Was invading Iraq really the worst decision in the history of U.S. foreign policy?

[astro]

I was watching Meet the Press with Tim Russert (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/) this morning, and the claim was made by Washington post writer Thomas Ricks, who has authored the book "Fiasco" (http://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-American-Military-Adventure-Iraq/dp/159420103X/sr=8-1/qid=1165768095/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5411789-3496615?ie=UTF8&s=books) about Iraq, that invading Iraq was probably going to be viewed as (to date) the worst decision in the history of American Foreign policy.

What say you history dopers. Is this a plausible claim?

[According to Pliny]

Each generation gets it's own claimant to that thophy.
The names are engraved and it's passed around like the Stanley Cup.

[madmonk28]

No surprise to many here, but I feel it was. I think the US has discredited itself precisely at a time when China is emerging as a global power. I also think America has destabilized the Middle East, driven a wedge between ourselves and our European allies, made it impossible for democratic voices to exist in the ME without appearing to be lackies of the United States, empowered radical elements within Iran (which prior to the invasion were losing influence), and strengthened Iran as a regional power.

When I'm home on R&R people ask me if Iraq is another Vietnam. I tell them that when this is over we will wish it was just another Vietnam. I think Bush has sown has hastened America's global standing and risked huge financial upheaval if in the world's oil markets.

[madmonk28]

* That should have read:
I think Bush has sown hastened the decline of America's global standing and risked huge financial upheaval if in the world's oil markets.

[XT]

Its too early too tell IMHO. I find it hard to believe that Iraq (to date) is a worse policy blunder than Vietnam from any perspective you care to name. Of course, if we are still in Iraq 2 administrations from now, if the US death toll goes completely nuts and is an order of magnitude greater, if the money continue to hemorage at a quicker rate, and if Iraq goes completely tits up, taking most of the region with it....well, then you'd have a pretty good case that Iraq was the worst policy blunder in US history. We'd need to start comparing ourselves to the worst blunders our Euro buddies have made in that case...and who knows, we might top even them in this fuck up. :p

Even now I would have to rate it in the top 10 of fuckups by the US...and maybe even in the top 5.

-XT

[John Mace]

I think by most objective measures that getting involved in Vietnam was worse than invading Iraq. But that's judging things as the exist now-- it might well be that the decision to invade Iraq will turn out to be (at some future time) worse than Vietnam. Whether it'll be the worst decision in the history of the US is hard to say. What if the US (along with Britain and the other allies) had acted sooner to contain Hitler-- could we have largely avoided the catastrophy of WWII? You have to consider things we didn't do along with things we did do if you're going to go down that road.

[ITR champion]

Personally I find it far-fetched to classify the invasion of Iraq as worse than the invasion of Vietnam. In discussing the relative awfulness of ideas, we need to divide stupidity, like all of Gaul, into three parts: stupidity of idea, stupidity of execution, and stupidity of consequences.

1. The idea of killing a huge number of Vietnamese in order to save the Vietnamese is surely equal in stupidity to the idea of killing a huge number of Iraqis in order to save the Iraqis.

2. By any measure, the execution of the Vietnam War was worse than the Iraq war has been. We might measure by Americans deaths, Americans injuries, civilian deaths, total deaths, money wasted, damage to America's prestige abroad, or damage to American cohesion at home. Regardless of what we choose, Vietnam was the worse decision.

Of course, the politicians who wrecked Vietnam had an advantage that allowed for greater stupidity. With the draft, they had an unlimited supply of American soldiers, and thus no limit on how their behavior. They could expand the war as much as they wished and maintain it indefinitely. In Iraq, by contrast, the fixed number of available soldiers prevents Bush from expanding the war, and will eventually force our politicians to bring the troops home. In that regard it may not be a fair comparison, since the Vietnam-era presidents had an unfair advantage in the stupidity category.

3. As for the sum of consequences of these two wars, we don't yet know what the full consequences of the Iraq war will be. It might turn out to be worse than the consequences of Vietnam in the long term, but then again it might not.

[ITR champion]

One final thought.

The whole question of the worst decision "in the history of U.S. foreign policy" is skewed towards more recent decisions. The U.S. has been much more active in world affairs during the last century than it was in it's first 130 years, and much more active since WWII than in the first half of the 20th century. Hence there were many more foreign policy decisions in the last three generations than in earlier times, and far more chances for those decisions to have huge consequences. If Chester Alan Arthur or James K. Polk had completely bungled their foreign policy initiatives, it would hardly be worth remembering today. They may have done so, for all I know.

[jjimm]

Its too early too tell IMHO. I find it hard to believe that Iraq (to date) is a worse policy blunder than Vietnam from any perspective you care to name.IMO from the point of view of recruitment to Islamic extremism and terrorism. Vietnam didn't cause hundreds of formerly peacible Communists to don explosive vests and blow the shit out of people in their own countries. Thousands of Communists from all over the world didn't flood into Vietnam to fight the Americans, and get trained in Viet Cong terror camps. The perception of the "street", prior to the invasion of Iraq, was that the US was anti-Islamic; Iraq confirmed it to a very high degree, and I have no doubt that it has driven thousands of the formerly apathetic into religiously-motivated fanatics, all over the world. This is a Very Bad Thing.

[Mr. Excellent]

No, invading Iraq was not the worst decision in the history of US foreign policy. Nor, for that matter, was Vietnam. The distinction probably belongs to the War of 1812 - among other things, this was the war that got Washington sacked. Hard to trump that.

[John Mace]

One final thought.

The whole question of the worst decision "in the history of U.S. foreign policy" is skewed towards more recent decisions. The U.S. has been much more active in world affairs during the last century than it was in it's first 130 years, and much more active since WWII than in the first half of the 20th century. Hence there were many more foreign policy decisions in the last three generations than in earlier times, and far more chances for those decisions to have huge consequences. If Chester Alan Arthur or James K. Polk had completely bungled their foreign policy initiatives, it would hardly be worth remembering today. They may have done so, for all I know.
Good point, and I almost added that same idea to my post. So, I'll take this rare opportunity to say that I agree 100% with all your posts on this subject so far-- it's nice to see eye to eye for once with someone I rarely agree with! :)

[OttoDaFe]

One crucial difference between Vietnam and Iraq, IMHO, is that in the case of the former the US was drawn in gradually by perceived obligations to an ally (the French). In addition, there was the spectre of "global Communism," which, while it did not really apply to Vietnam in the sense that the powers-that-were thought it did, was far more real than "mushroom clouds over New York in 45 minutes."

The difference seemed to be between tiptoeing into a pool of quicksand and taking a running leap into it. While wearing ankle weights.

