Tim's take on the "Iraq war was a mistake" narrative..

[Hicup]

I've been debating myself on whether I should post this, and decided too, despite falling on deaf ears for many. Lacking foresight, but having the benefit of hindsight, I can now safely say that regardless of why, at the time, we went into Iraq, it seems to me that it was the right thing to do given the circumstances we see happening now. Let me explain.

Whether you believe Bush lied to get us into the war with Iraq, or whether you believe as I do that Bush led us into war based on faulty, but at the time, the best evidence and intelligence. Either way make no difference to my analysis. Rewind back to the second gulf war and what would have happened if we never went in? SH would still be in power, the region would be somewhat stable, as stable as the middle east can be given the tumultuous nature of that region, however, lets say SH behaved himself for a while, we didn't have any yellow cake intelligence or enough intel about WND's, namely nerve gas. One can safely assume that with Iran's provocations not changing, it would be a safe bet that they would still be aspiring for a NUKE, and along with it, Iraq would have no choice to do the same.. Throw in SA and other ME states, and what I see happening would have been an escalation in the race for the NUKE. Much like Bush didn't do much, outside of sanctions and not talking with Iran, I see much the same for any other states in the region and at the time. The effect would have been laying it all on Obama to make go away.

A weakened SH, and an emboldened Iran, and fearful SA would have cause an uproar in the region, one that would have had to be dealt with, much like it is now, with the only difference being that Iraq was taken care of, has no NUKES, but Iran is way ahead of everyone else in NUKE ability. So then, ask yourself, what scenario would be the more ideal? The US and its allies having to deal with just Iran, or the US and its allies having to deal with not only Iran, but Iraq, and SA, not to mention possibly Syria and various other nations such as Egypt all seeking the NUKE? For me, and as liberals like to say, the ends justify the means. In terms of the second Iraq war, I think, although not by design (Foresight), we actually avoided a more serious issue with regards to the ME by taking action with regard to Iraq when we did.

The onus, as it were, is on Obama, and if not him, then a Republican President and congress to bail us out yet another time concerning Iran's nuclear transgressions. It means heavy sanctions, and possibly war if needed. We cannot, and I repeat, we cannot let Iran get nukes, and as much as many here deplore war as a solution, it MUST BE on the table, and any American President MUST be willing to follow through.

However the next president is, I do not envy their position at all. Some very difficult, but I believe necessary choices are going to have to be made, and American's will have to get used to the idea that war with Iran is inevitable.

In summary, taking out Iraq when we did prevented a much worse situation than not having done so. Yes sure placing SOFA forces in Iraq would have been nice but it is what it is, and as much as I do see ISIS as a possible future threat, I believe a much more manageable one that a nuclear Iran.

Just my take.

Tim-

 

[Kobie]

Problem being, the removal of Saddam led to the installation of a much more Iran-friendly regime right nextdoor. The regional check on Iran was removed. Iraq and Iran both had vested interest in the other side not acquiring nuclear weapon technology; that check was removed when Saddam was.

 

[Dayton3]

No matter how strong a Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq was it would never be able to compete with a nuclear armed Iran.

 

[pbrauer]

It was definitely wrong. We should not attack a nation unless it attacks us, declares war on us, is an imminent threat or attacks one of our friends. Desert Storm was the right thing to do (drive Saddam out of Kuwait). While the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was in my opinion WRONG.

 

[joG]

I've been debating myself on whether I should post this, and decided too, despite falling on deaf ears for many. Lacking foresight, but having the benefit of hindsight, I can now safely say that regardless of why, at the time, we went into Iraq, it seems to me that it was the right thing to do given the circumstances we see happening now. Let me explain.

