively.

1) Incorrect. No decision has been made reference to international Law.

2) I agree.

3) Petraues Coin strategy was a copy of the Malaya Handbook. Nothing ground breaking there but not enough troops on the ground and COIN is tricky in Urban environments.. Bremer however was a fool. It was Bremmer who decided to get rid of the Iraqi Army. Bush was a fool for supporting him in it even though his advisors questioned it. He was to loyal to the chod.

Reply 11

dangerman1

Do I agree with it? No because it is a horrible idea to invade a country with the intention of making the lives of those in their better, it doesn't work.

Reply 12

Original post by MatureStudent36

1) Incorrect. No decision has been made reference to international Law.

Just because it has not been brought before any court, doesn't mean international law has not been breached. The United Nations and most legal experts considered it illegal, a war of aggression in violation of Art. 51 of the UN charter.

3) Petraues Coin strategy was a copy of the Malaya Handbook. Nothing ground breaking there but not enough troops on the ground and COIN is tricky in Urban environments.

Sure it was, and the Malaya handbook built on Marcenados theories. Petraeus approach was groundbreaking because while the theories and doctrines necessary for successful COIN had been available for centuries, he was one of the very few in the US Army to actually act on it. Violence spiralled out of control and he came in in 2007 and changed the course.

Reply 13

Original post by Sir Fox

Just because it has not been brought before any court, doesn't mean international law has not been breached. The United Nations and most legal experts considered it illegal, a war of aggression in violation of Art. 51 of the UN charter.

Sure it was, and the Malaya handbook built on Marcenados theories. Petraeus approach was groundbreaking because while the theories and doctrines necessary for successful COIN had been available for centuries, he was one of the very few in the US Army to actually act on it. Violence spiralled out of control and he came in in 2007 and changed the course.

Patreaus was a fool. His protege McChrysal was a bit more switched on about it.

Reply 14

Original post by MatureStudent36

Patreaus was a fool. His protege McChrysal was a bit more switched on about it.

Good to know, all the literature must be lying then. Good to have someone who can't even spell his name to provide sound analysis with loads of sources to back his sophisticated opinion. What would I do without you?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 15

Original post by Sir Fox

Good to know, all the literature must be lying then. Good to have someone who can't even spell his name to provide sound analysis with loads of sources to back his sophisticated opinion. What would I do without you?

Don't trust books written about American generals. They're normally written by brown nosers. Patreaus had an army of them around him.....oh how the mighty have fallen.

Reply 16