[madmonk28]

I think invading Iraq was a worse mistake for a couple of reasons:

First, Vietnam happened within the context of the cold war. Although the US lost the war, it did not upset the bipolar structure of the global power structure. Ultimately, Vietnam was a great tragedy because it was a great loss of life over something that was not in in the US' vital interests.

The Iraq invasion (specifically, America's loss in Iraq), greatly upsets the global power structure. The world is no longer balanced by two opposing super powers. The US was more in a position of Britain in the 19th to early 20th century and in invading Iraq, the US has, I believe hastened its lost of influence and contributed to global destabilization. It has also unleashed long simering sectarian tensions that I think will spread outside of Iraq.

Finally, the Iraq invasion represents a great missed opportunity. The 9/11 attacks rallied the world around the US in a way that hasn't been seen since the end of WWII. Had the US pursued fully the war in Afghanistan, rebuilt that nation and worked with NATO to do so, I believe the US could have seized upon the opportunity presented to re-establish itself as a global leader both politically and culturally. Instead, the Bush administration has squandered that good will and it is unlikely to ever exist again.

[Squink]

One crucial difference between Vietnam and Iraq, IMHO, ...Another crucial difference is that the middle east has some strategic importance to the US, while at the time of the war, Vietnam was a global backwater.

[Blalron]

I believe Vietnam still ranks as worse than Iraq (so far). At least in terms of body count. I don't know about relative cost (adjusted for inflation).

[Stranger On A Train]

I think by most objective measures that getting involved in Vietnam was worse than invading Iraq. But that's judging things as the exist now-- it might well be that the decision to invade Iraq will turn out to be (at some future time) worse than Vietnam. Whether it'll be the worst decision in the history of the US is hard to say.However, US involvement in Vietnam was neither unilateral nor, strictly speaking, a single decision. Eisenhower got us interested in French Indochina in an advisory capacity, to bolster against what was the very real threat of Communist expansion. Kennedy increased involvement, Johnson escalated the effort manyfold and committed us to a ground war, and Nixon (despite repeated promises to pull out) continued the war until social consensus was almost universally against it. The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was essesntially the singleminded work--justified by pushing very sensitive emotional buttons and falsifyingmanipulating evidence--of one Administration. While the effects of Vietnam may end up being still greater than whatever the aftermath of Iraq is (although the Middle East is a more valuable strategic and economic resource to the US than Southeast Asia ever was), I think that Iraq qualifies as being on par with the worst policy decisions every made by the US Government.

What if the US (along with Britain and the other allies) had acted sooner to contain Hitler--could we have largely avoided the catastrophy of WWII? You have to consider things we didn't do along with things we did do if you're going to go down that road.That's very true; and then there are policy decisions (like the Louisiana Purchase and the Alaskan Purchase) that were at least mildly unpopular in their day but which turned out to be outstandingly perceptive moves.

Stranger

[David Simmons]

I think by most objective measures that getting involved in Vietnam was worse than invading Iraq. But that's judging things as the exist now-- it might well be that the decision to invade Iraq will turn out to be (at some future time) worse than Vietnam. Whether it'll be the worst decision in the history of the US is hard to say.There is one small difference in the beginning of the two bad cases. The Vietnam adventure was like the frog in the pan of water that is being gradually heated. The Iraq case is more like a frog standing on the rim of a boiling pot and jumping in. That is, Vietnam was not a decision. It was a whole bunch of them in series. Which is worse is hard to say. For Vietnam, at every step in the path it's possible to say, "It seemed like a good idea at the time. I don't think that's possible for Iraq.
What if the US (along with Britain and the other allies) had acted sooner to contain Hitler-- could we have largely avoided the catastrophy of WWII? You have to consider things we didn't do along with things we did do if you're going to go down that road.Yes we could have but it was impossible to take the necessary steps. Even before the election of the Nazi's the rest of Europe and the US could have aided Germany in its disasterous inflation. The rest of Europe and the US could have read Mein Kampf and when the first camp at Dachau was built we could have seen that Hitler was deadly serious about the things he wrote in the book.

However, doing something would have meant raising, training and equipping large military forces which just plain wasn't going to happen in the midst of the great economic depression.

[ElvisL1ves]

If Chester Alan Arthur or James K. Polk had completely bungled their foreign policy initiatives, it would hardly be worth remembering today. They may have done so, for all I know.But "worst" has to be considered in relation to consequences - recent decisions have had much more potential to achieve that honor.

The speed with which the President realized it was a fuckup, and the actions he took as a consequence, also have to be considered. Bush has shown no signs even yet that he knows it, unlike any other President in a comparable situation that I can think of. If he does know it, he has responded to that knowledge not at all.

The basis for making the decision has to be considered, too. The real reasons for Bush's invasion have been such a mishmash of rationalizations that it's hard to credit him for actually believing any of it. The comparable fuckups we've been discussing all were based on at least some sincerity, combined with naivete and simple ignorance of the facts, but none compare in terms of adamantly rejecting any facts that did not support the preconceived decision, and eliminating anyone who might dare mention the possibility. LBJ may have lied us into Vietnam escalation (allow him the Costanza Defense for Tonkin Gulf), and furthermore inherited US ground involvement. Bush did lie us into invading Iraq - there is no factual debate about that anymore, and hasn't for a long time.

All that said, there was still a chance that an invaded Iraq could have been left in the hands of a different strongman, no better than Saddam but with a different name, and that could have been considered a success. The decision to destroy all of Iraq's governmental institutions, and the decision not to do any planning for after the invasion, and the decision to leave Osama alone and pull troops from Afghanistan, are the 3 main fuckups here, but they only compounded the decision to "Fuck Saddam, I'm taking him out" - that is better described as a criminal act than a fuckup.


John, Hitler was not being contained, Saddam was, and Bush knew it too. So should you.

[chappachula]

I think invading Iraq was a worse mistake for a couple of reasons:

The Iraq invasion (specifically, America's loss in Iraq), greatly upsets the global power structure. The world is no longer balanced by two opposing super powers.and the world was balanced by 2 opposing super powers before the war? The Berlin wall collapsed a couple decades ago.

The US was more in a position of Britain in the 19th to early 20th century
no, the US was already losing influence-- as American jobs move overseas and other countries improve their own technology. Japanese products have dominated American markets for a couple decades. Chinese and Indian products dominate in the next couple decades--not due to the Iraq war, but because the Chinese are learning, like the Japanese did, to produce good quality.

