Precisely when did you know Iraq was a mistake?

The BBQ Pit
21

::shrug::

We got our Towers totalled (along with their flesh n blood inhabitants, in large part) and then the Bush administration said Al Qaeda, or more specifically Osama bin Laden, was responsible. Said they knew he was in Afghanistan. I watched as the US, headed by Bush, dealt with Afghanistan, and when the invasion of Afghanistan occurred I said “Yeah! Go for it!”

Fast forward a few months and all of a sudden, with damned little preamble, Bush is talking about Iraq. WTF??? It made no sense and the more I heard the less sense it made. Essentially I knew it was not a legitimate policy initiative from the first time the subject was raised. I protested against it before the invasion. Wrote my congresscritters.

22

Thought Viet Nam was a mistake, thought Chile was a mistake, thought Nicaragua was a mistake, didn’t fucking understand Grenada, thought Iraq was a mistake so early I still didn’t believe they would be so stupid. Its when I think they couldn’t possibly be so stupid, that’s when I’m wrong.

23

Did anyone else read these opening words and think “Damn, Der Trihs is going to be really angry that he left his computer on when he sees what somebody else posted under his account.”

24

From the moment I heard the idea. No matter how bad Saddam was, eliminating one of Iran’s major regional enemies was an insanely bad strategic move. And the idea that giving Iraq democracy would necessarily produce a regime that was friendly to us was just utterly divorced from reality.

At first I assumed they were just bluffing. I couldn’t believe they would actually go through with such a plainly idiotic idea. Until the moment the invasion began I thought they might pull back. Then they did go ahead, and proceeded to exceed my worst expectations as to how badly they could cock everything up.

25

I believed the intelligence. I wasn’t happy about it but I didn’t want Saddam hurling nukes at us.

Nowdays I believe Dubs is a war criminal.

26

March 2003: (not that that’s when I first realized it was a mistake, but it’s my earliest documentation)

I never believed that Iraq would magically turn into a democracy following the fall of Saddam. My feeling was always that he was simply the biggest thug sitting on top of of a agglomeration of thugs (some of whom would be far worse for the surrounding region and world in general were they in power), maintaining a heavy-handed pax romana. Simply pulling him out and smashing the military would (and did) create a bloody free-for-all that probably will (and perhaps can) only be solved by someone else establishing themselves as the biggest thug once more.

27

Opposed it, and did so publicly, from at least six months prior to the actual invasion. It had no useful strategic purpose that I could see, and I could figure out for myself that the WMD excuse was just that: an effort to give Bush’s war an air of legitimacy and get the US public behind it. I still cannot fathom what was so all-fired important about the USA, in particular, invading Iraq, in particular, at that particular time.

Not to hijack, but just a passing comment re: the OP. For me, the fact that 18 of the hijackers may have been Saudi does not in any way justify bombing that country, unless one could show that they were financed or otherwise aided by the government of that country.

28

From before the invasion. I thought it was possible, though unlikely, that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. I thought it was unlikely verging on damn near impossible that he would use them on the US, considering how we would turn his country into a giant plate of radioactive glass for trying it.

More than that, though, I was very, very leery of the idea of invading any country that hadn’t declared war on us. Afghanistan had, through the Taliban, their support for Al Qaeda, and the destruction of the twin towers. We’d won the invasion of Afghanistan. We had nearly everyone’s backing as well as the good will of every country that counted for anything. We could have finished off Al Qaeda. We should have gotten our hands on Osama bin Laden and brought him before a world court, even if that meant he wouldn’t be sentenced to death. We could have brought peace and prosperity to a country that had never known it.

What did we do?

We pissed it away. We let the man who murdered 3000 Americans get off scot free, and worse than that, we’ve now manufactured tens of millions of allies for him thanks to the way we’ve let Afghanistan down and completely taken Iraq apart.

Dammit, people, we’re supposed to be the good guys. When you start a war for jingoistic reasons, you are, by definition, no longer the good guys. And when you send a whole bunch of people into another country, there’s a good chance that some of those people are going to do terrible things - Abu Ghraib, the gang rape and murder of a 14 year old girl and the murder of her grandfather, mother, and little sister, the mass murder of civilians. And because we sent those monsters in there, we are the ones at fault.

It didn’t have to be this way. That’s what gets me.