Whether you believe Bush lied to get us into the war with Iraq, or whether you believe as I do that Bush led us into war based on faulty, but at the time, the best evidence and intelligence. Either way make no difference to my analysis. Rewind back to the second gulf war and what would have happened if we never went in? SH would still be in power, the region would be somewhat stable, as stable as the middle east can be given the tumultuous nature of that region, however, lets say SH behaved himself for a while, we didn't have any yellow cake intelligence or enough intel about WND's, namely nerve gas. One can safely assume that with Iran's provocations not changing, it would be a safe bet that they would still be aspiring for a NUKE, and along with it, Iraq would have no choice to do the same.. Throw in SA and other ME states, and what I see happening would have been an escalation in the race for the NUKE. Much like Bush didn't do much, outside of sanctions and not talking with Iran, I see much the same for any other states in the region and at the time. The effect would have been laying it all on Obama to make go away.

A weakened SH, and an emboldened Iran, and fearful SA would have cause an uproar in the region, one that would have had to be dealt with, much like it is now, with the only difference being that Iraq was taken care of, has no NUKES, but Iran is way ahead of everyone else in NUKE ability. So then, ask yourself, what scenario would be the more ideal? The US and its allies having to deal with just Iran, or the US and its allies having to deal with not only Iran, but Iraq, and SA, not to mention possibly Syria and various other nations such as Egypt all seeking the NUKE? For me, and as liberals like to say, the ends justify the means. In terms of the second Iraq war, I think, although not by design (Foresight), we actually avoided a more serious issue with regards to the ME by taking action with regard to Iraq when we did.

The onus, as it were, is on Obama, and if not him, then a Republican President and congress to bail us out yet another time concerning Iran's nuclear transgressions. It means heavy sanctions, and possibly war if needed. We cannot, and I repeat, we cannot let Iran get nukes, and as much as many here deplore war as a solution, it MUST BE on the table, and any American President MUST be willing to follow through.

However the next president is, I do not envy their position at all. Some very difficult, but I believe necessary choices are going to have to be made, and American's will have to get used to the idea that war with Iran is inevitable.

In summary, taking out Iraq when we did prevented a much worse situation than not having done so. Yes sure placing SOFA forces in Iraq would have been nice but it is what it is, and as much as I do see ISIS as a possible future threat, I believe a much more manageable one that a nuclear Iran.

Just my take.

Tim-

Of course it was the right decision, by the time it was taken. It might have beenplayed differently beforehand. and taking out Iran would probably have been better in the overall structure of things. But when Saddam did not obay the Security Council resolution, getting rid of Saddam was the best precedent.

 

[joG]

Problem being, the removal of Saddam led to the installation of a much more Iran-friendly regime right nextdoor. The regional check on Iran was removed. Iraq and Iran both had vested interest in the other side not acquiring nuclear weapon technology; that check was removed when Saddam was.

That is why I tend to feel sorry we did not play the game differently. Iran would have been the better regime change candidate. But that was no longer easily possible, after Putin, chirac and Schröder had sided with Saddam.

 

[Mithrae]

By the logic of the OP, it must be a good idea to illegally invade and forcibly remove ALL strong governments in ANY volatile regions, if any of them are developing nuclear weapons - doesn't even need to be the one which is actually doing it! :doh

Actually I suppose with that mentality it's even better to leave the one developing nukes alone for a while, to keep providing 'justification' for further invasions.

 

[US Conservative]

Problem being, the removal of Saddam led to the installation of a much more Iran-friendly regime right nextdoor. The regional check on Iran was removed. Iraq and Iran both had vested interest in the other side not acquiring nuclear weapon technology; that check was removed when Saddam was.

Kobie, Obama is Iran friendly. He's helping them to get nukes.

Obama is anything but a check on Iran, regardless of intent, he's their ally.

Its just part of a continuing pattern of incompetence, and he is doing it for his personal political benefit.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

The concept of being able to do more than just remove one bad leader, and maintain order long enough to elect a replacement, and search for and destroy allot of weaponry, was the mistake.

We should have gone in, removed SH, destroyed the weaponry, labs and factories, setup a few isolated monitoring bases with large incoming airlift options, and otherwise pulled out. We would still need a very large military presence in the Middle East, just not in Iraq.