It has also unleashed long simering sectarian tensions that I think will spread outside of Iraq. the Iran-Iraq war started a couple decades ago, . The US didn't unleash it.
What is spreading outside of Iraq is not sectarian hatred (between Sunni and Shiites)--it is anti-western hatred. And that started on Sept 11. before the US invaded Iraq. It will continue spreading; Not because of American soldiers in Iraq, but because Muslim fanatics have learned that the west fears them and is willing to surrender. (e.g. Danish cartoonists)


the Iraq invasion represents a great missed opportunity. The 9/11 attacks rallied the world around the US in a way that hasn't been seen since the end of WWII. That was only a temporary burst of emotion--the same way the entire Democratic party rallied around the White House after 9/11.

Had the US pursued fully the war in Afghanistan, and worked with NATO the US could have re-established itself as a global leader both politically and culturally. Instead, the Bush administration has squandered that good will and it is unlikely to ever exist again. The good will never really amounted to anything concrete. Russia's support of Iran is not due to squandered goodwill because of American mistakes in Iraq--it's due to Russian self interest. The US would not have gained more support for its interests (such as restraining Iran's nukes) even if the Iraqi war never happened.


The OP asks if Iraq was the worst decision ever. I dont think it will have as much negative effect as the Anti-Bush people think. America is losing its position as global leader for a lot of reasons, and the Iraqi war won't really change that.

[Dewey Finn]

Finally, the Iraq invasion represents a great missed opportunity. The 9/11 attacks rallied the world around the US in a way that hasn't been seen since the end of WWII. Had the US pursued fully the war in Afghanistan, rebuilt that nation and worked with NATO to do so, I believe the US could have seized upon the opportunity presented to re-establish itself as a global leader both politically and culturally. Instead, the Bush administration has squandered that good will and it is unlikely to ever exist again.
I agree with this. Bush had a tremendous opportunity on September 11 that he never took advantage of. I would have preferred an international response to Al Qaeda and perhaps a national effort to develop alternative sources of energy (and expand conservation programs).

I believe Vietnam still ranks as worse than Iraq (so far). At least in terms of body count. I don't know about relative cost (adjusted for inflation).
I think the number of American deaths in Iraq is relatively low because of better body armor and medical care. But there are many soldiers returning with amputated limbs and brain injuries.

[Quartz]

No, invading Iraq was not a bad decision. In fact, removing Saddam was one of Bush's better decisions. The mistake was to stay there afterwards. We should have left within weeks of bagging Saddam.

[jjimm]

No, invading Iraq was not a bad decision. In fact, removing Saddam was one of Bush's better decisions. The mistake was to stay there afterwards. We should have left within weeks of bagging Saddam....so that he could have been replaced by any number of equally despotic Ba'ath apparatchiks. What a silly idea.

[Quartz]

...so that he could have been replaced by any number of equally despotic Ba'ath apparatchiks. What a silly idea.

Cite?

Since we'd destroyed the Ba'ath party, and I believe that Iraq would have disintegrated along racial lines a la Yugoslavia - it still may - I cannot agree with your insulting comment.

[jjimm]

Since we'd destroyed the Ba'ath party, and I believe that Iraq would have disintegrated along racial lines a la Yugoslavia - it still may - I cannot agree with your insulting comment.I took your post at face value: you said "We should have left within weeks of bagging Saddam". Nothing about destruction of the Ba'ath party or removing Uday or Qusay or Ali or any of the others. Hence my "insulting" comment.

As for your prediction that removal of power structures would have caused balkanisation - I'm rather horrified that you feel this would be a desirable outcome, for which you prescribe no intervention.

[Plan B]

No, invading Iraq was not the worst decision in the history of US foreign policy. Nor, for that matter, was Vietnam. The distinction probably belongs to the War of 1812 - among other things, this was the war that got Washington sacked. Hard to trump that.

What he said.

Except maybe, Jimmy Carter's decision to let the Iranian militants off easy when they violated international law by seizing the American Embassy in 1979. It's possible that the last 27 years would have been significantly different if he had treated an act of war as an act of war.

[pantom]

Slightly different perspective: getting involved in WWI.
This was two separate fuck-ups: getting militarily involved on Britain and France's side turned what could have been a stalemate, one that so wore out the participants that they would have finally given up on intra-European wars, into a one-sided victory, which led to fuck-up number two, going to Versailles after the Germans de facto agreed to the Fourteen Points as a condition to get them to the negotiating table, and then abandoning the Fourteen Points at a time when Wilson pretty much could dictate terms (see here for Keynes' devastating indictment of Wilson) (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/ess_keynesversailles.html) , and allowing the vengeful Versailles Treaty to get pushed through.
All of the above set us all on the road to WWII.
And of course, WWI set the template for all of the subsequent fuckups, including Iraq, right down to the "promoting democracy" bull.

[RTFirefly]

So, what are the other contestants, and how do they fare?

Vietnam: way ahead in terms of both U.S. and local casualties. But the fall of Vietnam didn't have any direct downstream consequences for us - we just didn't have anything to do with that corner of the world for quite a few years.

As long as we need oil, every hiccup in the Middle East will continue to be important to us. And Iraq and its neighbors include four of the world's biggest oil producers. I've got to go with Iraq being a bigger blunder than Vietnam.

War of 1812: the lasting repercussions of the sack of swampy Washington were...? That's a serious question; if there were any, I'd like to know. But I can't remember a single book I've read about the period - history, biography, whatever - that suggested that that event had more than passing consequences.

Now, if the British had grabbed a chunk of defendable territory - the Delmarva Peninsula, say - and held it for some years, using it to be a thorn in our side, then the War of 1812 would have rivaled the Iraq war in BlunderDome.

Failure to contain Hitler, or even earlier, our acquiescence in the French demand that the Germans pay the stiff reparations whose consequences made Germany ripe for a demagogue: these were both Western blunders, and are certainly just as big if not bigger than Iraq. But without a better recollection of how able the U.S. was to change either one, it's hard to call it an American blunder.

The French had had to pay heavy reparations to Germany after the War of 1870, and they were itching to do unto Germany as Germany had done unto them; it's doubtful that they could have been talked out of it, and the failure of the U.S. to ratify the Versailles Treaty apparently didn't affect the reparations.

And with respect to containing Hitler, how were we going to do this? Were we going to position troops in sovereign countries bordering Germany in the 1930s? With what army? This was less a blunder than the reality that prior to WWII, America didn't have a tradition of maintaining a very large military, and wasn't going to get involved with Europe's wars unless and until it was absolutely necessary: when FDR tried in mid-1941 to extend the military draft passed the year before, the renewal squeaked through the House by a single vote. How much support would Roosevelt have found if, in 1936 or thereabouts, he'd advocated raising an army to contain Germany - even if we hadn't still been in the middle of the Great Depression?

IOW, there was no American decision, as such, not to contain Hitler. It was simply way beyond the realm of contemplation. So I don't see this as a BlunderDome contestant.

