Iraq War – 20 Years Later – Worth It?

Iraq War – 20 Years Later – Worth It?

Iraq War – 20 Years Later – Worth It?

This week marks the twentieth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. As usual, the navel gazing elites have begun their dissection of whether or not the war was justified. If only, if only, if only, it were as simple as scribbling notes. If only it were as easy as a tabletop exercise at a war college. Writers like Brett Stephens and Gerard Baker sit in comfortable surroundings and cogitate on whether their positions from twenty years ago were correct. How privileged they are. How banal their arguments.

I remember the pro and con arguments about going into Iraq. We were in Afghanistan already. Our reasons for that war were clear. Afghanistan provided training grounds for Al Qaeda in and around Kandahar and Kabul. We need to end the training grounds/safe havens. Our intelligence agencies believed that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which could be used on his citizens or neighbors or sold and used to destabilize other parts of the world. We had gone into Afghanistan and Iraq with the world at our sides. Coalition something, something. Twenty years later, they are taking a look back at their decisions.

Remember that prior to the Iraq invasion Saddam Hussein was seen as a despot and a bully to the nations in his region. Numerous United Nations resolutions had been passed. The Western world saw Saddam as a threat to peace and stability. The “Coalition of the Willing” engaged.

THE CONS

Gerard Baker, in the Wall Street Journal, finds it hard to defend his support:

Much worse is the damage the war did to the fabric of American democracy. The American people were terrified by their government into war, with the bogus menace of nuclear weapons wielded by a man with bogus connections to the 9/11 terrorists. They were promised a war that would be a cakewalk followed by an occupation in which their sons and daughters would be greeted with sweets and flowers.
This cloud castle of fictions did incalculable damage to the bonds of trust between Americans and their leaders.
There is a direct line between the deceptions worked on the American people about the war and the angry popular disillusionment with the performance of American political leaders that led the rise of Donald Trump and for that matter the deep reluctance many Americans feel about support for Ukraine.
Worse still is that there has been no accountability for the architects of the debacle. The political leaders have mostly moved on, but with Olympic-level chutzpah, many of the so-called intellectuals who advocated it are still out there, lecturing the American people that it’s treasonous to oppose immersing America into other conflicts.
Is there a word for the complete lack of self-awareness you need to possess to denounce Donald Trump and the new conservative populism even as you are principally responsible for the disasters that ignited it?
A better course for those of us who supported that terrible misadventure is to admit our shameful error or, failing that, take an oath of respectful silence.

I disagree. I don’t remember being terrified by the stories the government told. I do remember that VP Dick Cheney trumpeted that our military would be greeted as liberators. Mostly, I remember the hash made out of Iraq by Paul Bremer, the Coalition Provisional Authority, who disbanded the police and military. Big Mistake.

THE PROS

Writer Brett Stephens does not regret his support for the Iraq War:

Ultimately, the choice for the United States and our allies in early 2003 wasn’t invasion or containment. It was invasion or, over time, the quasi-rehabilitation of Hussein’s Iraq. This was a Hussein that, as the Duelfer report on Iraq’s W.M.D. noted in 2004, “wanted to recreate Iraq’s W.M.D. capability — which was essentially destroyed after 1991 — after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized.”
Finally, there is the argument that George W. Bush and his administration lied about the intelligence. I think they sincerely believed the (mis)judgments of the C.I.A., which, as the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report concluded, sincerely believed in them itself. “The intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,” the report noted. But it “was what they believed.” The consequences of this confusion are dangerous.
Critics of the war now make the point that the intelligence fiasco wrecked America’s credibility. It’s true. But no less damaging was the never-ending “Bush lied” charge that, 10 years later, morphed into the “Obama lied” charge when it came to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria or the suggestion that President Biden is lying about last year’s sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline. One conspiracy theory tends to beget another, in ways that are destructive to all sides.

Readers will want to know whether, knowing what I know now, I would still have supported the decision to invade. Not for the reasons given at the time. Not in the way we did it. But on the baseline question of whether Iraq, the Middle East and the world are better off for having gotten rid of a dangerous tyrant, my answer remains yes.

AND TUCKER CARLSON

Tucker regrets:

You have got to be kidding me?

