Unless a remarkable, shiny Iraq comes from this entanglement, then I think that it’ll be judged as a colossal blunder of a foreign policy.
I don’t think that it’ll be a foonote either. Too much is at stake for too many countries. The geographic hearts of civilizations are being put into various states of turmoil. There’ll be resonating effects for decades.
A mediocre or merely acceptable Iraq will be seen as a failure. If Iraq doesn’t become a worthy role model for other MENA nations then even that meta-goals will have failed.
Sure, but don’t save the guy wearing the Rolex watch, then stick out your hand for a “reward,” and tell all the witnesses that you picked him over the other not-so-rich-lookin’-(and now dead)-victims out of the sheer kindness of your heart. :rolleyes:
Maybe because, just like here, individuals have differing opinions. Just because there are still some misguided Saddam-loyalists, doesn’t mean they represent the majority opinion in the country.
Well, except for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the War of 1812, The Spanish-American War, and World War II as well as smaller conflicts.
Korea was a “tie”, however I’m sure the south apreciates the fact that that the stalemate resulted with their contry largely intact.
While a stunning military victory, if the Gulf War was a true victory we wouldn’t be there today.
While there are plenty of conflicts that seem to have no point and drag on for decade, blanket statements like “No one wins in war!” are simplistic, naive, and factually incorrect.
Oh and this war - not “damn fool”.
Before the war I suggested that one result would be the end of sanctions. Before the war the opposition opposed sanctions, then argued the war was “damn fool.” This was classic ostrich crisis management. Get rid of the sanctions with Saddam in power versus the situation that exists now: I’ll take now.
Saddam was no ordinary dictator of some backwater third world country. The body count has just been started, historically speaking. Everyone loves to say “Saddam was a bad man,” but few other than GWB were willing to do anything about it.
If Iraq and Afghanistan become like Germany or Japan 50 years hence, Bush will be right up there with the greatest Presidents in history.
If we pull out with our tail between our legs and both places are still backward and violent in 50 years Bush will be right up there with LBJ.
The people who write the history books reward success. If the war is successful, it was a good war. If it is not, it will be a “damn fool war”.
Do you have any actual answer or opinion? Choose from one of the following:
- Yes
- No
- Maybe
- I don’t know
- Can you repeat the question?
- You’re not the boss of me now
Seems like he gave you an answer. Just not the one you are looking for.
And I agree with him. It’s WAY too early to decide if this was a ‘damn fool war’. If Iraq goes badly, the U.S. keeps taking casualties and eventually pulls out, and a civil war breaks out which kills tens of thousands and completely destroys the economy, then the war will be remembered as a huge blunder.
If, on the other hand, democracy takes hold, even a flawed one, Iraq’s standard of living rises quick enough that in ten years it’s back above pre Gulf-War I standards, and Iraq becomes a force of modernization and tolerance in the middle east, then it will be remembered as a courageous toppling of a dictator and the start of real change in the middle east, and Bush will go down as a great pressident.
He has staked his entire presidency AND his place in the history books on this war. The stakes couldn’t be higher. And we won’t know how it turns out for at least a decade.
So if the President and his Cabinet utilize questionable claims to justify the invasion of a soverign country, and it all works out okay, he’s a great man?
Well the OP asked “How will history judge”
and Mr History can be an odd bugger at times.
Alexander the “Great”? - more than a few “war crimes” to his name,
the “great” Romans? - nasty bastards, one and all.
all sorts of criminals and tyrants get a good deal from history.
Can’t see Bush himself being seen as “Great” (not while video of his dumb monkey face still exists anyway) but the war itself, (and the reasoning that lead to it,) will be judged historically by it’s outcome and effects, wrongly or rightly.
Of course that opens up a whole “ends justifying the means” can of worms, and would be just plain annoying for those of us who didn’t want the war and don’t believe in the reasoning behind it, but now hope and pray the damn thing will work out!
Put me down as “not damn fool.”