[RTFirefly]

I was still writing you posted, pantom, so I didn't see your post before posting mine. Thanks for chipping away at my ignorance concerning the WWI settlement. Our failure to head off the French demand for reparations definitely belongs in the discussion, and barring better arguments for Iraq or against Versailles, I'd have to lean towards it as our single biggest foreign policy blunder.

[Voyager]

One not mentioned yet, which was bigger than Vietnam, was the statement that South Korea was not in our sphere of influence (or something like that) which led directly to the Korean War. That was a real blunder - pure stupidity. I don't think it is worse than the WW I one (and I'm not sure US influence would have made much of a difference) but if North Korea uses a nuke, it will look much worse.

Getting into WW I was stupid, but not nearly as stupid as WW I for Europe, and it increased our influence greatly at relatively small cost. So I don't think that one makes my list.

[Spoke]

I don't think the War of 1812 qualifies. The US did gain some things in that war. Alabama and south Georgia were opened up to settlement (at the expense of the Creek nation). We put a crimp in British intrigues among Indian tribes. We gained a measure of military respect with the defense of Baltimore and the resounding victory at New Orleans. The sack of Washington was just a temporary setback.

Of the blunders mentioned, Vietnam generated the highest American body count (so far). But soldiers left on the field is not the only measure of a forign policy blunder. You could fairly argue that with Vietnam we lost that battle, but then won the Cold War. With Iraq, in addition to military casualties, we have suffered a loss of prestige, a loss of moral authority, and a loss of respect for our intelligence operations; we have destabilized the Middle East; we have dropped the ball in Afghanistan; we have strengthened theocratic rule in Iran; and we may have created an entire new generation of angry terrorists determined to bring violent death to America's shores. The full price of this blunder has not yet been tallied.

Speaking of blunders and Iraq, you may recall that Bush the Elder is the bungler whose envoy inadvertently signaled Saddam that the US wouldn't respond militarily to an invasion of Kuwait. That blunder has had a cascading effect which has led us to our present conundrum.

[David Simmons]

As has been pointed out, the decision to invade Iraq was one decision. All of the other things listed here are composed of a series of decisions. Take WWI for example. The real problem there was the series of bad decisions that were made after the war was over. Possibly the real problem was that, during the war, no attempt was made to thrash out among the allies what was the end game to be.

I think that if the question is restricted to what single decision has, or will, result in the worst effects on the US future, Iraq is at least in the top two and I can't think of what the other one would be.

[XT]

I think that if the question is restricted to what single decision has, or will, result in the worst effects on the US future, Iraq is at least in the top two and I can't think of what the other one would be.

I guess I'm missing something here. Why is it important one way or the other that it was or was not a single decision? Is the implication that somehow, if the decision is collective, its ok, whether its worse or not? I seriously don't get it.

-XT

[David Simmons]

I guess I'm missing something here. Why is it important one way or the other that it was or was not a single decision? Is the implication that somehow, if the decision is collective, its ok, whether its worse or not? I seriously don't get it.

-XTNo it doesn't make Vietnam any better because it was a series of bum decisions. But I took the question to mean what single decision standing all by itself was the worst. You can interpret it another way if that suits your thinking.

I might add that GW, having made that horrible decision followed it up, as has been his wont, by lackadaisical follow through and careless execution.

[Quartz]

As for your prediction that removal of power structures would have caused balkanisation - I'm rather horrified that you feel this would be a desirable outcome, for which you prescribe no intervention.
Why are you horrified? Iraq is an artificial state, created by the British. It was already splitting up before we intervened, with the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south. If we'd left shortly after bagging Saddam, it would have been a powerful message to other countries to not interfere.

[griffin1977]

One not mentioned yet, which was bigger than Vietnam, was the statement that South Korea was not in our sphere of influence (or something like that) which led directly to the Korean War. That was a real blunder - pure stupidity. I don't think it is worse than the WW I one (and I'm not sure US influence would have made much of a difference) but if North Korea uses a nuke, it will look much worse.


But if N Korea hadn't invaded the south in 1950 theres nothing to say they would not be just as paranoid and autocratic (and have just as much need for WMD) fifty years later as they are now.

Some terrible things have happened as the result of other strategic decisions, but there is no one decision that comes close to the Iraq invasion. True if the US had followed a completely path before, during and after WW2 its possible things could have turned out better, and both WW2 and the cold war avoided, but you cannot point out a single US decision that could have changed things. Other things (1812, Vietnam, etc) don't come close in terms of long term effects IMO

[griffin1977]

Why are you horrified? Iraq is an artificial state, created by the British. It was already splitting up before we intervened, with the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south. If we'd left shortly after bagging Saddam, it would have been a powerful message to other countries to not interfere.

But in terms of the war on terror (or Global Struggle Against Extremism or whatever its called this week) it would be huge defeat. The kind of Yugoslavia-style blood bath that would undoubtable resulted (and could still result) would have been exactly what Al Qiada were after. The Sunni regions would undoubtably ended up in the hand of Sunni Islamist extremists (extremists almost always end up in charge during these kind of situations). We would have replaced a secular totalitarian regime which was no friend of Al Qiada with a Taliban-style regime in the heart of the middle east.

[Stranger On A Train]

If we'd left shortly after bagging Saddam, it would have been a powerful message to other countries to not interfere.The irony of the statement is so strong you could make an indestructible car out of it.

Stranger

[Jonathan Chance]

With what little appeal to authority I can bring by having a BS in history I'll offer that judging any current event in a total historical context is a mugs game. There's simply now way to honestly evaluate a current event in proper historical perspective. Ask again about Iraq in fifty years and we'll see where it ranks.

War of 1812: the lasting repercussions of the sack of swampy Washington were...? That's a serious question; if there were any, I'd like to know. But I can't remember a single book I've read about the period - history, biography, whatever - that suggested that that event had more than passing consequences.

Now, if the British had grabbed a chunk of defendable territory - the Delmarva Peninsula, say - and held it for some years, using it to be a thorn in our side, then the War of 1812 would have rivaled the Iraq war in BlunderDome.


I may be in minority here but it was generally my opinion that the War of 1812 cost the US most of Canada. I think Britain's Canadian territories were ripe for voluntary annexation during the first half of the 19th century and that, eventually, they would have petitioned to join the United States as territories and eventually acheived statehood. Instead of using peaceful persuasion Hamiltion and his expansionists tried to use the Napoleonic Wars to just take them and got our heads handed to us. And the further unification of what I might call 'Canadian Consciousness' with Laura Secord and others as anti-US rallying points made it impossible for those sympathetic to joining the Union to get any traction.

