The Iraq War - 20 Years Ago This Sunday.

[Iormlund]

Without the invasion autonomous driving would likely be way behind where it is now.

IIRC the US military was looking for a less costly way to run logistics through a hostile area. That led them to fund the DARPA Grand Challenge, which in turn triggered the development of current autonomous driving systems.

[viper37]

They were given a choice between growing fewer poppies+being killed by the Taliban+schools for girls+foreign aid vs. growing more poppies+being killed less by the Taliban+no schools for girls+no foreign aid.

With more troops on the ground, the threat of the Taleban could have been alleviated, and more intelligence gathering would have meant better troop deployment.

At some point, there were only 20 000 US Air force personnel in the country, plus the other contingents from other countries, which were way less, individually.  The bulk of the British and Australian forces were in Iraq supporting that invasion. 

That does not leave enough troops to covert the entire ground.

It's easier to say now than then.

[viper37]

In retrospect, what whas missing is the intelligence to root the Taliban out of Afghanistan and offer a viable alternative to the Afghan people.

If the choice is between anarchy and tribalism, they'll go for tribalism.

Trillions of dollars were wasted on corruption.  By the time the US and other allies shifted their priorities back to Afghanistan it was too late.

It's like stopping chemiotherapty when the tumor is only 10% of what it was.  It's not gonna go away, it's gonna regrow.

I don't know if even a diligent, incorruptible, powerful, knowledgeable, and well funded Afghan leader could have done it...even if such a person existed.

Well, the way I see it now, the US was very committed to the rebuilding effort, until it went to Iraq.

And that invasion led to a loss of political capital from other nations, particularly France and Germany, but other minor countries too.  And that translated with them dragging their feet in Afghanistan because their reasoning went about that way: helping in Afghanistan now is helping the US to free troops for Iraq and we don't want that.

It was very hypocritical of these nations, but I do understand the frustration with the whole Freedom Fries stupidities.

There was a need for a more direct oversight.  A lot of US and international aid was wasted.  There was a lot of corruption, and the international community just let things go, refusing to apply pressure on Kharzai.  With a bigger force there, there would have been a bigger stick.

Rooting out the Talebans, "smoking them out from their caves" would have reduced corruption.  More pressure on Pakistan, not abandoning the search for Bin Laden.  A lot more could have been done.

I don't buy the conspiracy theories of the military-industrial complex, but Cheney and Rumsfeld seemed very intent on going to Iraq and didn't seem to realize the importance on stabilizing Afghanistan first and firemost, prefering to be convinced that Iraq was the danger it wasn't.  GW Bush went along for the ride.

Don't know if it was because of extreme lobbying for extreme incompetence or a bit of both, but in hindsight (it's always easy 20 years later), it's clear it was a mistake, since they had no plans for the aftermath.

Maybe, if they had plan for how they would govern Iraq and transition it to a democracy, insure stability until a functioning govt could take over, maybe it could have worked.

But I can't see how any good strategist would think that toppling the existing government and creating a power vacuum would foster the right conditions for democracy to emerge.  Not nearly enough troops to replace Saddam's army and chase the remnants, barely no civilians to take over governance until transition, totally clueless about the religious rivalries, totally clueless about the various militias in place...

[crazy canuck]

I think in the end not going by Canada, France, Germany and others was a mistake.

While it's quite the hindsight 20/20, more participants could have only helped the post war situation.

The involvement of more nations would not have changed the post war outcome.  Largely because the view that all you need to do is regime change and liberal democracy will quickly and inevitably take hold was wide spread.  The West made similar mistakes with Russia.  No reason to think anyone in Canada, France or Germany would have thought more was needed or, even if they had some thoughts about the topic, the ability to persuade the Americans their post war plan (if we can call it that) was bound to fail.

It is only with hindsight that we now know how deficient the American approach was.

[Barrister]

I think in the end not going by Canada, France, Germany and others was a mistake.

While it's quite the hindsight 20/20, more participants could have only helped the post war situation.

The involvement of more nations would not have changed the post war outcome.  Largely because the view that all you need to do is regime change and liberal democracy will quickly and inevitably take hold was wide spread.  The West made similar mistakes with Russia.  No reason to think anyone in Canada, France or Germany would have thought more was needed or, even if they had some thoughts about the topic, the ability to persuade the Americans their post war plan (if we can call it that) was bound to fail.

It is only with hindsight that we now know how deficient the American approach was.

I've several times seen it put that Canada did far more for the Iraq war effort than did many of the so-called partners.  By Canada taking a major role in Afghanistan in 2003 it freed up far more US troops to be redeployed to Iraq than the more minor involvement of other nations directly involved in Iraq.

[crazy canuck]

I think in the end not going by Canada, France, Germany and others was a mistake.

While it's quite the hindsight 20/20, more participants could have only helped the post war situation.

The involvement of more nations would not have changed the post war outcome.  Largely because the view that all you need to do is regime change and liberal democracy will quickly and inevitably take hold was wide spread.  The West made similar mistakes with Russia.  No reason to think anyone in Canada, France or Germany would have thought more was needed or, even if they had some thoughts about the topic, the ability to persuade the Americans their post war plan (if we can call it that) was bound to fail.