Bush’s vision…Machiavellian though it be…is strategically sound. To combat the kind of attitude that causes Arab nations to become breeding grounds for terrorism, introduce democracy to an Arab nation and hope it becomes a Japan-like influence on its neighbors. Iraq was a reasonable candidate for the job, as Saddam’s toppling would also a) get rid of a state supporter of terrorism (not necessarily Al-Quaeda, but definitely Palestinian suicide bombers), b)stop his cat-and-mouse game with the UN weapons inspectors, and c) scare everyone else s**tless, since his was easily the largest Arab army, and if the US could demoslish it, the other states can very likely be handled with diplomacy rather than war.
There might be room to quibble on whether or not it was the right thing to do, but I certainly wouldn’t consider it a foolish thing to have done.
Seems too complex an issue for a simple “yes or no” to me. To me there are multiple complex questions here. Will history judge it a damn fool war, and WAS it a damn fool war based on perceptions today.
Will history judge it a damn fool war? I’d say probably not, though it will depend in large part on what happens from here on out. If the ME explodes in blood and violence, if Iraq folds or gets another totalitarian regime, if this is mearly the first stage in a gradually widening conflict, then it could very well be judged a damn fool war by history…and one of the biggest mistakes America ever made. However, if things go the other way, or pretty much remain the same as now, it will be nothing more than a foot note of a military action at the begining of a new century. Its too early to tell whats going to happen next, so to early to know how ‘history’ will percieve this event. People during the times never seem to make the same judgements as historians do years later…all the perspective you know.
WAS it a damn fool war, based on perceptions today? I’d have to say that the answer IN MY MIND, is yes. There was no real good justification to this war IMO. Yes, Saddam was a monster. Yes, what he was doing to his own people was a travisty. Yes, we need stability in the region as well as allies. Yes, the region is vital to America (as well as the entire industrialized world). All that having been said, I still don’t see the compelling reason to go into Iraq at that time and in that manner, except that we could…that SH gave us the excuse we needed and we took it. And thats not a good enough reason to spend the kinds of money we spent (and will continue to spend), or tie up our military indefinitely, not to mention the dead on both sides.
I can understand WHY Bush and the administration did what they did (and IMO had nothing to do with WMD), but I think they were wrong. There was no compelling reason that I’m aware of for invading Iraq at this time, and in the manner it was done. So at least from MY perception, it was a damn fool war.
Sorry for the lengthy answer to the OP…its kind of a complex question.
-XT
My simple poll degenerated into a great debate? Sigh. 
Thanks everyone for your responses!
It’s not strategically sound. Maybe broadly, vaguely theoretically sound. but to initiate a Western invasion of a ME country to quell the anger from previous invasion and interference in Me countries by Western nations seems less than thoughtful.
How does that saying go about expecting different results from the same actions?
Damn. Fool. War.
SimonX:
That assumes that the anger is indeed related to genuine Western interference. I think that that’s an illogical conclusion. With the possible exception of Lebanon by the French, the Middle East was never subject to outright colonialism by Western powers, and very little interference. Since World War II, there’s not a single Arab country who’s had a ruler either removed or installed due to Western interference (until the current Iraq adventure, that is). Rather, I think the anger is mostly based on a false scapegoating of the West by religious leaders or secular dictators who have no positive hopes to offer their masses. If genuine American interference can actually give Iraqis a political investment in their own future, then that’s likely to undercut both the hopelessness and the false scapegoating.
As I said above. When has any similar action ever been taken in the Middle East?
Chaim Mattis Keller
Only when a Republican does it. Otherwise, break out the Independent Prosecutors and start the impachment hearings. :rolleyes:
I suppose that you need to provide the definition of “outright colonialism” and interference. (Unless you mean that the area was never subject to very little interference.) As well as some more qualifiers.
Pleae go ahead and do so at this point.
Obviously, there’re other potent kinds of interference.
Why stop at WWII? Do you suppose that the events before then are immaterial?
Apparently, the CIA and Hussein had some ties- …[Husseins’s] first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.
Israel was largely a project sponsored by Western powers.
The more I think of examples, the more I realize that you must certainly have forgotten a lengthy list of qualifiers.
IF
The likelihood’s what’s debatable.
Before I go through the trouble of providing examples, please state the parameters for “similar” as you’ve used the word. That should save us some time.