So downstream the difference has been a halving of the size of the United States and all that comes with it. I realize that this is likely viewed by our Canadian posters as a good thing, and I wouldn't presume to disagree with them on the issue. But in terms of US foreign policy costs having Canada in the fold for the last 200 years would be better for the US than not.

I would also offer that the War of 1812 is what launched a viable political career for Andrew Jackson and I've always been less than impressed with his Presidency. Make of that what you will.

That's the best thing about history! The long you have to work with the greater the effects of ANYTHING!

[Cervaise]

Why are you horrified? Iraq is an artificial state, created by the British. It was already splitting up before we intervened, with the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south. If we'd left shortly after bagging Saddam, it would have been a powerful message to other countries to not interfere.Plus, this way, there's no need to put the lives of American soldiers on the line for an ungrateful people, and very few of them will die. Zip in, bag Saddam, bug out. If, after that, a lot of bloodthirsty savages want to slaughter one other, and one another's families, and burn down their own country, well, the civilized world is a lot better off having that many fewer bloodthirsty savages around, innit? Besides, all that killin' looks really cool on the tee vee, in between Fear Factor and the Lingerie Bowl. Win win, baby!

[RTFirefly]

With what little appeal to authority I can bring by having a BS in historyYou know which of our mutual acquaintances also has a history degree. ;)

I'll offer that judging any current event in a total historical context is a mugs game. There's simply now way to honestly evaluate a current event in proper historical perspective. Ask again about Iraq in fifty years and we'll see where it ranks. I don't think that much time is always necessary. As pantom's link to excerpts from Keynes' Economic Consequences of the Peace reminds us, sometimes the outlines, if not the details, are clear right away.

I may be in minority here but it was generally my opinion that the War of 1812 cost the US most of Canada. Can't say one way or the other about whether or not Canada would have been our 51st through xxth states, absent the War of 1812, but if so, I'm going to regard that as a good thing. I don't think it reduces American world influence by much to not be everything north of the Rio Grande.

And it's good for us to have a counterweight of sorts in North America, a different model to how a geographically and culturally similar nation might act. The America-Is-Perfect Club has an easy enough time of it as it is, even with Canada as chronic example of how we really could do things better.

[RTFirefly]

Except maybe, Jimmy Carter's decision to let the Iranian militants off easy when they violated international law by seizing the American Embassy in 1979. It's possible that the last 27 years would have been significantly different if he had treated an act of war as an act of war. Could you elaborate? What should we have done then, and what difference would it have made in the years since?

[BobLibDem]

I was thinking about nominating the War of 1812 but as I read the previous posts it seems to me that the long-term effects were minimal. In fact, I think if it prevented the annexation of Canada it was a good thing. I think Canada is just fine as it is and it would not have been better for any of us to have it be part of the US.

Vietnam was a mistake, to be sure. But the correction was much simpler. Once you decide that the world is essentially the same no matter which Vietnamese faction prevailed, then pulling out made little difference and, except for the thousands killed, the war has had few consequences.

Contrast that to Iraq, where this mistake could have dire consequences for generations. A stable but despotic government was overthrown in a vital area of the world and the ensuing civil war may go on for years. You really can't do much worse than that.

[Ravenman]

RTFirefly kind of touched on it, but in my mind, the greatest blunder in American foreign policy was absolutely the outbreak of isolationism following World War I.

Although it wasn't a policy we can pin on a single person, it was a severe mistake that (perhaps arguably) touched upon many of the tragedies that followed: Hitler and the outbreak of World War II, the Holocaust, the Japanese invasion of China, the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and many other terrible events.

I'm not saying that an active, even interventionist, foreign policy would have prevented any of these events, only that it probably would have contained them to some degree, and that would have made a hell of a lot of difference to a hell of a lot of people.

But #2 on my foreign policy disaster list is probably a tie between Iraq and Vietnam. With the advantage of hindsight, Vietnam was an inconsequential backwater with a huge American cost in life; the blunder in Iraq has the potential to have huge consequences in the next ten years.

I see on preview that Plan B seems to be implying that we should have attacked Iran (beyond the ill-fated rescue mission). That would absolutely shoot to number 2 on my blunder list had that happened.

[Gangster Octopus]

I would cast my vote for Iraq being worse than Vietnam for the simple reason that the reasons given for going to Iraq turned out be completely false, from the WMD to the threat Saddam posed as a regional power. I must admit I don't know a lot ofdetail about Vietnam, but weren't our reasons for being there not based on an out and out deception? I know there was deception in the conduct of the war, but the cold war rationale was pretty valid.

Iraq is like a misdiagnosis followed up by quackery. Vietnam just struck me as quackery.

[RickJay]

So downstream the difference has been a halving of the size of the United States and all that comes with it. I realize that this is likely viewed by our Canadian posters as a good thing, and I wouldn't presume to disagree with them on the issue. But in terms of US foreign policy costs having Canada in the fold for the last 200 years would be better for the US than not.
It'd be hard to point to any specific advantage the U.S. would gain by owning Canada; economically they're nearly the same country anyway, and Canada has been an ally in every national security issue that's mattered.

Indeed, consider this; if there was no Canada, then that country could not have participated in the First and Second World Wars as early as it did; instead, Canada's human and industrial potential would have had to wait until the general U.S entry into the war - which would have been a significant disadvantage for the Allies until American entry, and therefore a bad thing, sooner or later, for the USA.

I would disagree that the War of 1812 was all that bad a decision, though. I think a lot of people are misinterpreting the results by overemphasiing the military win/loss column. Admittedly, it was a series of military fiascoes. However, the end result of the war was to end British influence and interference in U.S. expansion, a great thing for the USA.

As one writer put it; in the War of 1812, the USA and Canada BOTH won. The British didn't care, and the Indians lost.

[griffin1977]

Vietnam was an inconsequential backwater with a huge American cost in life;


That to me is what makes it trivial compared to the Iraq fiasco. Vietnam WAS an inconsequential backwater, Iraq is at the heart of the Muslim World while we are in the middle of struggle with Islamist extremists.

[Ravenman]

I must admit I don't know a lot ofdetail about Vietnam, but weren't our reasons for being there not based on an out and out deception?Actually, the second Gulf of Tonkin incident, which provoked Congress to authorize the Vietnam war, involved one of our ships being attacked by North Vietnamese tordepo boats that did not exist.

Although there has recently been some scholarship to challenge the view, it is often argued that President Johnson knew for certain that there was no second attack on our ships while he was pressing Congress to authorize war to respond to (fabricated) aggression from North Vietnam. The alternative view is basically that Johnson bought into a fabrication by the Navy and used that as a rationale for going to Congress. Either way, on the Truth-O-Meter, the rationale to get us really deeply involved in Vietnam was either equal to (or in my book, much worse) than the faulty intelligence that built the case for war against Iraq.

