The Iraq War - 20 Years Ago This Sunday.

[mongers]

20 years ago this Sunday saw the start of the Iraq war, with the start of the air campaign, followed a few days later by the Anglo-American invasion.

What would the world now look like if it hadn't have happened?

What do you think?

Quite possibly 'we' might not be 'here', as the conflict seems to have birthed that great institution, Languish. 

[Josquius]

Blair remains remembered as one of the great all time PMs.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Afghanistan receives undivided focus longer, possibly leaving to better resultaten. But then again: it's Afghanistan.

No IS?
Less US money wasted, less western prestige wasted.
No Arab spring/winter?
No immigrant crisis, smaller Islam problem in Europe.


Alternatively something else went to he'll in a handbasket.

Take you pick.

[chipwich]

This is also approximately the 20th anniversary of Languish.

[The Brain]

Is Iraq still a banned topic on EUOT?

[garbon]

This is also approximately the 20th anniversary of Languish.

Not quite. It existed ahead of the Iraq War.

[Sheilbh]

20 years ago this Sunday saw the start of the Iraq war, with the start of the air campaign, followed a few days later by the Anglo-American invasion.

What would the world now look like if it hadn't have happened?

What do you think?

It's really tough to say. Obviously many thousands of Iraqis, Americans, Brits etc who were killed in the war and occupation would not be dead.

I think it is unlikely that you would have had IS as my understanding is that a lot of what became IS basically came out of the Sunni, de-Ba'athified insurgency.

Having said that I think the Arab Spring would still have happened. It would have happened in Iraq and I suspect in a Saddam Hussein led Ba'ath regime Iraq would suffer a fate somewhere between Libya and Syria. But who knows it's entirely impossible to guess. Relatedly I think the winner of the Iraq war was Iran - but I'm not sure what their position would look like without it.

I think it has undermined quite seriously our willingness and perhaps Western willingness to intervene because all interventions are perceived as or present the risk of a new Iraq. I think that's fundamentally behind parliament voting against intervening in Syria in 2014. I think this is probably unfortunate because not all interventions are an invasion and I think we have probably avoided opportunities for intervening more along the Kosovo line for fear of another Iraq.

From a British perspective I think Iraq with the expenses scandal absolutely destroyed public trust and esteem in our politicians and political institutions. I also think, despite what Alastair Campbell says, the presentation of intelligence that was wrong also seriously undermined trust in the British state. I think the state, with Salisbury, Ukraine, covid is winning back trust as reliable truth-telling set of institutions; I think the damage to politics hasn't shifted.

I don't think it's the only factor, but I think Iraq and the sense (I think, technically, incorrect) that we were lied to by our leaders is part of Britain's recent table-flipping, throw the bums out, anti-establishment votes: the collapse of New Labour and rise of the SNP, Corbyn and Brexit. I think something similar happened in the US and without Iraq I'm not sure you get either Obama or Trump.

And I think one other big impact from Iraq is on China. From what I've read the Chinese view is absolutely that the US was in the war to secure energy supply. I think it's immediately in the aftermath of Iraq that Hu Jintao and the Chinese leadership start talking about the "Malacca dilemma" and that a naval/oceanic power could block China's energy supply from the Middle East very easily. I think Iraq really sharpens their feeling of vulnerability on that point and sense that the Americans/some Western powers are absolutely willing to use force over energy supply no matter what international and domestic opposition they face. That sparks a tightening relationship with Russia and also the decision to focus on securing Chinese controlled, continental supply routes that are not susceptible to blockade which I think becomes Belt and Road. And was, perhaps, the first step on decoupling.

[The Larch]

Regarding the domestic impact of the Iraq War over here in Spain everything goes through the 2004 bombings and their effect on the national elections held afterwards. With no Iraq War and thus no bombings, the political climate of the day would not have been as incredibly tense as it was back then, which could have allowed PP to retain the national government through 2004 and beyond, rather than allowing PSOE to recapture it through Zapatero, and without the Zapatero governments of 2004-2011 who the hell knows where we'd be right now. Most surely the situation in Catalonia would not be as it is today, for instance.

[Tamas]

I guess we (as in, the West) were bound to interact with the open and below-surface challenges and pressures of the Muslim world one way or the other.

Obviously, the "pro-active" approach chosen by the USA has turned out to be a disaster, so I'd say the optimal approach was not chosen, but I also don't think we can confidently say we would not have ended up largely at the same place, possibly worse.

e.g. I think Saddam or his heir being Arab Spring-ed is a good point, and the US going in there with Iran and/or Russia possibly beating them to it might have ended up a far worse scenario. Or far better. We will never know.

[Zanza]

Definitely the right decision by Schröder and Fischer not to participate back then.

[Zanza]

less western prestige wasted.

Also credibility.

[Jacob]

Thought it was the wrong war then. Haven't changed my opinion, though I am relatively understanding of those who thought differently.

[Habbaku]

I would be very curious to hear if there are any folks that have changed their opinion from anti- to pro- or from pro- to really-pro-. 

I thought it was the right call at the time and took a few years to realize what a horror show it was/still is.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The crux of the arguments I remember having back at the early eras of the migration from EUOT were mostly around the handling of the insurgency more than whether or not the invasion was a good idea. My position was always that once we completely erased Iraq's government we had a moral responsibility, and at least some relevant national security interest, in trying to help stabilize Iraq. The point during the '04 Kerry-Bush contest that we should just withdraw (which was not Kerry's position, but was the position of some on the various forums) to me was a serious immorality, a civilized country doesn't turn another country into a failed state and then just wash their hands of it acting as if it's not their problem.

While I think we executed the early occupation badly and that set us up for many of the failures, I largely agree with going after Saddam. He had been in almost continuous breach of his obligations to be an open book about any potential stores or manufacture of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Why he chose to do that when he actually didn't have any, is anyone's guess. Maybe he thought the ambiguity made it less likely the U.S. or Iran would invade / attack him. I don't know. But the way both North Korea and Iran are going, IMO shows why if you have really bad actor countries building out weapons like this, you don't really give them benefit of the doubt when they refuse to comply with inspection regimes.

[Syt]

Hitler famously said about the USSR, "all we've got to do is kick the door in and the whole edifice will come crumbling down."

This was quite true for Iraq 2003 (more so than the Soviet Union at any rate ), but I feel the was a quite tragic misjudgment of what would happen after and an underestimation of resources and commitment required for nation building in the country.