The Iraq War Poll

[grumbler]

Tamas, I agree with your last statement, but the Iraq War you describe wasn't at all the one I saw.  Maybe the Magyar press covered it differently than the English-language press, and that accounts for the differences in what we think went wrong.

Iraq wasn't a strong barrier in front of Iran.  The vast majority of its people are Shiite, and have a lot in common with the Shia of Iran, including a martyr complex and feeling 6that they have been historically oppressed by Sunni Muslim majority.  Saddam used the Iranians as the external enemy to unite the Sunni majority of Iraq behind him, but that whole game had long since lost whatever luster it had by 2003.  The English-language press also hasn't reported any of the signs the Magyar press has apparently reported that say Iraq is "on a near-guaranteed course to become Iran's puppet."  I suspect that your newspapers are exaggerating.  That tale has been a theme since 2003, and has proven to be a bit like the end-of-the-world prophecies. 

Turkey has launched attacks over the border into Kurdish Iraq any number of times since Saddam fell.  And yet, Iraq has become more stable, peaceful, and independent even as that occurred.  I am not sure what disaster the Magyar press claims this is creating, but since it isn't being seen outside of the Magyar press, I am not convinced it is significant.

The strategic loss to the US is that the war caused the US military and administration to take its eye off the ball, terrorism, and engage in what they thought would be a feel-good exercise of short duration.  The Bush Administration's hubris led it to bungle the chance for short duration, however, and the terrorists got a break while the US spent a trillion-plus dollars it didn't have on a war it didn't need.

[Tamas]

The magyar press didn't really care for Iraq, the conclusions are mine based on what I read.  Of course they exagerrated for effect a bit, but hey:

-a proper sovereign country is not allowing a neighbor launching large-scale military operations against it's citizens. Besides "getting better and better" is ain't that big an achievment when you start from what was basically anarchy outside the green zone.
-the stability of Iraq, or their prone-ness to Iranian influence cannot be properly judged while the American military is there, since all players know full well to lay low until they leave.

Also, I think Iraq was a piss-poor choice for this forceful spread of democracy thing because it would lack cohesion even if being a stable democracy. It has 3 major groups which doesnt really want to have to do anything with the other two. You cannot build a successful nation on big divides.

[Razgovory]

Perhaps you should check the English language media a bit more carefully, Grumbler.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm not sure how Iraq has a majority that is both Shia and Sunni. 

[Admiral Yi]

Pyrrhic.

[Razgovory]

I'd say the strategic loss for the US was in blood and treasure.  The US lost a lot of front line combat troops in the last 10 years in Iraq.  Skilled, dedicated personnel are hard to replace.  The whole army is exhausted from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will take a while to increase readiness to pre-war levels.

[Zanza]

The English-language press also hasn't reported any of the signs the Magyar press has apparently reported that say Iraq is "on a near-guaranteed course to become Iran's puppet."  I suspect that your newspapers are exaggerating.  That tale has been a theme since 2003, and has proven to be a bit like the end-of-the-world prophecies. 

It's a recurring theme though and it is not unreasonable to assume that US withdrawal might strengthen the Iranian position in Iraq. Here is a recent take of the English-language press:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=2

Iraqi Leader Backs Syria, With a Nudge From Iran
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and YASIR GHAZI
Published: August 12, 2011

BAGHDAD — As leaders in the Arab world and other countries condemn President Bashar al-Assad's violent crackdown on demonstrators in Syria, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq has struck a far friendlier tone, urging the protesters not to "sabotage" the state and hosting an official Syrian delegation.

Mr. Maliki's support for Mr. Assad has illustrated how much Iraq's position in the Middle East has shifted toward an axis led by Iran. And it has also aggravated the fault line between Iraq's Shiite majority, whose leaders have accepted Mr. Assad's account that Al Qaeda is behind the uprising, and the Sunni minority, whose leaders have condemned the Syrian crackdown.

"The unrest in Syria has exacerbated the old sectarian divides in Iraq because the Shiite leaders have grown close to Assad and the Sunnis identify with the people," said Joost Hiltermann, the International Crisis Group's deputy program director for the Middle East.

He added: "Maliki is very reliant on Iran for his power and Iran is backing Syria all the way. The Iranians and the Syrians were all critical to bringing him to power a year ago and keeping him in power so he finds himself in a difficult position."

[...]

[Neil]

I'm not sure how Iraq has a majority that is both Shia and Sunni. 

He meant to type 'Sunni minority'.

[Neil]

I'd say the strategic loss for the US was in blood and treasure.  The US lost a lot of front line combat troops in the last 10 years in Iraq.  Skilled, dedicated personnel are hard to replace.  The whole army is exhausted from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will take a while to increase readiness to pre-war levels.

But readiness doesn't really matter when you have nothing to do anyways, does it?

[Razgovory]

The US military doesn't seem to have a problem finding things to do.

[Neil]

The US military doesn't seem to have a problem finding things to do.

The Navy is always ready, and the Air Force doesn't really get much wear and tear on personnel.

[Viking]

The US military doesn't seem to have a problem finding things to do.

The Navy is always ready, and the Air Force doesn't really get much wear and tear on personnel.

Joystick blisters from driving drones? 

[Maximus]

Wouldn't Iraq be even more susceptible to Iranian domination if the Arab spring had arrived while Saddam still reigned?

[Zoupa]

Voted 3rd option, Pyrrhic.

Huge $ spent, little to show for it, terrible consequences diplomacy wise.

[jimmy olsen]

I wasn't aware Iceland participated in the Iraq war.

google Coalition of the Willing BEEYOTCH

Iceland is a good and loyal (also completely disarmed) ally unlike Norway under Stoltenberg

What do Iceland have an army? Can you own arms in Iceland?

you missed the bolded bit apparently..

Iceland does NOT have any form of military of it's own. It relies completely on NATO for its defense. Iceland does contribute to NATO and international operations by organizing personnel to participate in support roles though the Norwegian and Danish Military as well as UN peacekeeping forces.

To bear arms in iceland you need a gun license. To get the gun license you need to have about 200 US dollars, spend 3 afternoons taking a gun safety course, have a police and doctors certificate. The police issues the gun license. With that license you can get hunting rifles and shot-guns, though, if you don't actually hunt you can expect your license to be withdrawn. Pistols are not illegal, but require a special license which will almost certainly NOT be issued to anybody other than the Police Weapons squad and the security personnel of certain visiting dignitaries.

What is there to hunt in Iceland?