Maybe I should have spoken up more on the board and in my personal life, but I didn’t see anyone being convinced to wait on Iraq until it was a verifiable threat and we had the backing of the international community. I didn’t relish the idea of being called a traitor when all I wanted was a country whose actions I could be proud of. It’s hard not to be bitter.

edited: too many damn “pretty much” phrases.

29

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Yep, I always thought it was a really bad idea. I didn’t care if SH had WMDs out the wazoo. We had him in a box, and if I was a terrorist, Iraq would be about the last place in the world I’d go to get me some of them thar WMDs. What amazes me is that so many of my friends still think it was a good idea. I don’t see how anyone could actually think that now.
[/QUOTE]

Why would someone be more likely to think it was a bad idea now? Iraq’s GDP continues to grow at a very high rate, attacks on infrastructure are down, sectarian incidents are down considerably since December/January (although incidents are down, the fatality rate per incident is up–so it’s a mixed bag.)

Many Sunni tribes in Anbar province have allied and formed the Anbar Salvation Front, which is united with the U.S. and has driven AQ by and large out of the province. The Badr organization is considering a split with Iran, al-Sadr appears to have fled to Iran and his organization is in shambles. SCIRI broke with Iran and now backs Sistani and et cetera.

To me, I think possibly the only problem I may have with our involvement in Iraq is timing.

The thing about the United Nations is, it was formed expressly for the purpose of collective security. Humanitarian relief, and all the other things the UN does are major side issues. The UN was about policing the world and trying to put an end to aggressive war. By and large, the UN was unable to act significantly in that regard throughout the 20th century because of the Cold War. However, right at the end of the Cold War, it was able to act decisively to stop aggressive war. Thus, we went into Kuwait and drove the Iraqis out. I was there, on the ground, and while it could have meant many more months over there, to this day I don’t understand why we did not push into Iraq and topple Saddam’s government.

When something needs to be done, it needs to be done, and you just have to deal with the negative aspects of it. It wouldn’t have been effortless to fix Iraq then, I argue it would have been significantly easier than it has been at present, though.

If you really want to enforce the idea of collective security, you have to actually show that you won’t put up with tin-pot dictators thumbing their nose at the collective security regime. Yes, major players within the UN refused to authorize invasion, the weapons inspectors opposed invasion. However, every one from the UN to the weapons inspectors stated time and time again that Iraq was in material breach of the cease-fire it had signed to stop us from further wrecking the country over a decade ago. Days before the invasion, Hans Blix spoke diplomatically and was happy about the fact that Hussein had agreed to hand over some missile that had a theoretical range a few kilometers greater than what he was allowed to have. Even at that point, Blix made a statement saying that Iraq continued to not be in compliance, that it continued to not be living up to full compliance.

I’m not entirely sure going in when we did was right. But I do think there has to come a point where you enforce international regimes or you give up on them. If we weren’t serious about enforcing the cease-fire, we should have just given up on it, poured billions of dollars in aid to Iraq, let Saddam rebuild his military and hopefully some day, some how, trickle money we gave him into the stomachs of his people.

I only had vague thoughts on the whole WMD issue. I did not have vague thoughts on, what was to me, a more significant issue, Saddam’s continued non-compliance. Way back before we invaded I mused that it’s very possible Hussein has no WMDs, but for some sort of egotistical reason he still was refusing to comply fully with weapons inspections because he felt it was in his best interests to wave swords at the international community instead of actually take steps that could have prevented his eventual hanging.

My only major criticism would be, if you don’t have to fight two wars at once, you probably shouldn’t. There was a lot of work left to be done in Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq. As long as we kept Saddam under wraps we could have dealt with him in due time, I do feel the invasion was rushed and the planning was not as it should have been.

30

2003

31

The very beginning. I was in the monster pre-war anti-war protests. Jesus Christ, it’s so depressing to think how long it’s gone on.

32

Around January 2002, if you can believe it. About the time of that “Axis of Evil” speech. That’s when I realized that we didn’t just elect a harmless idiot, but somebody with the gall and incompetence to really screw shit up.

I still don’t understand why we went to Iraq. It seems to me that one day there were UN inspectors telling us they didn’t get to check all the places they wanted to for “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, whatever those were; the next day we were dropping bombs on a sovereign country unprovoked. Call me crazy, but at the time (and now for that matter), I didn’t see how not letting the UN inspect every nook and cranny of your country was grounds for starting a war, ruining an entire nation and destabilizing a good chunk of the middle east.