[Gangster Octopus]

Actually, the second Gulf of Tonkin incident, which provoked Congress to authorize the Vietnam war, involved one of our ships being attacked by North Vietnamese tordepo boats that did not exist.

Although there has recently been some scholarship to challenge the view, it is often argued that President Johnson knew for certain that there was no second attack on our ships while he was pressing Congress to authorize war to respond to (fabricated) aggression from North Vietnam. The alternative view is basically that Johnson bought into a fabrication by the Navy and used that as a rationale for going to Congress. Either way, on the Truth-O-Meter, the rationale to get us really deeply involved in Vietnam was either equal to (or in my book, much worse) than the faulty intelligence that built the case for war against Iraq.

I will humbly concede that vietnam was chock full od lies and deeption, but after reading the book in the OP I find it hard to imagine it could be worse. Equal, I'll buy, but worse? The lies and deceptions pereptuated during the current conflict is staggering.

[Apos]

I'm against the idea of caring about ranking worsts. Just avoid doing big stupid things, thanks!

But I will agree with Ravenman that we need to call some attention to post-WWI. It's quite possible that if racist Wilson hadn't snubbed the Japanese allies and left them out of everything important in the post-war treaty era, the hardliners and militarists in Japan might never have been able to make the case that Japan had no other path to greatness beside conquest.

[Dinsdale]

I know I'm coming a mite late to this game with little to add, but just wanted to say I think madmonk makes some very good points about the current environment in which we embarked on this little excursion.

It seems pretty clear that the international "balance of power" has the potential to change pretty rapidly. For a brief moment after the fall of the SU, the US was the sole superpower. But since then we have seen the growth of the EU, India, China and SE Asia as much more serious competitors. For decades it became apparent that the Arab nations were not content with the historical status quo, and some revisiting of relationship between West and Middle East was ripe. Technology and markets are changing, and the US will be facing significant domestic costs in the near future as its workforce ages, education stagnates, and infrastructure continues to crumble. And we'll have $300 billion (and counting) less to spend on those needs.

Simply put, the unnecessary volitional choice to invade Iraq came at a time that I feel we very much could not afford the price.

In some ways, the decision to invade Iraq can be seen both as an act and an omission(s) - failure to seize upon the moment to increase international ties, failure to invest in technologies and markets of tomorrow, failure to try to rewrite various "game rules" in a way that would favor us for the near future.

[griffin1977]

I'm against the idea of caring about ranking worsts.

I'd agree when it comes descisions that happened long ago where the decision makers are all long since retired or dead. But when those same decision makers are still in power and trying to get us to vote for them I think its pretty relevant.

[ElvisL1ves]

The kind of Yugoslavia-style blood bath that would undoubtable resulted (and could still result) would have been exactly what Al Qiada were after.Sure looks like it's been going on for quite some time already. We would have replaced a secular totalitarian regime which was no friend of Al Qiada with a Taliban-style regime in the heart of the middle east.[/quote]See any way left to avoid that anymore?

[griffin1977]

That wasn't the point i was making. I was responding to Quartz's original post:
No, invading Iraq was not a bad decision. In fact, removing Saddam was one of Bush's better decisions. The mistake was to stay there afterwards.

They idea that the iraq invasion was a good idea and everything would have turned out ok if we'd immediately upped sticks and left is insanity.

IMO We are not yet yugoslavia style civil war with pitched armies (including the remenants of the federal army) carving up the country and wholesale slaughter of whole towns. The current low-intensity civil war (yes the current bloodbath is low-intensity scarily enough) is clearly heading that way but it is not there yet. To be honest it may be unavoidable but that doesn't mean with don't have a moral (and very practical) obligation to try and stop it. Personally I'm beginning to think the only hope may be some kind of partition solution (if Iraq is going to fall apart anyway we might as well ensure it does so in a vaguely organised way while we have enough troops on hand to avoid a India/Pakistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1947.stm) style bloodbath).

[Kimstu]

It will continue spreading; Not because of American soldiers in Iraq, but because Muslim fanatics have learned that the west fears them and is willing to surrender. (e.g. Danish cartoonists)

"Willing to surrender"? This sounds to me like a peculiar way to describe a widespread controversy over the acceptability of some cartoons. I haven't noticed any instances of Western law enforcement being afraid or unwilling to arrest or accuse Islamist terrorists. All I've noticed are some hotly-disputed social and civil-rights arguments about the beliefs and social roles of Muslim minorities in Western societies.

I'd hardly call that "surrendering" to "Muslim fanatics". In fact, quite the reverse: it seems to me to be in Western societies' best traditions of free debate and concern for individual rights as well as the common good.

America is losing its position as global leader for a lot of reasons, and the Iraqi war won't really change that.

I agree that there are a lot of reasons for the decline in American dominance, but I'm not convinced that the Iraq war is, or will turn out to be, negligible among them.

[The Hamster King]

Personally I'm beginning to think the only hope may be some kind of partition solution ... .
The problem is that the oil isn't evenly distributed throughout the country. Most of the production is in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. So the Sunni middle has a strong incentive to fight tooth and nail to wreck a partition. Add to this Turkey's violent opposition to an independent Kurdistan, and the fact that an independent Shiite state will probably wind up as an appendage of Iran and a partition looks even worse.

At this point I think the BEST we can hope for a brutally repressive strongman to seize power and restore order before the chaos spreads to the entire region. :(

[John Mace]

The problem is that the oil isn't evenly distributed throughout the country. Most of the production is in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. So the Sunni middle has a strong incentive to fight tooth and nail to wreck a partition. Add to this Turkey's violent opposition to an independent Kurdistan, and the fact that an independent Shiite state will probably wind up as an appendage of Iran and a partition looks even worse.

At this point I think the BEST we can hope for a brutally repressive strongman to seize power and restore order before the chaos spreads to the entire region. :(
I agree, but prefer the term "quasi-benevolent strongman"-- it polls better in focus groups.

[Guinastasia]

If we're talking about blunders as far as Iran, what about the overthrow of Mosaddegh in the 1950s, in favor of the Shah? That certainly came around to bite us on the ass, didn't it?

[RedFury]

At this point I think the BEST we can hope for a brutally repressive strongman to seize power and restore order before the chaos spreads to the entire ragion

Well, since such an event figures prominently into the myriad of reasons/excuses that were used prior to and afterward for justifications of the invasion, I'm afraid, for the sake of consistency, such an outcome would simply lead you to invade yet again.

God luck with that.

