I learned that the Middle East is inherently unpredictable, and it’s impossible to know in advance what the short term and long term impact of US military involvement will be. The deeper the involvement (e.g. boots on the ground vs logistical assistance to local groups), the more unpredictable and chaotic the reverberations can be. Thus it’s almost always unwise to involve the US military in the Middle East, and it’s more likely that US military involvement will make things worse than make things better in any given scenario.
Perhaps the only scenarios in which the chances of positive results are high are situations like the Gulf War in the 90s – a supportive ally (Kuwait in the 90s) is invaded by another country, and we go in with a comprehensive international coalition and a very clear mission, and most importantly, overwhelming support from the government and population of the country being invaded.
When I was growing up, I viewed the United States as always being the “White Knight” and the USSR as always being “Darth Vader”. The Middle East, and Iraq in particular, made me see that, in the end, powerful nations will use their power to ensure their interests, and that we’re not always the “good guys”.
I always believed that the first war with Iraq was completely justified given the fact that they invaded an independent nation, Kuwait, with no just cause whatsoever.
Ironically, however, I believe we committed exactly the same crime when we started the second Iraq war. We accused them of still having WMDs that were an imminent threat to our nation and, though they consented to United Nations inspections, we decided to invade anyway. We never did find those WMDs which, in my book, makes us guilty of invading a sovereign nation without justification. In one fell swoop, we undermined the UN, which we pretty much completely support financially, destabilized that region of the Middle East, and committed what amounted to a war crime. How would we have viewed exactly that situation if the Russians or China had done it instead?
Others have pretty much nailed it- there has to be a compelling reason, there must be international support, and there has to be a plan for what happens afterward. Bush and Cheney thought that Iraq would miraculously turn into Switzerland as soon as Hussein was toppled and that statues of them would be erected in his place. We need to learn that a stable tyrant is better than utter chaos and tribal warfare.
That we, as Americans, are good at some things and not others.
We knocked over Saddam Hussein. Whether a good idea or not is a question for another time. That we knew we could do.
But the aftermath? The nation building? We’re not good at that. We should have been prepared with an islam-centric group that could take lead on such things. It’s not in our skillset these days to do so.
Soft power is preferable to hard power and can accomplish more. But it’s harder to use and takes subtlety.
Don’t try and do an invasion on the cheap. Be VERY sure that if you are using military options to overthrown another regime that you are doing it for the right reasons and that you have a real world plan for what happens after the fighting is over. If a large part of the rest of the world thinks something is a bad idea, at least listen to their reasoning before bulling ahead. Finally, you can’t make another country become a democracy through bombing or invasion…they have to come to it on their own and in their own time, or not at all.
There were three countries in George W. Bush’s axis of evil; Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. The one that didn’t have nuclear weapons was Iraq, and that was the one we invaded. It seems pretty obvious what the lesson was; if you want the US to stay out, get yourself a nuclear weapon.
America’s understanding of much of the world is rudimentary. If we intervene in some way, we usually have a poor idea of what forces we’re unleashing. This was true in Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, this was true in Iraq, it was true in Libya, and if we decide to militarily intervene in NK or Iran, it will be true there too.
It’s easy to break, to tear down, to burn up, to destroy. It’s a hell of a lot harder to build stuff that works.
Trust in human institutions builds slowly over time. Destroy institutions, and it will be quite a while before people develop trust in the institutions that replace them. There will be a vacuum in between, if indeed it is ‘in between’: the new institutions may not even survive. The possibility of visiting long-term chaos on a nation is a real thing.
Outsiders can’t do ‘nation-building.’ Like it or not, that has to be done by the locals themselves.
The sweet treat, dessert, has two S’s, and the second syllable is stressed. The arid place, desert, on the other hand, has one S, and the first syllable is stressed.
Always ask why the US is interested in invasion in the first place, and always question the given reasons for such an invasion.
There were plenty of voices that were asserting there were no WMD, its not as if there was a lack of information. It still seems unbelievable that WMD were really the reason for invasion, it was unbelievable before the invasion and turned out to be a complete crock.
So, what were the real reasons? Never believe in any political establishment that still supports such a false view, never ever trust the party that was in power at the time - it is absolutely crystal that they cannot ever be trusted again until they acknowledge their real reasons, and acknowledge their culpability.