We should not have tried to Nation Build, but have told Iran and Syria, in no uncertain terms, if you try to invade, your countries will be blown into the stone age, and meant it.

Iraq might have solved its internal divisions in a bloody way, but that is the decision of their people.

My concept of the right move is very close to what we actually did in Iraq, particularly in the segment of time in which Bush was in office.

I would not have tried to arm, train, and bolster the Iraqi military. I would have simply used our military to destroy anyone who attempted to invade the country with boots on the ground, massive airpower, and Naval based missile strikes to the point that what is now Isis, would have been completely destroyed, along with most of Syria.

We should not be destroying those who attack Iraq, out of a desire to protect Iraq, but out of a desire to stop the attacker from gaining resources, territory, and population by wars of aggression. If the Iraqis cannot find the strength to defend themselves, it is sad, but not America's problem.

Preventing the creation by conquest of a Nuclear Armed, Radical, Regional, Middle Eastern Islamic Caliphate is America's problem.

It would never actually have to go so far... but, if every single Syrian and Iranian has to die to prevent such from being created, so be it.

Racial Islam declared war and eternal enmity on U.S. in the 911 attacks. That gives U.S. the right and responsibility to destroy any and all attempts to create a large, heavily armed state, based on that group and ideology.

Kill the enemy and destroy his military, factories and infrastructure until he is no longer a threat.

Accept only unconditional surrender. Radical Islam is the enemy. ISIS is the enemy. ISIS, even now, needs to die.

-

 

[Kobie]

Kobie, Obama is Iran friendly. He's helping them to get nukes.

Obama is anything but a check on Iran, regardless of intent, he's their ally.

Its just part of a continuing pattern of incompetence, and he is doing it for his personal political benefit.

You do realize that the removal of Saddam predates Obama's term in office by like five years, right? Now, I DO realize that you have to make literally everything about Obama, and I do realize you'll lie your ass off about anything he does in order to make him into a cartoon supervillain, but do please try to follow the conversation for once.

 

[US Conservative]

You do realize that the removal of Saddam predates Obama's term in office by like five years, right? Now, I DO realize that you have to make literally everything about Obama, and I do realize you'll lie your ass off about anything he does in order to make him into a cartoon supervillain, but do please try to follow the conversation for once.

Kobie, not once in my post did I mention Saddam, let alone Iraq. Focus, please.

 

[rathi]

Iran became interested in nuclear weapons precisely because we invaded Iraq. North Korea actually had nuclear weapons and was left alone. Saddam didn't and was deposed and executed. That sends a message that actually following the rules is pointless, as the U.S. will just lie and attack anyway, whereas getting nukes makes you untouchable. We also had military forces deployed in a flanking maneuver that made them very vulnerable. Finally, we pointlessly threaten them with the "axis of evil" speech. All our failures helped lead to the downfall of the more moderate Iranian government being replaced by the hardline ahmadinejad.

Making up childish excuses for incredibly stupid past policies will do nothing but ensure we continue to fail instead of actually learning from our mistakes and trying to fix the mess we are in.

 

[StillBallin75]

I've been debating myself on whether I should post this, and decided too, despite falling on deaf ears for many. Lacking foresight, but having the benefit of hindsight, I can now safely say that regardless of why, at the time, we went into Iraq, it seems to me that it was the right thing to do given the circumstances we see happening now. Let me explain.

Whether you believe Bush lied to get us into the war with Iraq, or whether you believe as I do that Bush led us into war based on faulty, but at the time, the best evidence and intelligence. Either way make no difference to my analysis. Rewind back to the second gulf war and what would have happened if we never went in? SH would still be in power, the region would be somewhat stable, as stable as the middle east can be given the tumultuous nature of that region, however, lets say SH behaved himself for a while, we didn't have any yellow cake intelligence or enough intel about WND's, namely nerve gas. One can safely assume that with Iran's provocations not changing, it would be a safe bet that they would still be aspiring for a NUKE, and along with it, Iraq would have no choice to do the same.. Throw in SA and other ME states, and what I see happening would have been an escalation in the race for the NUKE. Much like Bush didn't do much, outside of sanctions and not talking with Iran, I see much the same for any other states in the region and at the time. The effect would have been laying it all on Obama to make go away.

