Iraq Invasion: A Question for the New Batch of Conservatives

[Grand Mal]

I was distracted with shit in my life. My father was dying, my ex wife developed breast cancer and I was trying to hold my business together after having been cheated out of a large payment.

But there was always a nagging suspicion on my mind. I was surprised when they didn't 'find' WMD's, as I was sure some would have been planted.

To this day, recalling the vehemence of the American people, I knew there would be an invasion long before it was fact. But my sense told me that it was all about Operation Dessert Storm and something NOT completed there that Bush/Chaney wanted.

BTW, Bush is a dolt. It was Cheney's doing. Now look how that turned out for him financially with his connections with the military industrial complex.

Ya know, in the back of my mind I always wondered if it wasn't as simple as Dubya seeking his daddy's approval.
Thing is, I'm pretty sure Bush Sr. wouldn't approve of lynching Saddam.

 

[Tigerace117]

That is overstating the point, Fearandloathing. The Kurds of Iraq were not gassed in their tens of thousands by mere stink bombs. Saddam did have and did use WMD at one point. He just didn't have anything of any major significance left by the time our forces rolled in in 2003.



Again, let us not oversell it. The Communists of Vietnam were a threat to the variegated peoples of former French Indochina. The Boat People did not come to the United States because they preferred our weather. They came because the Communists were happy to fill mass graves with them in reprisal killings. I would argue that the Communists (as in real Marxist-Leninists trained by the Communist International) were a threat to many people, but the Vietnamese Communist Party was perhaps the least harmful of the lot. They killed perhaps a few hundred thousand, compared to the Khmer Rouge which may have butchered a quarter of the population of Cambodia under Pol Pot's direction; the Chinese Communist Party which managed to forcibly starve to death, work to death or outright murder roughly one in ten Chinese citizens in less than five years under Mao Tse Tung's leadership; or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which managed to kill roughly one in twenty of its own citizens under Stalin's leadership.

The US provided support to the Khmer Rouge when the Vietnamese communists invaded to topple them though. China dwarfing our support for them doesn’t make it go away, nor does it excuse it.

The Vietnam War was born out of delusional hysteria about having to fight “the commies” in America if we didn’t fight them in Southeast Asia. It was also a clear cut failure, as our actions only lead to the former French Indochina entirely becoming communist.

 

[nvflash]

It's almost universally accepted that the Iraq Invasion was a terrible strategic blunder, and built on a mountain of lies, cost the nation untold treasure and blood, and lead to the a civilian loss of life that is difficult to calculate. About 99.9999% of the conservative movement was onboard with the war (and called progressives traitors for questioning it). For younger conservatives, who accept that the war was built on lies and was a strategic mistake (the supposedly anti-neocon Trumpers), do you think you would have gone along with the warmongering had you been politically active at the time? How independent do you think you are?

Well I'm not young or really much of a social conservative, but I want to chime in anyway.

Given what we thought the facts were at the time, the Iraq and Saddam had WMD's, I supported the invasion.

Turned out it was pretty much all lies. I guess I should have known better, tho just about every news source I used was pumping these lies.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The thing about the invasion o f Iraq is that
we lacked a real reason to believe Hussein was likely to attack the US directly or by proxy.

Everything after that was a mistake.

Because of the fickleness of fate and the great risks of war, no serious treatise on war [that I have read] suggests the war should be taken lightly or undertaken without great cause.

Absent an imminent threat, war is unethical, probably illegal, and a generally no-good, very bad idea.


On top of that, the GWB Admin had the hubris to dismiss the planning and work of the countless people who were experts in the region when it came to what comes after Hussein.

 

[Felis Leo]

The US provided support to the Khmer Rouge when the Vietnamese communists invaded to topple them though. China dwarfing our support for them doesn’t make it go away, nor does it excuse it.

The Vietnam War was born out of delusional hysteria about having to fight “the commies” in America if we didn’t fight them in Southeast Asia. It was also a clear cut failure, as our actions only lead to the former French Indochina entirely becoming communist.

Believe me, I remember the history of the Khmer Rouge and how Kissinger and the Chicoms tried to keep the Vietnamese Communists from toppling them. It was perhaps one of our worst foreign policy moments on top of backing South American juntas. As murderous and horrible as the Vietnamese communists had shown themselves capable of, they were the undisputed heroes of that conflict when they liberated Cambodia and rolled the Khmer Rouge back deep into the hills and jungles. I also remember that being the last war that China committed itself to outside of its borders, and lost badly. I think they managed to lose roughly as many men as we lost in the whole decade-long conflict in about a month. So they did the smart thing: they declared victory and retreated.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I think that's true but you often see this complete reluctance to refer to these situations with any genuine degree of universality imo

Our enemies commit crimes, we make mistakes.

