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. :)
Blair remains remembered as one of the great all time PMs.
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.
This is also approximately the 20th anniversary of Languish.
Is Iraq still a banned topic on EUOT?
Quote from: chipwich on March 20, 2023, 05:12:24 AMThis is also approximately the 20th anniversary of Languish.
Not quite. It existed ahead of the Iraq War.
Quote from: mongers on March 19, 2023, 10:44:57 PM20 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.
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.
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.
Definitely the right decision by Schröder and Fischer not to participate back then.
Thought it was the wrong war then. Haven't changed my opinion, though I am relatively understanding of those who thought differently.
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-. :lol:
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.
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.
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 :P ), 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.
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.
I don't even remember if I had any strong opinion either way.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 20, 2023, 01:24:06 PMI 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-. :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 20, 2023, 03:04:44 PMI'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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2023, 03:12:11 PMQuote from: grumbler on March 20, 2023, 03:04:44 PMI'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.
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 20, 2023, 04:27:27 PMI 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.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 20, 2023, 05:38:57 PMI 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.
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.
Quote from: viper37 on March 21, 2023, 03:43:15 PMIn 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.
Quote from: viper37 on March 21, 2023, 03:43:15 PMIn 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2023, 03:59:25 PMThey 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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2023, 03:55:01 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 21, 2023, 03:43:15 PMIn 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...
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 20, 2023, 05:38:57 PMI 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2023, 11:15:33 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on March 20, 2023, 05:38:57 PMI 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.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2023, 11:24:31 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2023, 11:15:33 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on March 20, 2023, 05:38:57 PMI 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2023, 11:53:34 AMI 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".
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.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2023, 11:58:01 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2023, 11:53:34 AMI 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.
Quote from: mongers on March 22, 2023, 12:06:25 PMPeople 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?
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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2023, 01:22:50 PMAs 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.
Quote from: mongers on March 22, 2023, 12:06:25 PMPeople 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.
Quote from: Zanza on March 20, 2023, 12:23:45 PMDefinitely 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.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 23, 2023, 08:24:30 AMQuote from: Zanza on March 20, 2023, 12:23:45 PMDefinitely 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.
Quote from: viper37 on March 23, 2023, 09:48:26 AMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on March 23, 2023, 08:24:30 AMQuote from: Zanza on March 20, 2023, 12:23:45 PMDefinitely 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.
Simplistic, as if it were the only reason.
Not even Bernard-Henry Lévy was for that war, for once.
Quote from: mongers on March 22, 2023, 12:06:25 PMPeople 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 de-Ba'athification in general, and the sectarian/communal risks. All ignored. All overridden. All right.