It is only with hindsight that we now know how deficient the American approach was.

I've several times seen it put that Canada did far more for the Iraq war effort than did many of the so-called partners.  By Canada taking a major role in Afghanistan in 2003 it freed up far more US troops to be redeployed to Iraq than the more minor involvement of other nations directly involved in Iraq.

I am not sure Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was a factor in how many US troops were in Iraq.  The fact Canada took on active fighting missions would have freed up US forces for other missions, but those probably took place in Afghanistan. 

[Barrister]

I am not sure Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was a factor in how many US troops were in Iraq.  The fact Canada took on active fighting missions would have freed up US forces for other missions, but those probably took place in Afghanistan. 

This is 20 year old news, so no chance I'm going to find a link on short notice now.

But I definitely recall seeing that analysis.  Canada wasn't a Germany or France and just said "no" to the US invasion of Iraq.  We also said "no", but agreed to a major deployment to Afghanistan that freed up significant numbers of US troops.  There was no significant cooling in Canadian-US relations back in 2003 for precisely this reason, and Canada's Afghanistan deployment at that time was no accident.  Chretien specifically chose to deploy to Afghanistan precisely so we could say "we're against the war - but even if we were in favour we wouldn't be able to help because of Afghanistan".

[mongers]

People were warning at the time about the stupidity of formally dissolving the Iraqi army instead of co-opting elements of it to help keep control in the immediate aftermath of war.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was a factor in how many US troops were in Iraq.  The fact Canada took on active fighting missions would have freed up US forces for other missions, but those probably took place in Afghanistan. 

This is 20 year old news, so no chance I'm going to find a link on short notice now.

But I definitely recall seeing that analysis.  Canada wasn't a Germany or France and just said "no" to the US invasion of Iraq.  We also said "no", but agreed to a major deployment to Afghanistan that freed up significant numbers of US troops.  There was no significant cooling in Canadian-US relations back in 2003 for precisely this reason, and Canada's Afghanistan deployment at that time was no accident.  Chretien specifically chose to deploy to Afghanistan precisely so we could say "we're against the war - but even if we were in favour we wouldn't be able to help because of Afghanistan".

There is no disagreement that Canada agreed early to military involvement in Afghanistan.   One of the stories you might remember is that the picture in the media of the first Taliban prisoner taken was actually a picture of Canadian special forces - but at the time was mistaken for US forces.

What I am not so sure about is the claim that the Canadian involvement freed up US forces for deployment in Iraq.

[crazy canuck]

People were warning at the time about the stupidity of formally dissolving the Iraqi army instead of co-opting elements of it to help keep control in the immediate aftermath of war.

My memory of that is fuzzy, was that at the time, or later?

[Valmy]

To my memory every time we did practically anything in the Iraq War there would be a chorus of voices saying that was a stupid thing to do.

There were a few moments when there was a wait and see attitude like the moment the Hussein regime collapsed and there were the parties in the streets with the statues being ripped down and all that...and then like the next day we got criticism for failing to establish order to Bagdad and you had the mass looting.

The next time was when we had the first election and people were praising us for establishing order for a bit. Of course that was kind of wrapped up in criticism that we should have done that all along.

So yeah I remember various voices saying that disbanding the army was a bad idea. It wasn't just Monday morning quarterbacking. Most aspects in the run up to the invasion, the invasion itself, and then the aftermath had loads of criticisms and warnings of disaster.

As it turned out things didn't quite go as predicted by the doomsayers. The Iraqi government has somehow held together despite its constant crises and instability. But nobody thought things would go quite as badly with ISIS and all the terrorism that resulted, well ok somebody probably did but I don't remember and how badly it went was dependent on the collapse of Syria which I don't think was predicted at the time.

[viper37]

As it turned out things didn't quite go as predicted by the doomsayers. The Iraqi government has somehow held together despite its constant crises and instability. But nobody thought things would go quite as badly with ISIS and all the terrorism that resulted, well ok somebody probably did but I don't remember and how badly it went was dependent on the collapse of Syria which I don't think was predicted at the time.

Nobody could have predicted something as bad as ISIS.
But Muqtada al-Sadr and the other militias before that, this was a failure of the US to deploy sufficient troops on the ground and establish a stable regime in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.

They immediatly disbanded the Iraqui army and government but had nothing to replace it.  And ex soldiers who are sent home without pay often turn to looting in these kind of regimes, or turn to militias that want to enroll them.

This was predictable.  Then Iraq was fucked up and it paved the way for an Isis-like group to rise to power.  Nobody could have predicted it would be that bad. But chaos breeds chaos.

[Gups]

People were warning at the time about the stupidity of formally dissolving the Iraqi army instead of co-opting elements of it to help keep control in the immediate aftermath of war.

And people like me didn't listen. Never been more wrong in my life.

[Duque de Bragança]

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

Consensual in France as well, for Villepin and Chirac. The finest hour for the latter as a president, also probably since he did not do much in two mandates, with a self-inflicted cohabitation during 5 years.

[viper37]

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

Consensual in France as well, for Villepin and Chirac. The finest hour for the latter as a president, also probably since he did not do much in two mandates, with a self-inflicted cohabitation during 5 years.

Total was making a killing by trading with Saddam.  No way Chirac was going to endanger that.