It is possible to commit a crime badly.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You lived through it, you must remember all the discussion that went on inside the government trying to drum up the support. You must remember Colin Powell on the news about 10 hours a day trying to drum up support from the people and the government. As things often happen in Washington, the right deals were made and then the government's support became enough to get the votes. Outside of the government I bet almost half of the conservatives thought we shouldn't get bogged down in another war. I think you have forgotten all the opposition to the war before it began, and only selectively remember the support for the troops right after it started. That support started to wane after the hot war had finished. After the war was over the government's conservatives wanted to ride the gravy train, but the people wanted us out quickly. I think you are distorting the past to fit your current hatred of conservatives.

I'd have to see some excellent data on this point before I'd believe it.

It runs counter to all of my memories of the era.

There were conservatives opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
I just doubt it was anywhere near "almost half".

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Lies.
I find it difficult to accept that someone in America would reference that war and NOT mention the 'greatest lie ever told'....weapons of mass destruction.
There never were any. There never had been.

Imho, the lie was that Hussein was a threat to the US.
The WMD only mattered because of the premise that Hussein was likely to use the WMD to attack the US.

The WMD did exist at some point in the past.
At the time of the invasion, there were no "stockpiles" like Powell and others told us.
There were some old, ****tup examples of what was technically still a chemical weapon.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I wouldn't call it a blunder as far as the actual military campaign (once underway) was concerned, but I'd call the decision to even go ahead with it at all absolutely stupid.

When it came to the plans to win a quick war against Iraqi forces, things went well.

When it came to securing suspected WMD sites, that part had many failings.
On such site was looted literally down to the concrete foundation before we we able to get inspectors there.

I opposed the whole thing at the time alone on grounds of the imprudence that I could see in it, plus the ignorance that the administration was already displaying in total on the geo-political constellation that Iraq was subject to internally already.
While I held the "proof" provided to be suspicious already, my suspicions did not find confirmation until later when all the lies were uncovered for what they were.
Nevertheless the claim that Saddam and AQ had been in cahoots was so absurd when made, that the impression of the US administration once again either not knowing what it was talking about or just lying in its teeth, found more substance with me.
Beyond which, anyone even remotely acquainted with the area would have known that toppling a ,minority Sunni elite which had been oppressing the Shiite majority for decades, was going to light more of a fuse on what was already a powder keg.
But that's exactly what the totally incompetent idiot Bremer did, while having simply no knowledge of the country, the M.E. in general, and not even speaking Arabic.
That's when the real blundering started, driving the ex-Iraqi army into rebellion that led to most of its members joining the hitherto somewhat insignificant IS in droves and, by the total power vacuum already created, providing the latter with a playground that exceeded its wildest dreams and could never have been found in its previous Syrian playground.
If history repeats itself (as I hold it does) then so does stupidity and all this, while not allowing for a one-on-one equation, was the same idiocy that US administrations had shown in Viet Nam.
Namely by putting their bets on a totally corrupt Shiite leadership on the premise of "sumbitch maybe, but our sumbitch"

Ironically, there's plenty of reason to believe that Bush Admin's beloved Chalabi was IRAN'S SOB

 

[StillBallin75]

It was doomed to failure by the Iraqi people, themselves.

It was doomed because it was miserable policy on top of being ridiculously illegal and immoral. Stop victim-blaming.

 

[Crovax]

It's almost universally accepted that the Iraq Invasion was a terrible strategic blunder, and built on a mountain of lies,

That's the media narrative that ignorant people believe. The fact is various intelligence agencies all over the world were all coming up with the same information which is why 45 other countries joined us fighting in Iraq.

It wasn't a lie it was a mistake and people who don't have the ability to discern the difference have absolutely no business discussing foreign policy.

 

[Tigerace117]

That's the media narrative that ignorant people believe. The fact is various intelligence agencies all over the world were all coming up with the same information which is why 45 other countries joined us fighting in Iraq.

It wasn't a lie it was a mistake and people who don't have the ability to discern the difference have absolutely no business discussing foreign policy.

