patrick.net

I pretty much nailed what was going to happen in my predictions, that we'd get to Baghdad but find it very difficult to establish and protect any friendly government due to terrorist resistance, very similar to the dynamic we encountered trying to nation-build the Saigon regime in the face of VC terrorism by IEDs, carbombs, sapper attacks, and assassinations.

I did not really understand the Secular Shia (INC) / Radical Shia (Basra / al Sadr) / Secular Sunni (Baathist) / Radical Sunni (AQ in Iraq) / Kurdish Mosul divide going in but strongly suspected that it'd be a long, tough slog once we got there.

But having said that, it hasn't gone necessarily much worse than I was expecting, and if our taking out Saddam & Sons when we did prevented an even nastier war occurring later this century then it still might prove the prudent course to have taken. Just look at all the BS we've got to deal with with the soon-to-be 3rd generation N Koreans dictators.

The US KIA were not disproportionate to these future risk. 1/8th of the Korean Conflict and a couple of months of Vietnam at its height.

The Bush tax cuts cost just as much as the war cost, as has the mortgage bubble misinvestment.

Excellent question that has prompted me to revisit thinking I hadn't really taken the effort to do so yet.

IMHO, the war was created as a diversion because we couldn't find bin Laden - and we had to find some enemy to take our minds off it.

Mission accomplished.

Not worth it.

Both wars are Neocon foreign policy adventures that were designed to reshape the Middle East according to the nation of Israel's stated policy goals. Bush was, by his own admission, not an expert on foreign affairs, and by all accounts, didn't even have an interest. He was the perfect candidate to be manipulated and controlled by these radicals. If you really want to understand these wars, you need to concentrate your efforts on studying the history of the Neocons, what their well documented policies have always been, and whose interests it is they are representing in our government. Hint: it's not the interests of the United States. The key players: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Rumsfeld, Cheney and of course the "godfather" Irving Kristol and his son William Kristol. The list goes on, but these were the main players that manipulated us into these insane wars.

My opinion from day one and it hasn't changed a bit is that Iraq was about:

A. Oil
B. 2004 elections.
C. Saving face after 9/11

Zxlr is correct follow the money.

Some great insights and solid points all around, except for Troy's post. Solid posts there Ray and Zlxr.

I think George W. Bush and his senior advisors genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons and was a threat to our allies.

However, I don't believe that other people, given the same information as the Bush administration, would have drawn the same conclusions. The neocons saw what they wanted to see -- just enough to placate their conscience.

The people who supported the war, and the people who still think Bush was a good president, are the kind of people who think that the US should bomb anyone who looks at us funny, and that the US has the right to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants, to whomever it wants.

Honestly, when the war first started I didn't know what to think about it. I actually thought that saddam might have WMDs, but I also didn't think that he'd be crazy enough to use them so it didn't matter if he did or not. I thought a war was completely unnecessary, and would likely result in a situation a lot like vietnam.

I was an avid supporter and I still support the objective of regime change.

The Bush Administration along with our military leaders lost the war. That was always the risk. The book "Fiasco" details the repeated failures at all levels of the military as well as the Bush Administration. Nobody wants to talk about the failure of the military, but they bungled Iraq big-time.

What changed for me was support for Republican leaders in wartime. Republicans have shown a pathological inability to win a hot war. A strong civilian leader is needed to get the military to function properly. If John Kerry had been elected, he would have lessened the cost of the Iraq War failure, and we would have defeated Al Qaeda by now. Four more years of Bush have erased those possibilities. Thanks American voters.

Kevin says

I think George W. Bush and his senior advisors genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons and was a threat to our allies.