[PBear42]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this one, at least in passing. IMHO, the U.S.'s greatest foreign policy mistake was agreeing to the "spheres of influence" settlement after WWII. The consequences over the 45 or so years that the settlement endured were substantial, and the risks were enormous.

Yes, I understand why it happened. Not the question.

[Civil Guy]

Don't know if this qualifies as "foreign policy" as such - don't know if it qualifies as a single mistake, or a long history of how neighbors can be pretty ugly towards each other - but surely our policies towards, Native Americans ought to rank somewhere in the list of things we'd like to reconsider?

Just got done listening to "Everything You've Been Taught Is Wrong", by James W. Loewen. Sure, he's doubtless got his own agenda, but he's also got some interesting points.

[mr. jp]

Wasn't there almost 60.000 US casualties in the Vietnam war? Against a few thousand. The Vietnam war was far worse.

[Ravenman]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this one, at least in passing. IMHO, the U.S.'s greatest foreign policy mistake was agreeing to the "spheres of influence" settlement after WWII. The consequences over the 45 or so years that the settlement endured were substantial, and the risks were enormous."Blunder" tends to mean a choice of the worst possible option. In the case of World War II, I believe there was a worse option than spheres of infuence, and that's Allied armies continuing their march east and trying to oust Stalin.

[Merijeek]

Wasn't there almost 60.000 US casualties in the Vietnam war? Against a few thousand. The Vietnam war was far worse.

So, US involvement in WW2 is far, far worse (and by your logic a bigger mistake) than Vietnam, Iraq, or actually, anything the USA has ever done?

After all, more casualties there than any other foreign war!

-Joe

[Spoke]

Just got done listening to "Everything You've Been Taught Is Wrong", by James W. Loewen. Sure, he's doubtless got his own agenda, but he's also got some interesting points.

I would not rely on Mr. Loewen for history lessons. He plays fast and loose with the facts. I tried checking the citations in one of his books and they often didn't pan out.

[Bibliovore]

If we're talking about blunders as far as Iran, what about the overthrow of Mosaddegh in the 1950s, in favor of the Shah? That certainly came around to bite us on the ass, didn't it?

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to bring this up as an example, but I agree it was certainly a doozie. Still not on a par with the invasion of Iraq (nothing tops that, in my opinion) but a very big mistake nonetheless. Not only did it lead to the overthrow of the Shah's puppet regime by the Ayatollah's very anti-american theocracy, but it also showed that America were all for spreading democracy unless the democracy in question didn't suit them.

[Ravenman]

If we're talking about blunders as far as Iran, what about the overthrow of Mosaddegh in the 1950s, in favor of the Shah? That certainly came around to bite us on the ass, didn't it?If you're saying it is morally troubling that we would overthrow a a duly elected government, I agree; but saying "it came back to bite us in the ass" seems to be missing two points: one, it didn't bite us in the ass until two decades later, and two, in hindsight, we basically had a choice of having rocky relations with Iran starting either in 1953 or 1979. Certainly you don't think that we'd have good relations with Iran today had it not been for the coup?

Completely setting aside morality, from a strictly realpolitik view, the coup seemed to serve US interests for about 25 years. If one were a cold-hearted bastard, I think one could see that's a pretty damn good return on a $1 million investment, so I just can't see it being a true disaster -- like Iraq -- in which we've gotten absolutely nothing but trouble as a result of a terrible decision.

...but it also showed that America were all for spreading democracy unless the democracy in question didn't suit them.Well, that reputation wasn't earned by Iran alone. There's Guatemala, Indonesia, El Salvador, Chile... and the list goes on.

[Dinsdale]

How about US support for Israel? If we wish to identify specific actions, either our recognition of Israel in 1948, or 1920-ish Congressional support of the LoN mandate.
Is it clear that we - or the world as a whole - is better off for the existence of an independent state of Israel?

[XT]

Completely setting aside morality, from a strictly realpolitik view, the coup seemed to serve US interests for about 25 years. If one were a cold-hearted bastard, I think one could see that's a pretty damn good return on a $1 million investment, so I just can't see it being a true disaster -- like Iraq -- in which we've gotten absolutely nothing but trouble as a result of a terrible decision.

And for our pains its cost us a hell of a lot more than $1 million to boot! :smack:

How about US support for Israel? If we wish to identify specific actions, either our recognition of Israel in 1948, or 1920-ish Congressional support of the LoN mandate. Is it clear that we - or the world as a whole - is better off for the existence of an independent state of Israel?

Even if we assume for a moment that if the US didn't support Israel and the country was completely destroyed (and the population most likely slaughtered) that this would have made the US popular in the region, do you REALLY think that this would be a feather in our collective caps??? I think the US support for Israel is one of the shinning moments in our history...one of the times we actually didn't fuck up and did the right thing for the right reasons. The world is certainly better off because there is an independent state of Israel IMHO. YMMV.

-XT

[Bibliovore]

The world is certainly better off because there is an independent state of Israel IMHO.

How, exactly?

[mlees]

Well, an argument can be made that the failure of the US to be more involved in (strengthening the League of Nations?) world affairs after WW1 helped make WW2 possible, with it's millions of deaths. But the USA could not, alone, have stopped Hitler. The western European powers (France and UK) also would need to be strong, too.

The difference between then and now is that 1919-1933 seems like ancient history (sorry, but it does) to a lot of folks nowadays, while the worries of the current global tensions seem, well, more immediate. This gives the US/Iraq issue a bit more "weight" in such a question than the US ratifying the Versailles Treaty and entering the League of Nations.

A hundred years from now, somethig else may vie for the honor of the History Channels "Worlds Worst Political Blunders" episodes.

[The Hamster King]

Well, since such an event figures prominently into the myriad of reasons/excuses that were used prior to and afterward for justifications of the invasion, I'm afraid, for the sake of consistency, such an outcome would simply lead you to invade yet again.Who's this "you" you're talking about? I opposed the invasion back in 2003.

I think it's appalling that after all the bloodshed the best that we can hope for is worse that our starting point. That's failure.

[griffin1977]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this one, at least in passing. IMHO, the U.S.'s greatest foreign policy mistake was agreeing to the "spheres of influence" settlement after WWII. The consequences over the 45 or so years that the settlement endured were substantial, and the risks were enormous.

Personally I fail to see how anything would have turned out better if we had taken a tougher line with Stalin. Its extremely unlikely he would have backed down. As far as I can see it would just have reduced the chances of getting through the next three-quarters of a century without getting into a shooting war.