The idea that Saddam was a threat to the US absolutely was a lie.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That's the media narrative that ignorant people believe. The fact is various intelligence agencies all over the world were all coming up with the same information which is why 45 other countries joined us fighting in Iraq.
It wasn't a lie it was a mistake and people who don't have the ability to discern the difference have absolutely no business discussing foreign policy.

Can you remember which intelligence agencies reached the conclusion Iraq was likely to attack the US?

 

[Crovax]

The idea that Saddam was a threat to the US absolutely was a lie.

No what you have just said is a lie which is not supported by any facts and runs afoul with some of the most basic logical insights, "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"

 

[Tigerace117]

No what you have just said is a lie which is not supported by any facts and runs afoul with some of the most basic logical insights, "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"

Thank you for confirming that the government’s claims that Saddam was a threat were indeed lies.

 

[Crovax]

Thank you for confirming that the government’s claims that Saddam was a threat were indeed lies.

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing to back up your fairytales

 

[Tigerace117]

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing to back up your fairytales

Awww, someone’s crying because he doesn’t like having to face the fact conservatives lied to “justify” the invasion.

 

[Chagos]

Ya know, in the back of my mind I always wondered if it wasn't as simple as Dubya seeking his daddy's approval.
Thing is, I'm pretty sure Bush Sr. wouldn't approve of lynching Saddam.

In my book Bush sr. showed prudent restraint that clearly wasn't passed on thru genetics.

When he ousted Iraqi forces from Kuweit and then called it quits (more or less),

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It's almost universally accepted that the Iraq Invasion was a terrible strategic blunder, and built on a mountain of lies, cost the nation untold treasure and blood, and lead to the a civilian loss of life that is difficult to calculate. About 99.9999% of the conservative movement was onboard with the war (and called progressives traitors for questioning it). For younger conservatives, who accept that the war was built on lies and was a strategic mistake (the supposedly anti-neocon Trumpers), do you think you would have gone along with the warmongering had you been politically active at the time? How independent do you think you are?

I went to anti-war protests during the run-up to the war and during the early part of the war. I never thought it was a good idea and thought that we should have continued our policy of containment with Iraq.

 

[Big Brother]

I'd have to see some excellent data on this point before I'd believe it.

It runs counter to all of my memories of the era.

There were conservatives opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
I just doubt it was anywhere near "almost half".

I'm out of this conversation, I see the trap that the left are beginning to lay out. The current administration is essentially doing the same thing Bush Jr. had to do to get his war: get the narrative right. The left want this upcoming war with Russia very badly but do not want to be painted as the warmongers, so first they have to paint the entire right as heartless warmongers and then say that Joe is different because he is a progressive liberal. It's just more manipulation of the narrative to get what they want, just like they painted everyone who didn't toe the democrat line as a MAGA Extremist. Watch and see. They know they'll get their war, all that is left to do is know how to blame the right if it goes sideways.

 

[phoenix2020]

Although young I knew at the time it was wrong. I was keenly aware of the US response to the nuclear weapons tests by India and Pakistan just a few years prior, and knew there was something wrong about decimating Iraq for "alleged" weapons of mass destruction after our response to Pakistan.

 

[yankintx]

I was pretty young, but I did go along with the Iraq Invasion at the time. In retrospect, I can certainly admit that it was a gross strategic blunder rivaled only by the Vietnam War (though less costly in terms of lives lost and spent).

I too was bamboozled by the yellow cake story. Many Republicans and Democrats where sold the story. Let's learn from this, but I doubt we have.

 

[HK.227]

Would you have gone along with the Iraq Invasion?

Gone along with? Sure.
Supported? No.

Someone must have suspected the WMD angle was suspect from the beginning, because some parliaments, mine included, never mentioned WMD's when they decided to lend support to the invasion. Instead they focused on all the violations of the peace terms of 1991 and Saddam's ongoing crimes against the population of Iraq. As such, removing him was entirely justified.
The hanging around for another couple of decades, not so much.

 

[oneworld2]

It is possible to commit a crime badly.

Not really sure what you are getting at with the above, given the context of what is being discussed here.

Recall the assertion was that " our enemies commit crimes, we make mistakes"

How poor the execution of a crime is does not detract from the fact that it still remains a crime.

 

[oneworld2]

If only these two categories, unethical war and military blunder, were mutually exclusive.

Sadly, they are not.

I agree but think there is still some resistance in your phrasing above. It's not that it was " unethical" , it's that it was illegal.

What I see is that one is being deployed to help dflect from the other. IE the " military blunder" is used to take focus off the " illegal war" and thus serves to lessen the impact of the act itself in the minds of the observers