A weakened SH, and an emboldened Iran, and fearful SA would have cause an uproar in the region, one that would have had to be dealt with, much like it is now, with the only difference being that Iraq was taken care of, has no NUKES, but Iran is way ahead of everyone else in NUKE ability. So then, ask yourself, what scenario would be the more ideal? The US and its allies having to deal with just Iran, or the US and its allies having to deal with not only Iran, but Iraq, and SA, not to mention possibly Syria and various other nations such as Egypt all seeking the NUKE? For me, and as liberals like to say, the ends justify the means. In terms of the second Iraq war, I think, although not by design (Foresight), we actually avoided a more serious issue with regards to the ME by taking action with regard to Iraq when we did.

The onus, as it were, is on Obama, and if not him, then a Republican President and congress to bail us out yet another time concerning Iran's nuclear transgressions. It means heavy sanctions, and possibly war if needed. We cannot, and I repeat, we cannot let Iran get nukes, and as much as many here deplore war as a solution, it MUST BE on the table, and any American President MUST be willing to follow through.

However the next president is, I do not envy their position at all. Some very difficult, but I believe necessary choices are going to have to be made, and American's will have to get used to the idea that war with Iran is inevitable.

In summary, taking out Iraq when we did prevented a much worse situation than not having done so. Yes sure placing SOFA forces in Iraq would have been nice but it is what it is, and as much as I do see ISIS as a possible future threat, I believe a much more manageable one that a nuclear Iran.

Just my take.

Tim-

The problem with this analysis being that the eventual outcome of the war was about as positive for Iran as could be expected anyway...

 

[Chagos]

That is why I tend to feel sorry we did not play the game differently. Iran would have been the better regime change candidate. But that was no longer easily possible, after Putin, chirac and Schröder had sided with Saddam.

You might want to change your news source.:lamo

 

[joG]

You might want to change your news source.:lamo

Why, that is rather common knowledge, at least, for those who understand how negotiations work.

 

[Chagos]

Why, that is rather common knowledge, at least, for those who understand how negotiations work.

Well yeah, if one has issues with logic, it may well be deemed to be.

If I'm opposed to supporting someone's policy on grounds of its stupidity, I'm obviously on the side of the enemy.

Classical strawman example.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Iran became interested in nuclear weapons precisely because we invaded Iraq. North Korea actually had nuclear weapons and was left alone. Saddam didn't and was deposed and executed. That sends a message that actually following the rules is pointless, as the U.S. will just lie and attack anyway, whereas getting nukes makes you untouchable. We also had military forces deployed in a flanking maneuver that made them very vulnerable. Finally, we pointlessly threaten them with the "axis of evil" speech. All our failures helped lead to the downfall of the more moderate Iranian government being replaced by the hardline ahmadinejad.

Making up childish excuses for incredibly stupid past policies will do nothing but ensure we continue to fail instead of actually learning from our mistakes and trying to fix the mess we are in.

It is utter nonsense to suggest that Iran suddenly became interested in nukes because we invaded Iraq. The interest has always existed with that regime. The opportunity only came up when third world nuclear technology sudden came on the market. Google: "A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation".

 

[joG]

Well yeah, if one has issues with logic, it may well be deemed to be.

If I'm opposed to supporting someone's policy on grounds of its stupidity, I'm obviously on the side of the enemy.

Classical strawman example.

Only, when your support is backed up with two veto votes on the Security council. Then open confrontation led the schmuck in Baghdad to believe he could act against the Resolution and keep his job. That changes the optimizing strategy of the negotiation. He no longer thought he had anything to fear.