I went there once, from September '03 to September '04; as a soldier I usually kept my mouth shut about politics. Hell, I still do. There aren’t many good things that come from discussing politics with people. I also thought, for the longest time, that Bush couldn’t be this idiotic all on his own; and even if he was, it takes more than one guy to destroy a nation, the majority of Americans must have been just as stupid. But recent events have led me to believe otherwise. In the face of the majority of the US calling to get the hell out of there; in the face of the Iraqi people telling us to get the hell out of there, Bush decides to unveil his master plan: Send MORE fucking troops over there! Jesus, guy! For the last four years people more knowledgeable than you have been saying we need more troops in Iraq to accomplish anything; now, when the entire world is saying “Get Out”, now is when you decide to throw more bodies at the problem?! That Bush sure is a bright one.

I know you just asked a simple question, and I’m giving you a synopsis of the last four years of my political perspective, but I think I have a good reason to vent after all this time keeping mostly quiet with respect to politics: Last week, after two years of civilian life; after buying a house, finishing 2/3 of an engineering degree, and, oh yeah, having a baby boy, I received in the mail a set of orders recalling me to active duty to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. Again. For a period of no more than 400 days unless extended by the proper authority. I’ve got three weeks to get my shit together, say goodbye to my family, and go in for “reprocessing”. So I’ve been overly pissed at the chimp in the White House for the last few days.

Sorry to vent and take up so much of your time. I hope you’re like me and skip over the long posts unless you’re suitably bored.

33

Since the summer of 1990.

34

That bites it, Cube. Bites it hard. Wish I could do more than I am,or that what I can do would be more effective. Come home safe.

Damn.

35

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Way back before we invaded I mused that it’s very possible Hussein has no WMDs, but for some sort of egotistical reason he still was refusing to comply fully with weapons inspections because he felt it was in his best interests to wave swords at the international community instead of actually take steps that could have prevented his eventual hanging.
[/QUOTE]

I think that what you call an egotistical reason might have been a practical reason. Hussein had to balance the threat of UN backed enforcement of the weapons inspections (and ultimately, a US invasion) against maintaining the appearance of not being completely vulnerable to threats from his other enemies in the area, most likely Iran and even factions in Iraq. Acting like you have WMD’s might prevent attacks from these other threats. Perhaps that is egotistical in that he did it to maintain power, but that’s the nature of dictators.

As for the question of when I thought it was a mistake, I originally thought it was, but changed my mind when Colin Powell made his presentation to the UN. I didn’t think he would lie. I was wrong.

36

From before the beginning. I original was skeptical based simply on GW’s known record of being a screwup. Then Saddam allowed in the UN inspectors who weren’t finding anything and I became quite sure that the war was needless and senseless. That feeling was confirmed when David Kay reported that there were no weapons.

Everything about the onset was suspicious. There were the stories about “cherry picking” intelligence. These were answered by the standard, “If you knew what we know, you would agree with us. Of course we can’t tell you how we know what we claim to know for national security reasons. But trust us, the skeptics are wrong.”

Added to all of that was the lack of support by our former allies such as Germany and France and by nearly everyone else. It just didn’t figure that nearly everyone else was wrong and GW was right.

37

I knew something was wrong when Bush announced his invasion in March of 2003 when the inspectors seemed to be doing their jobs quite well. I wondered, why now, why is it so damned urgent that we invade now? I still haven’t found a satisfactory answer for that one.

38

Wow cube, that fricking sucks! Sorry you are going through this, you have every right to be pissed.
About the OP: I was against it the minute it came up. Living in a country that has twice been at the business end of US’s bullshit excuses to beat little people with a stick I have very little confidence in your politicians (or any politician for that matter). I was all for Afganistan, Iraq? Well, why not invade Germany while they were at it? Germany had more of a link to the 9/11 attackers than Iraq did. It seemed glaringly obvious to me.

39

[QUOTE=DrCube]
Last week, after two years of civilian life; after buying a house, finishing 2/3 of an engineering degree, and, oh yeah, having a baby boy, I received in the mail a set of orders recalling me to active duty to support Operation Iraqi Freedom.
[/QUOTE]
Christ. Take care of yourself, DrCube and come back safe.

40

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Why would someone be more likely to think it was a bad idea now?
[/QUOTE]

Because we’re still there and Americans and Iraqis are still dying every goddam day in this senseless war.

I sort of agree with you that war was inevitable at some point with Iraq. Still doesn’t make it smart thing to do when and how we did it. Everything about this war was just wrong from the beginning.