On 9/12/2001, Iraq was already being singled out by the Neocons, in spite of the fact that they had zero intelligence linking Saddam to the attacks. The WMDs spin came much later and was invented in order to justify the attack on Iraq. CIA head George Tenet attempted to influence Bush on the facts but the Neocons had virtually 24 hour access in which to influence him. They also obtained their own "intelligence" that was extremely tainted and was used to "help" Bush make the right decision. Again, study the Neocons as far as who they are and who they really represent and you'll quickly see what was behind the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

PBS's FRONTLINE did a very good expose`on the Iraq War. Proves the real behind the scenes maneuverings that took place by the Neocons in order to push Bush into the war they wanted:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

I was surprised they didn't find any WMD. Not because the intel was bad, there was really no intel. Because of his history and the general methods he used to keep people under control (and why we can't do so now) is why I figured he had the weapons. Saddam was very good at controlling information, and he made appearances of having the weapons, but keeping tight control over any other intel that might get out. The biggest problem is how all of those countries communicate and how they do business in general. They say one thing, mean another and do something else. Saudi tells the US attack Iran, tells the world don't do it! Gives support, denies they knew what they were supporting, etc. It's a complex game.

That being said, Iraq was bombed on a weekly basis since 1991. The military was pissed that the job wasn't done back then, but the intel back then said "Saddam is a nut job that has to go, we know that. Unfortunately here are the people to replace him: nut job with no intel, nut job with no intel, nut job with no intel, nut job....". The end result was, Saddam was a nut job that had to go, but at least the military knew what he was likely to do. His replacements where complete unknowns. So Bush Sr/Clinton said don't screw it up, just bomb him weekly and leave him there for now. The military never gave up trying to get rid of him though.

9/11 was just a reason to do this, with some decent cover. They had been planning this for over a decade waiting for an opportunity.

There isn't an oil company out there that expected to get oil out of Iraq after the war. They deal with unstable regions all over the world, and it's costly and hard to get it out. Iraq would be far worse for them. They knew that because they're always dealing with unstable regions, militias and what not, maybe some in the government had higher hopes, but those who had worked in the region knew it wasn't happening. Oil companies knew they weren't getting any oil for 15+ years, if ever. Oil companies had nothing to gain, even though everyone thinks they had the most gain. 10 years later, and they're still pumping next to nothing from there, with extremely high costs associated with that oil.

I knew the political outcome of that war, based on that region. Most of the people in those regions (educated people..) understand that they require military/monarchs to survive or do well. Look at places like Pakistan, that have tossed their government out every 2 years due to corruption and/or had military coups every few years. There are such strong opposing forces and such strong cultural differences that politics takes on a completely different life over there. While Saddam was a complete nut job, he knew how to stay alive (read up on his tactics and what he did, he was a nut job, but everything he did kept him alive). He didn't let anything past him, and showed very swift punishments to anyone who opposed him. This created a stable society for most. It created a society where if you were born on the wrong side, you were never getting a better life, but you could be assured to have a stable crappy life. Born on the right side, and you were living a pretty decent life.

I don't think the war was needed, a win or not was going to result in the same politics being put in place. The next stable government will be run much like how Saddam ran his government, we'll keep cycling through useless governments until one strong one takes hold and punishes quickly anything. Net result is nothing changes. Oil companies knew they were getting nothing out of this. The military thought they were going to make it better, but didn't fully realize what was going to happen.

At the start people were paid well. After awhile, people started making more reasonable amounts for the danger they were in. The security firms paid ridiculous amounts, after a couple of years those contracts weren't worth as much. Cost of doing business over there was pretty high as well. If you're selling gas for $10/gallon but you're losing 25% of your trucks and supply and people, it starts to become a lot less lucrative.

People made money for sure. Lots of people died trying. Some corporations did well, but the costs of doing business were high for them, not only in personal, but logistics themselves.

pkennedy says

Oil companies knew they weren’t getting any oil for 15+ years, if ever. Oil companies had nothing to gain, even though everyone thinks they had the most gain. 10 years later, and they’re still pumping next to nothing from there, with extremely high costs associated with that oil.