QUOTE=PBear42]surely our policies towards, Native Americans ought to rank somewhere in the list of things we'd like to reconsider?[/QUOTE]
I think this certainly counts as the most amoral foreign policy actions. But it was a series of actions over centuries not a single decsion. Even if you could point to a single action that did have a tremendous effects on the native americans, from a pure amoral strategic point of view it probably made sense. I just so happens that in the Iraq fiasco the what was unbelievable wrong from a strategic point of view was also wrong from a moral point of view. Unless you buy the "rescueing the people of iraq from tyranny" excuse, which personally I do not especiially as it was only trotted out after the "WMD" and "Al-Qiada" excuses spectacularly failed.

[Sevastopol]

The world is certainly better off because there is an independent state of Israel IMHO.
How, exactly? When it is somewhere other than the middle-east.

[hawthorne]

I've got another candidate: no Marshall -type plan after the fall of the Soviet Bloc.

You could quibble with this on a number of grounds: It was mostly a non-decision. Outside Russia and few former Soviet republics, it's not easy to see terrible consequences so far. It wasn't only or mainly a US foreign policy decision.There's something to be said on both sides of all of these, but perhaps that can be left for another time.

But I think it's a real candidate. Whilst real democratic or rule of law institutions might not have emerged in places like Russia where they don't have old roots, they'd have had a better chance. The looting of former state assets and the failure of liberation to greatly improve most people's lives has opened the field for the return of old authoritarian, imperial and anti-Western ways.

The Litvinenko affair has pushed my thinking in this direction quite a bit.

[intention]

To me, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was nowhere near being the worst decision in US history.

The way we have mishandled the occupation of Iraq, on the other hand, will live as as testament to greed, stupidity, and lack of even grade school level planning for as long as there are history books.

w.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

I sincerely agree that it's too early to tell.

But I'm reminded of the Rodney Dangerfield exchange with his mother:

Rodney: Everyone hates me.
Mom: That's just not true -- everyone hasn't met you yet.

[David Simmons]

To me, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was nowhere near being the worst decision in US history.Maybe not, but going to war in the Middle East to do it can't be any worse than second in that department.

[griffin1977]

To me, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was nowhere near being the worst decision in US history.

The way we have mishandled the occupation of Iraq, on the other hand, will live as as testament to greed, stupidity, and lack of even grade school level planning for as long as there are history books.


I'd strongly disagree with this... the history of war is a history of mis-management and bungling. The current fiasco certainly manages to hold its own amoungst the other blunders down the years, but could not be described as the worst example of it. But most of these other blunders are remembered as side-notes.

What makes the decision to invade Iraq so unbelievably dumb is in the middle of a war on Al Qiada which appeared to be heading our way we deciede to hand the cause celebre and training ground in the heart of the middle east, while we divert our resources from the main front in Afghanistan. And for what ? To depose a secular dictator with no links to Al Qiada. After that initial mistake it didn't matter how badly or well the operation was carried out it was still a huge win for Al Qiada. The incompetent handling of the invasion just made sure it was gargantuan win for Al Qiada rather than merely a huge one.

There is nothing to compably dumb this to in US history. There have been other fiascos (e.g. Grenada) but these were boondoggles which had no were near lasting repercusions we will see from Iraq.

[David Simmons]

... we divert our resources from the main front in Afghanistan. And for what ? To depose a secular dictator with no links to Al Qiada.I heard GW the other night dangling his pie-in-the-sky scenario about a peaceful, democratic Iraq that is an ally in the "war on terrorism."

Balls.

We probably would have had numerous allies and even Iraq wouldn't have been an opponent in the "war on terrorism" had we not invaded.

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

The second tragedy of Vietnam was the failure among this generation of American policymakers to learn the lessons of that war and heed them in Iraq. Vietnam was a tragedy of American myopia, Iraq a tragedy of American hubris and stupidity.

[Wakinyan]

But the USA could not, alone, have stopped Hitler. The western European powers (France and UK) also would need to be strong, too.But the USA could not, alone, have stopped Hitler. The western European powers (France and UK) also would need to be strong, too.

Nitpick perhaps, but didn't the Red Army had something to do with the fall of the Third Reich?

[griffin1977]

Nitpick perhaps, but didn't the Red Army had something to do with the fall of the Third Reich?
The point was about US policy prior to the start of WW2. The soviet union was not involved in the confrontation with Hitler at this point. In fact in immediately prior to the start of WW2 (after August 1939) they were allied with Hitler.

[Ryan_Liam]

The problem is that the oil isn't evenly distributed throughout the country. Most of the production is in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. So the Sunni middle has a strong incentive to fight tooth and nail to wreck a partition. Add to this Turkey's violent opposition to an independent Kurdistan, and the fact that an independent Shiite state will probably wind up as an appendage of Iran and a partition looks even worse.

At this point I think the BEST we can hope for a brutally repressive strongman to seize power and restore order before the chaos spreads to the entire region. :(

Why not hope for a solution in which Iraqi politicians form a governing coalition to push out the extremists and strengthen the moderates. I'm getting pretty tired of the old 'partition the country' cliche that's banged around the board here, it's as if to say they have absolutely no vested interests in wanting to maintain a unified state, besides, who would of thought 25 years ago Lebanons political and religious factions would still be together in one unified (more or less) entity?

With the exception of the Kurds, I see Iraqi society polarising, but I don't see that translating into an actual formation of seperate independent states.

As for the OP, neither Vietnam or Iraq come into it, I think the support of the Khmer Rouge, just to spite Hanoi comes in at number one. Well they did execute a quarter of the population. That and the support of Muhajihideen in Afghanistan, and leaving it as a backwater for Jihadists after the Soviets left.

[RickJay]

Wow, the positive outcome would be... Lebanon? A broken puppet state and a haven for terrorists?

Tee-riffic.

[Ryan_Liam]

Wow, the positive outcome would be... Lebanon? A broken puppet state and a haven for terrorists?

Tee-riffic.

I'm pointing out that Lebanon with all it's sectarianism between the groups, hasn't come to a point where those groups want to set up independent states of there own, just like many Iraqis wouldn't either, with the exception of the Kurdish.

[LouisB]

At this point I think the BEST we can hope for a brutally repressive strongman to seize power and restore order before the chaos spreads to the entire region.Maybe the Iraquis will offer Dick Cheney the job; he can live in an undisclosed place of safety and farm out the details to Haliburton. George Bush can teach the newly formed Iraqui airforce troops how to fly. In his spare time, he can instruct in the art of vacations.

[TV time]

Reconstruction following the Civil War was exceedingly badly done, but I suppose Northerners would probably argue it was not a "foreign" policy error. Southerners might say it was and we Westerners well, we just don't have any idea.

I think most would agree that it was it took around a century to get over (maybe more).

Still, I suppose everything to do with civil wars does.