The thing is that your title says “Iraq before and after the invasion” when you meant “Iraq now and right after the invasion”
It might be decades before we see the positive effects of democracy in Iraq, if ever.
Hardly in a position to, was it.
Despite the rhetoric that that was what was going to pay for the war.
The US didn’t even attempt to capture the alleged WMD sites that were the primary pretext for the whole thing, but went right for the Oil Ministry. You 'member that, right?
So if the US were intent on seizing Iraq’s oil, why didn’t it happen? One of the reasons why the Kurdish referendum is such a serious matter is that oil from the North are a major part of the Iraqi government’s revenues. One would suspect that if the US wanted Iraq’s oil, the Iraqi government would not be funded by oil sales. Because the US government would be drinking Iraq’s milkshake.
Their milkshake brings Exxon to the yard…
Um…huh? We were totally in a position too. We could have easily looted the entire country, especially the oil, had that been the goal. Why do you think we weren’t in the position to do so, and what position do you suppose a conquering nation would need to be in to do so?
As to the OP:
It’s seen as a failure because it’s seen as unnecessary. Most think (rightfully) that Saddam was contained, that there were no WMD and due to the sanctions no real way for Saddam et al the ramp that backs up to make new ones. My own guess is that when Arab Spring kicked off that would have been the end for Saddam and his merry men. Basically, Iraq would be Syria and Syria would probably be more stable today as it was the invasion that partially destabilized Syria and weakened it to the point where rebellion happened. Mostly it’s seen as a failure because despite the military success it was very much a political failure of epic proportions. Today, Iraq is increasingly moving into Iran’s sphere of influence, despite massive spending on the US’s part to try and stabilize the country after we tore it apart. To summarize, the US really didn’t have a plan for what to do after Saddam was deposed, didn’t use enough forces to both do the job of defeating the Iraqi military AND holding the country long enough for stability to be asserted and then compounded the problems by not having enough experts on Iraq to even wing it effectively. The focus was on the military and almost nothing on the political, but the actual military aspects of the campaign were only a few weeks, which ignored the years of bloodshed to come.
All that oil was *already *under contract to, “owned” by, Big Western Petro. Major campaign contributors. Not really good business to seize it, yanno.
There was a historically incredible amount of self-delusion required to rationalize this debacle, especially to be confident that all that was needed for Libertarianopia to flower and triumph, was the removal of the one stabilizing force the country had, dreadful though it was. The US had traditionally worked with, and even propped up, those guys, at least when they could say “I’m a bastion against Communism, now give me money and weapons.” But the end of the Cold War left its warriors unable to adjust to any other mode of thinking except to go to the opposite extreme.
Plus any revenues, inc taxation, could be generated went to trying to keep the state functioning, teachers, bureaucrats, hospitals, etc. Plus there was the small issue of a destroyed infrastructure.
Fwiw, I believe it was closer to £2 trillion rather than the $1 trillion as stated above. And half a million shredded civilians.
Who said it was a failure? We went in to find and destroy Saddam’s WMDs, and now there are no WMDs in Iraq. A complete success!
Also, nobody in Iraq has been eaten by a tiger this year so we were also successful in preventing tiger-related deaths.
What a stupid, arrogant thing to say. Your prognosis is like telling a person whose cancer has recurred they’re healed.
I do. Read it in the L.A. Times.
You don’t think the US wanted to set up a government that would do its bidding?
The one I didn’t believe is the one where the US commandeered their resources.
Regards,
Shodan
When citing casualties it might be important to consider how many people would have died under Saddam’s regime under sanctions or during the civil war that may have take place had he continued to remain in power.
You might recall that the expectation was that the Iraqis, overjoyed at Saddam being deposed would flow flowers at the troops. Instead they threw IEDs. A massive insurgency was not all that conducive to taking the oil. By the time things settled down, it was too late. Plus, IIRC, it took a while for oil production to come back on line.
That the Cheney administration was too incompetent to steal the oil doesn’t mean they didn’t intend to.
No one said they did, just that this was the plan. They commandeered ours. Remember those missing truckloads of money?
There were certainly some American policymakers who were convinced that Iraq would be bestowed with an enlightened self interest to do everything that the US wanted them to do after Saddam was deposed; but in the main, I’d have to say that the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy was aimed primarily at making Iraq somewhat more friendly to the US.
The way you phrase it, as thought Iraq would become in effect a colony of the US, I believe is inaccurate. And I’m saying this as someone who has always opposed the invasion, and not in a Donald Trump “I was for it before I was always against it” sort of way.
So why didn’t this sinister plan work? Doesn’t even seem like anyone actually attempted any drinking of Iraq’s milkshake, as far as I can tell.
I assume you have a cite where Cheney says “we are going to steal their oil” (or whatever).
Regards,
Shodan
I believe it is accurate.