I mean, you do not see that? I can't really believe that.

 

[joG]

It is utter nonsense to suggest that Iran suddenly became interested in nukes because we invaded Iraq. The interest has always existed with that regime. The opportunity only came up when third world nuclear technology sudden came on the market. Google: "A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation".

There are people around, that spew opinions that are worthy of preschoolers.

 

[Chagos]

Only, when your support is backed up with two veto votes on the Security council. Then open confrontation led the schmuck in Baghdad to believe he could act against the Resolution and keep his job. That changes the optimizing strategy of the negotiation. He no longer thought he had anything to fear.

I mean, you do not see that? I can't really believe that.

Side stepping. The point is that Chirac and Schröder did not side with Saddam (I never speculate on Putin), they opposed the invasion on the presented premises (AQ alliance, WMDs) that own intelligence showed to be false and on the foreseeable negative outcome in which they were right.

They were far from alone.

 

[Chagos]

It is utter nonsense to suggest that Iran suddenly became interested in nukes because we invaded Iraq. The interest has always existed with that regime. The opportunity only came up when third world nuclear technology sudden came on the market. Google: "A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation".

True enough wrt to continued Iranian interests.

They date all the way back to times of the Shah.

The Nuclear Vault: The Iranian Nuclear Program, 1974-1978

 

[ecofarm]

Side stepping. The point is that Chirac and Schröder did not side with Saddam (I never speculate on Putin), they opposed the invasion on the presented premises (AQ alliance, WMDs) that own intelligence showed to be false and on the foreseeable negative outcome in which they were right.

They were far from alone.

False. Every western intelligence agency believed Saddam continued to pursue WMDs. This was supported in large part do to his violations of UNSCRs and inspector requests. The inspection team's last report states clearly that Saddam continues to impede the investigation (but that things are improving) and they are unable to determine the state of his WMD activities.

Saddam himself admitted that he kept up the appearance of a WMD program because he feared the Iranian regime more than he feared the UN. He faked a WMD program. That's no one's fault but his own.

 

[Chagos]

False. Every western intelligence agency believed Saddam continued to pursue WMDs..........

False.

Powell's demonstrations (infantile drawings) of mobile labs and launchers in the UN were based on one (ONE) Iraqi informer. Curveball.

German intelligence had supplied his testimony but long since "burned" him as a liar by the time his crap was presented in the UN. The official US version is to this day that the dire warning got lost somehow.

Inspection reports, where previously following your line, finally stated something completely different to what you claim

Hans Blix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ecofarm]

False.

Powell's demonstrations (infantile drawings) of mobile labs and launchers in the UN were based on one (ONE) Iraqi informer. Curveball.

German intelligence had supplied his testimony but long since "burned" him as a liar by the time his crap was presented in the UN. The official US version is to this day that the dire warning got lost somehow.

That was not the only evidence. You forgot about banning, evading and otherwise impairing inspectors for decades, and other (including physical) evidence.

As I noted, Saddam admitted to faking a WMD program. You cannot ignore this fact.

Inspection reports, where previously following your line, finally stated something completely different to what you claim

Wrong. The final inspectors report is clear: Saddam continues to impede investigations and thus conclusions cannot be reached regarding the status of any WMD activities.

 

[Chagos]

That was not the only evidence. You forgot about banning, evading and otherwise impairing inspectors for decades, and other (including physical) evidence.

As I noted, Saddam admitted to faking a WMD program. You cannot ignore this fact.



Wrong. The final inspectors report is clear: Saddam continues to impede investigations and thus conclusions cannot be reached regarding the status of any WMD activities.

This, if you care to remember, was initiated by the claim made that France and Germany (and Russia) sided with Saddam.

At the time that they refused support to the invasion (a completely different thing) it was on the latest status of report(s), coupled with intelligence that Germany possessed.

The case presented FOR invasion was ludicrously shaky.

At least Powell afterwards had the guts to admit it and the integrity to state how ashamed he still is.