This is contrary to my understanding. Once Saddam was out of his box his economy was going to be reintegrated with the French and Russian industrial interests to who Saddam owed billions from the Iran Iraq War.

There was not going to be any lease auctions, Iraq's business would be reestablished much on the model of the Sultanate of Brunei with Saddam being the Sultan. Trade would be reestablished with the French and Russia, and American/British/Dutch concerns would be totally shut out of what would become again a dominant economy of the mideast.

As for the postwar disorder, I don't think it was necessarily a pipedream to plan on some sort of post-Baathist state emerging. The postwar failure was more political than military, or perhaps more accurately the military's failure to switch from military action to political action.

I volunteered for Gulf War I. Had already retired by the time GW II started although I did offer to come back to active duty.

I recently spent two weeks in a VA Hospital undergoing surgery and a week of rehab. It really rattled me to see these young wounded warriors. Part of being in the military I guess.

jvolstad says

Part of being in the military I guess.

infantry, actually.

Kevin says

I think George W. Bush and his senior advisors genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons and was a threat to our allies.>

No.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=wolfowitz+iraq+excuse&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&rlz=1I7HPIC_en#hl=en&expIds=17259,18168,27739,27744,27878&xhr=t&q=wolfowitz+iraq+bureaucratic+reason&cp=34&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&rlz=1I7HPIC_en&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=cf118537cf1dbd40

@SoCal Renter

You have an interesting view. At least it seems, you have given more thought to it than many of the Iraq War supporters.
cheers.

bob2356 says

My opinion from day one and it hasn’t changed a bit is that Iraq was about:

A. Oil
B. 2004 elections.
C. Saving face after 9/11

Add to that a sick kind of "stimulus." Our economy and the stock market were in deep trouble. Although, as I have said (speculated) before, it was a recession that we needed very much to have. A little economic pain is good every now and then, for deleveraging and so on. But, a bad economy is not good for getting elected. I guess this is all part of B.

Troy said: This is contrary to my understanding. Once Saddam was out of his box his economy was going to be reintegrated with the French and Russian industrial interests to who Saddam owed billions from the Iran Iraq War.

I'm with Troy on this one as I remember reading about French and Russian interests in the lead up to the war. Here's some post Gulf II analysis:

Certainly, until the war started, one of the firms that seemed most likely to get its hands on Iraqi oil was France's biggest company, TotalFinaElf. Unlike its American and British rivals, such as Exxon Mobil and BP, which in recent years have had to stay away thanks to the hostility of their governments toward Saddam Hussein and their enthusiasm for United Nations sanctions, Total has followed the French government's lead and kept up contacts in Iraq. That seemed to pay dividends when it was reported that the company had secured lucrative deals to exploit the huge Majnoon field, with 20 billion barrels of oil, in southern Iraq, as well as the smaller Nahr Umr field nearby. Total claims not to have signed any contracts with Saddam's government.

As for the Russians, they clearly did deals with Saddam:
A Russian consortium including oil group LUKOIL (LKOH.MM) signed a $3.7 billion deal to develop Iraq's West Qurna oil field in 1996, when Saddam Hussein was in power.
"The goal has been set to restore the contracts concluded between Russian and Iraqi companies before the war," Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said, adding that a working group on the issue would convene in the near future.

bob2356 says

My opinion from day one and it hasn’t changed a bit is that Iraq was about:
A. Oil

B. 2004 elections.

C. Saving face after 9/11
Zxlr is correct follow the money.

SoCal Renter says

The Bush Administration along with our military leaders lost the war. That was always the risk. The book “Fiasco” details the repeated failures at all levels of the military as well as the Bush Administration. Nobody wants to talk about the failure of the military, but they bungled Iraq big-time.
...

I used to think this was a dumb war, but my opinion changed.

I see it as a war cannot be won since there is no clear enemy. War on terror is an equivalent to saying "War on Poverty" where goals are never going to be met as the goal like will always be moved. Except war on poverty is a noble goal, while War on terror, is just an excuse to go kill muslims in order to profit handsomely from the oil regions while setting up a puppet government. I'm sure military complex is jumping with joy as well.