MY TAKE

Every single thing about the administration of the Iraq War was bad. Most of the Pentagon, the Generals, the State Department, Paul Bremer. The war was right. In the end. The men and women who deployed did the right things for the right reasons (Abu Ghraib was an anomaly). They gave everything they had, literally.

My friend Bernie lost her son, Lance Corporal William C. Koprince, Jr., on his third deployment at the age of 24, in 2006.

The Iraqi people are better off for our having been there. The men and women who deployed are the best of us. Just like those at Abbey Gate at HKIA. They do the right things and make the world a better place. They deserve better leadership.

Featured Image: Used with the gracious permission of Bernice W. Koprince

Written by

19 Comments
  • Liz says:

    Think the worst thing that came out of the Iraq war was the expansion of NATO.
    Very short sighted political effort to expand the “coalition” and the consequences were very easy to foresee.
    We are not safer, not by a long shot.

    Honestly, we had been in the Gulf for so long flying test patterns over Iraq, I did not believe we would really invade until it happened. Most of the US had no idea, so here is a brief overview from a very old article, entitled “The Long Deployment” (written before 911, at which point we’d been there for 10 years):
    https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0700deploy/

  • Liz says:

    That is a very handsome young man in the photo. Tragic beyond words.

  • Hate_me says:

    Curveball should die, with shame.

    Beyond that, the war had noble intent but could have been fought better. I personally witnessed Kurds moving back into their hometowns after being displaced by Saddam. I also saw that money dry up and they were left with half-built houses they couldn’t afford to finish.

    Is the Middle East better for the overthrow of Saddam, yes. Is the region better for the vacuum that created… I’m inclined to say no, but it could have been. Regardless of whether or not we should have fought the war, we fought that war poorly.

    That doesn’t detract from the sacrifices our brothers and sisters made. They served their nation and gave everything anyone could ever ask of them.

  • Cameron says:

    In my opinion (Legal disclaimer). there were several problems in how this was handled.

    1. A formal declaration of war should have been voted on.
    2. We as a nation should have committed 100% to victory. NOT nation building, but complete victory.
    3. We should have put the oil fields to use as payment for our services.

    But as Hate_me rightly pointed out, none of this takes away from the sacrifices our people made.

  • Liz says:

    I’ve heard folks say there should have been a declaration of war for Iraq, and never really understood that.
    There hasn’t been a war authorization since WWII, but that does not mean Congress doesn’t have to approve the authorization to use military force. That AUF procedure was sullied under Clinton (he ignored the rule of the House against it, though later the House approved funding which was considered a de facto authorization in weezlelze). Declaration of war pretty much offers up all the country’s resources at the discretion of the president. At least the AUF has a two year reevaluation time in spirit/theory. It’s a small check/balance but far more than a war authorization. Look at the language of the last war authorization and imagine offering this power to Biden:

    JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

    Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
    Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.[9]

    • GWB says:

      a de facto authorization in weezlelze
      Did you mean “weaseleze”?

      And, yes, there should have been an actual declaration of war. The [redacted] in Congress would never do it because they want nothing quite so much as to evade actual responsibility for anything.

      And, of course, the previous Bush admin had poisoned the well by not finishing the job the first time.

      • Liz says:

        Yes! Weaseleze. 🙂
        I tend to give the first Bush a pass because I do not believe he would have kept our forces in the ME indefinitely. He was brilliant at foreign policy and Clinton was terrible at it. Once Clinton was elected he went around collecting military contracts throughout the ME along with the corresponding commitments and that was that. 911 became a foregone conclusion.

        • GWB says:

          Oof. I would never say the elder Bush was “brilliant” at foreign policy. He was a New World Order Progressive and believed all the dumb stuff Foggy Bottom believes. The fact it “worked” just meant the Cold War was still stifling a return to normalcy in foreign policy. But all the things he did were evidence of Foggy Bottom thinking that basically said the world changed forever after WW2 and the old ways of national interest were bygones. It’s a prime reason we got 9/11 (and all of the carp afterward).

          Also, that elder Bush was the one who listened to Powell when he said we should stop and let a declared enemy retreat to his home base and not trouble him anymore (while also imposing victory conditions which the enemy would subvert for 10 years). Not “brilliant” in my estimation.

