Although the WMD propaganda angle was always entertaining to discuss it’s kinda missing the point of opposing wars unless absolutely necessary by a wide margin. Hey guys, North Korea has an actual nuke program and is threatening the U.S. and its allies and is run by monsters who are responsible for the deaths and misery of hundreds of thousands of people. Let’s invade 'em! Hey, wait, where is everyone going?
I don’t think the experience of the last decade will have more than a temporary effect on American’s thirst for war whenever it’s decided the next war is necessary. And I don’t think blaming the American people is even that just since it’s not like we can really do much about it. The causal mechanisms between the “people” and the planners is tenuous at best. If you’re looking to vote in a non-hawk party you’re SOL.
Have the people who urged peacekeeping / combat operations in Syria been vindicated now the country’s turned to a clusterfuck? Or supported operations in Libya, which undoubtedly helped speed a resolution?
I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq. And I’m not comparing Iraq to the very different situations with those countries.
What I’m saying is, if lots of civilian casualties shows Iraq was a mistake (and it was), does lots of civilian casualties when the US sits on its hands show the universally pacifist position to be flawed?
Back in 2003 I was a junior in high school and I still remember the day Bush came on TV telling us he was taking military action against Iraq. I wasn’t thrilled about it but I didn’t shout at the TV and get angry. I just hoped for the best and hoped we were doing the right thing.
Now all these years later, it’s obvious to everyone with half a brain that we did not do the right thing and that Bush was an awful president who did something genuinely evil.
But no, had I been on the message boards at the time, I would have been saying, “well let’s not be too quick to jump the gun and condemn Bush for going to war with Iraq… let’s wait and see how things turn out.” Which may not be quite as wrong as saying, “yeah war with Iraq is a good idea and it’s about time,” but it’s pretty close.
My point, and it is a bit of a hijack, is that there’s a growing number of people that are always against any kind of military action.
I’m a Brit, as I assume you are, and ISTM that the majority of people I meet take a cynical view that everything we do militarily is for profit and/or makes every situation worse anyway. It’s an even more popular view on the continent.
If such people are going to hold up Iraq and say “See? That’s what happens when you interfere with a regime”, what would prove their position wrong?
A situation escalating to civil war? A successful intervention?
I had not found this board in 2003, but my feelings were very mixed. I very much wanted the UN inspectors to continue their work in Iraq.
However, I confess that after a long period of working through the issues I came down on the wrong side and reluctantly supported the war. I suppose I was overly credulous. Never again will I trust the say-so of US government officials with an agenda to push.
Days before the 2003 invasion, I polled fellow posters on another board and made the my own predictions. At the time, I was ridiculed for being too pessimistic:
Duration of the war, I said 100, or so, days. Most disagreed with me and said under 40. We know that I was way off, but most others were even worse.
US Military Dead I predicted 5,000 which is still a bit too pessimistic, but very close. Most predicted fewer than 200. Of course I ignored the catastrophically injured figure. Who knew that toll would be so huge?
Civilian causalities I predicted 75,000. Most people said under 10,000. Unfortunately, I was way too optimistic.
Rummy and Cheney though the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil. Fat chance. We’re stuck over a trillion and the bills will run up for years and years.
I wanted to add that for me, having lived through the Nixon and Reagan presidencies, this was an easy call. I expect my government to lie and deceive, especially so about matters of war and peace. Another thing I learned was, when virtually the entire world opposes what the US does, there’s a pretty damn good reason to oppose it.
Up front, I will concede that I assumed Saddam either DID have nukes or was close to getting them.
"*I don’t doubt that Saddam Hussein is scum, and I won’t mind seeing him ousted.
I’m disgusted by the reactions of many of our alleged allies.
What bothers me is NOT that President Bush is taking military action- it’s more the way he’s done it. As I’ve said before, I UNDERSTAND why he’d be angry and disgusted with European peaceniks… but while I (an anonymous nobody on a message baord) can afford to trash the French and the Germans, a President CAN’T. Even if we CAN defeat Iraq without the help of our allies, the U.S. is NOT omnipotent. We don’t have nearly enough money, manpower or firepower to police the world by ourselves. Sooner or later (probably sooner), we WILL need our allies again, and President Bush is going to regret alienating them as he’s done.
Beyond that, I’m not sure that taking out Saddam (nice as it might be) is the best use of our money and resources. We have a lot of enemies (real and potential) who pose a more immediate threat than Saddam.
So… I WANT this war to go well for the U.S. And I WANT to support a President who seems to share most of my ideals. And I scoff at those who think this war is either immoral or a mere cynical ploy to take over Iraq’s oil.
But I also wonder if this war is a good idea, in purely PRACTICAL terms. I wonder if the possible consequences (what if the fall of Saddam leads to a power vacuum that’s filled by Islamic fundamentalists, for instance?) could be worse than the current reality. And I wonder if the American people are prepared for something more bloody, expensive, and time-consuming than the last Gulf War."*
I still don’t think the war was about oil- Big Oil opposed the FIRST Gulf War, after all, and would have been perfectly happy to go on doing business with Saddam Hussein forever.
So, what DO I think it was about? A combination of things- some White House insiders who really thought Saddam had nukes, some who’d been part of the first Gulf War and had wanted to take out Saddam then, some who thought the US had some kind of mission to democratize the world.
To my mind, ONLY the possibility of nukes could have justified military action. Once it became clear that there weren’t any, the only proper course would have been:
With apologies to astorian, there was not a single human being on earth who was informed on the matter who thought Saddam Hussein had, or was close to, a nuclear weapon. Not a single one. It was a preposterous idea.
IIRC the idea was that the US would have a puppet government running things which would be happy to sell off the government-owned oilfields to a relevant company within Cheney’s circle of cronies/stock portfolio. PROFIT!
And let’s remember one more time that Halliburton made nearly $40 billion off Iraq even without the happy ending the PNAC folks were hoping for, so Cheney did just fine for himself.
PNAC also wanted a Muslim capitalist democracy (a foothold they believed would blossom) and believed the people would grab it immediately - hell, they sold franchises on the back of it:
It’s literally impossible to grasp their level of comprehension.