At least thats where my opinion ended on the situation. In 2004 I just thought it was rather dumb to go to war, I just didn't realize back then that it wasn't dumb... it was simply profitable. (poor people are dying to make a few guys rich, history repeats itself and society hasn't changed a bit)

March 2003. I trusted that they had good intelligence and good reasons.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

I just didn’t realize back then that it wasn’t dumb… it was simply profitable.

I'm not quite that cynical, about it being directly about profit. That is, I think Bush and the neocons saw it as more. They would say and believe it was ultimately about protecting long term economic interests. Thus the short term profits of Haliburton and the many other ancillary entities were seen as justified and as incidental. But it's hard to separate the rationalization from the ultimate profit. The neocons really did have a fantasy of further westernizing the middle east. It's never talked about that it may also have been a way of flipping off alqaeda who supposedly wanted us out of of the middle east (their supposed reason for 9/11).

If it had worked out better, not destroying Iraq as much as it did and killing so many, who knows? I honestly can't comprehend how anyone makes those kinds of decisions and analyses. I guess like many others, I would like to hold out hope that in the long term it is somehow "worth it."

The PR piece of it, that is how we are seen in Europe and in the middle east doesn't seem to have worked out so great.

Another sucker here.

I was sold by their stories and thus did not protest it.

Although I thought at the time, that Afghanistan would turn out to be the quagmire that is has proven. A study of history led me to that view, and I remember having a huge argument with my then-boss in late 2001 that the only way to "fight" that war was in and out. No conquest troops as it had been proven time and again Afghanis would win that war of attrition.

I argued with my then-girlfriend who saw the whole thing as WRONG quite a bit, whereas I was more resigned to it. When you look at the pattern of US since WWII it was clear TPTB view US hegemony as a given, and any excuse to lock up strategic locations and resources is A-OK. Given our then-fresh victory in Gulf War I you had a lot of smug SOB like Rumsfeld running the show and here we are.

The way we "fought" this whatever-it-is, has totally not been worth the money.

I appreciate the honesty of posters here.

cheers.

Bubble Bobble says

That used to be what we waged wars for… to take the land

Really? When was the last time we did that? Spanish American War of 1898?

American in Japan says

@SoCal Renter
You have an interesting view. At least it seems, you have given more thought to it than many of the Iraq War supporters.
cheers.

The Iraq War Plan lacked post hostilities planning. Literally. There was no fucking plan at all. No one was responsible. The military didn't plan for it. The State Department didn't plan for it. The United Nations didn't plan for it. The Bush Administration didn't plan for it. American citizens assumed our government had it under control.

Rumsfield's military doctrine was flawed (speed over mass). The military's implementation was shitty. Bremer single-handedly created the insurgency during his time as leader of the CPA.

The tragedy is that none of this had to happen. Military science knows how to defeat an enemy. Social science knows how to re-build a society. We have mountains of research establishing very clear principles for all of these things. What I will never fathom is how the leaders at every stage of the Iraq War tossed out established principles for hair-brained dumbfuck experiments.

But hey, it's the 21st Century! Perhaps we can swim in fire and set water alight now!

SoCal Renter says

The State Department didn’t plan for it.

Actually State did have a plan but it was ignored by the Administration muckity-mucks running the war.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1019-07.htm

Clearly Bush didn't want anyone other than Rummy and a bunch of frat-boys deciding what to do. It's too bad Colin Powell was pushed out, he's about the only one in that group I think could have made the post-invasion policies work. We should never have set aside all their existing military, police, and political infrastructure. After WWII in Germany and Japan during occupation the old infrastructure was quickly retasked to new ends not just pushed aside in hopes democracy and goodness would sprout on it's own.

RayAmerica says

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

Thanks for the link....