          • Liz says:

            He was able to get a mandate from the Middle East, and essentially the entire world for military action against Saddam. And we made money in that war. I don’t blame him for not invading Iraq because the mandate did not authorize it, and it would have angered the countries that backed us. Hindsight is 20/20, there was no foreseeing we’d still be protecting “no fly zones” for the next decade (and, as I’ve mentioned, I don’t believe Bush senior would have kept us there).
            At any rate, Bush senior versus Clinton was the only time I participated in campaigning for anyone…and it was also the first election I was old enough to vote in. No telling what might have been, and it is possible (likely) I’m just nostalgic for a time when I had more faith in this country.

          • Liz says:

            He was able to get a mandate from the Middle East, and essentially the entire world for military action against Saddam. And we made money in that war. I don’t blame him for not invading Iraq because the mandate did not authorize it, and it would have angered the countries that backed us. Hindsight is 20/20, there was no foreseeing we’d still be protecting “no fly zones” for the next decade (and, as I’ve mentioned, I don’t believe Bush senior would have kept us there). At any rate, Bush senior versus Clinton was the only time I participated in campaigning for anyone…and it was also the first election I was old enough to vote in. No telling what might have been, and it is possible (likely) I’m just nostalgic for a time when I had more faith in this country.

  • Liz says:

    I’ve heard folks say there should have been a declaration of war for Iraq, and never really understood that.
    There hasn’t been a war authorization since WWII, but that does not mean Congress doesn’t have to approve the authorization to use military force. That AUMF procedure was sullied under Clinton (he ignored the rule of the House against it, though later the House approved funding which was considered a de facto authorization in weezlelze). Declaration of war pretty much offers up all the country’s resources at the discretion of the president. At least the AUF has a two year reevaluation time in spirit/theory. It’s a small check/balance but far more than a war authorization. Look at the language of the last war authorization and imagine offering this power to Biden:

    JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

    Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
    Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.[9]

  • Liz says:

    Another point about the war declaration business…some folks shrug at the above carte blanche of the war declaration and say something like, “Well, we’d never use it” essentially giving no ability to use force at all without the declaration. That is not true, and very short sighted thinking. I don’t understand how anyone who has lived through the draconian last 2 years could come to that conclusion. Hypothetically, if a dirty bomb was smuggled in the southern border with an isotope that resolved to Iran and took out a major city, what would happen? (rhetorical)
    I don’t want to give any individual carte blanche in the age of nukes.

  • Joe R. says:

    I second the “My Take” part, with the addition of:

    We had to go to war with Iraq, not because we are beholden to the POS group of the rest of the world called the UN asked us to (and they did), but because we said we would.

    • Liz says:

      Agree with this. The last was a mistake.
      Bush junior actually ran a campaign to get our troops out of the Middle East (ironically).
      That is how he got my vote. Then 911 happened and we were kinda stuck.

  • GWB says:

    Yes, we should have gone to war in Iraq. Aside from the WMD issue (which is not as clearly bogus as some would have you believe), there was the issue of ongoing provocations from the armistice signed at the end of Gulf War I, and the attempted assassination of a former President (an acknowledged act of war).

    The problem was not our going to war there, but our then shifting into a nation-building exercise. If we had simply broken their stuff and dug out Saddam and strung him up, then left, it wouldn’t have been a bad thing. But Powell’s “Pottery Barn Doctrine” ruled the day and we got sucked into something that no military should ever do: trying to change a country. (It was the fruit of the idiotic idea that “people everywhere just want to be free.” No, most of them have a great many other things that are more important to them – especially their tribe.)

    I advocated from the beginning to invade Iraq, then turn east and tell Iran “We’re coming through, and if you try to impede us we’ll break you, too.” Then we march through to Afghanistan and turn it to rubble (also not stopping to build a nation), and straight into Pakistan (since it was supporting terrorism, too), to stop at the border of Kashmir. Then we kick the dust off our boots and load up our ships and come home.
    The only concession I would make to staying around would be building a base in the north of Iraq – totally autonomous of the local gov’t/populace. It’s ours by right of conquer, and it’s sovereign US territory until we decide to return it. And possibly one in Afghanistan or Pakistan. It would not in any way interfere in local politics, except when it was threatened or our interests were directly threatened – and it would never be used to “nation build”.

  • NOYB says:

    As someone who spent three deployments in Iraq (2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2008-2009), I don’t think it was worth it at all.
    But hey, at least the Cheneys and others made huge bank off it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead