The Iraq War - 20 Years Ago This Sunday.

[Admiral Yi]

I was anti on the basis of there being nothing in it for the US but I thought the antis were all talking nonsense.  With the exception of those like the French who said it will increase terrorisim.

I did think compelling a defeated enemy to comply with the provisions of a peace treaty was a principle worth defending, and I still do.

I thought bringing democracy to the Middle East would be a wonderful thing to do.  I've changed my mind about that.

[The Brain]

I don't even remember if I had any strong opinion either way.

[crazy canuck]

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.

At the time I was critical of the Canadian government's decision not join in the war in Iraq.  But that was definitely the correct call.

[grumbler]

I'm with Otto.  The problem wasn't the invasion (the alternative would have been to just stand down and let the Saddam regime continue to murder, rape, and pillage their own people), it was the feckless handling of the post-war occupation.  Unfortunately for the world and the Iraqi people in particular, the US had a US had a triumvirate of VP, NSA, and SecDef that insisted on handling the occupation and also insisted that the problems with the occupation would all be trivial and so didn't need serious planning for.

One could, in hindsight, argue that, if the US wasn't going to make an omelet, it shouldn't have broken all those eggs, but it wasn't obvious going in that that would be the case.

[Sheilbh]

I'm with Otto.  The problem wasn't the invasion (the alternative would have been to just stand down and let the Saddam regime continue to murder, rape, and pillage their own people), it was the feckless handling of the post-war occupation.  Unfortunately for the world and the Iraqi people in particular, the US had a US had a triumvirate of VP, NSA, and SecDef that insisted on handling the occupation and also insisted that the problems with the occupation would all be trivial and so didn't need serious planning for.

One could, in hindsight, argue that, if the US wasn't going to make an omelet, it shouldn't have broken all those eggs, but it wasn't obvious going in that that would be the case.

Also I've always thought that Iraq moved the focus from Afghanistan where the Taliban were genuinely beat and the country was, I think, more supportive of an international reconstruction effort. I think the shift of focus, resources and troops being prioritised in Iraq is a large part of the reason why the Taliban could return in Afghanistan.

But the other side of that is what you say - even if that had stayed on Afghanistan the US would still be run by the people it was run by and I'm not sure Paul Bremer and the team would've done a better job there anyway.

[Valmy]

At least it ended the sanctions regime. We probably would still have that going to this day.

There is not much else good to say about the outcome of the invasion.

The government that took over is such a mess and it remains as tenuous as ever that Iraq can move past its deep ethnic and sectarian divisions. It is barely mentioned in the news but every time I go to the internet to see how Iraq is doing it seems like they are in another political crisis. I wonder how long they can go on this way?

[Razgovory]

I was agin' it because I thought that it would cause Jihadis from all over the word to go to Iraq and attack our troops.  I also didn't see Saddam as a big threat.  I was surprised that Iraq had no WMDs.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm with Otto.  The problem wasn't the invasion (the alternative would have been to just stand down and let the Saddam regime continue to murder, rape, and pillage their own people), it was the feckless handling of the post-war occupation.  Unfortunately for the world and the Iraqi people in particular, the US had a US had a triumvirate of VP, NSA, and SecDef that insisted on handling the occupation and also insisted that the problems with the occupation would all be trivial and so didn't need serious planning for.

One could, in hindsight, argue that, if the US wasn't going to make an omelet, it shouldn't have broken all those eggs, but it wasn't obvious going in that that would be the case.

Also I've always thought that Iraq moved the focus from Afghanistan where the Taliban were genuinely beat and the country was, I think, more supportive of an international reconstruction effort. I think the shift of focus, resources and troops being prioritised in Iraq is a large part of the reason why the Taliban could return in Afghanistan.

But the other side of that is what you say - even if that had stayed on Afghanistan the US would still be run by the people it was run by and I'm not sure Paul Bremer and the team would've done a better job there anyway.

I disagree on Afghanistan / Taliban. They literally never left, and were down to like less than 10% of the country where they had meaningful activities. We funneled like a trillion dollars into rebuilding that country for 20 years and the tribal people just still prefer to have what they have now--there is no fixing those people other than walling them off from civilization and giving them a few hundred years to develop.

[Grey Fox]

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.

[viper37]

I disagree on Afghanistan / Taliban. They literally never left, and were down to like less than 10% of the country where they had meaningful activities. We funneled like a trillion dollars into rebuilding that country for 20 years and the tribal people just still prefer to have what they have now--there is no fixing those people other than walling them off from civilization and giving them a few hundred years to develop.

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.

[viper37]

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.

They should have insisted on a clear plan for reconstruction though.

Had I known the only plan was to pray for democracy, I would never have supported that invasion.

[Valmy]

It is hard to believe in retrospect but it seems like Bush just believed whatever bullshit the Shias were feeding him prior to the invasion. At the time I foolishly figured that Bush and Blair had done their due diligence and/or knew something I didn't in their weird optimism the Iraqi people were going to cooperate with us in their public statements.

[Valmy]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

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.

[Sheilbh]

I think fatalism about that also massively underplays the role Pakistan played and I think the genuine opportunity around the post-war Loya Jirga and the early years after the Taliban were removed. I don't think anything of what's happened was necessarily inevitable.

But having said that the post-war Iraqi administration which was supposedly our focus was even more incompetent (and stacked to the gills with inexperienced ideologues while I think Afghanistan was of so little interest there were more professionals), so maybe it would have just been worse quicker anyway.