# Will the history books say we won or lost the War in Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-history-books-say-we-won-or-lost-the-war-in-iraq/538504 "2010-05-06T13:23:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-history-books-say-we-won-or-lost-the-war-in-iraq/538504/161 "2010-10-25T21:11:53Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > No? About a fifth of the worlds oil reserves are now in the hands of a government that is at least nominally friendly towards the US…as opposed to one that was patently hostile to us. I’d say that this was exactly the goal we wanted to achieve…the meme of the US seizing all that oil for our own use was always just that. A meme. It wasn’t ever going to be in the cards. Historical revisionism. We tried, we failed. The government wasn’t puppet enough - or suicidal enough - to just hand over the oil like we demanded, they openly defied us. > [@xtisme](#): > > Also, we now have basing rights that we can use to stage troops and keep an eye on a region that is strategically vital to both the US and to all the other industrialized nations on earth. I’d say that, again, this is the achievement of one of our strategic goals. No, our goal was to use those bases for a general conquest of the region; that isn’t going to happen either. And we’ve increased anti-Americanism there, as well as crippled the democracy movement in the ME by associating it with chaos and mass death; more failures. > [@xtisme](#): > > As to the last, that’s mostly a strawman, as Bush et al never said they were involved in 9/11, nor was it one of the reasons we invaded. It’s one of the reasons that some folks THINK we invaded, and certainly it’s gospel around here that the American people (and Congress) were tricked into thinking it was why we invaded, but really it had nothing to do with the decision process to go into Iraq. The first priority of the Bush White House with regards to 9-11 was to use it to excuse an invasion of Iraq. The connection is fairly direct. > [@xtisme](#): > > Sure, though it was a gift with a two edged sword. For one thing, Iraq has become something like South Korea these days. I doubt we’ll ever be completely gone from the country, at least not as long as there is any kind of support for maintaining a good relationship with the US in the Iraqi government. What makes you think there is any such thing? They don’t have the power to order us to go, that’s all. We are justifiably hated in Iraq. > [@xtisme](#): > > That means that Iran won’t ever be able to accomplish it’s (possible) goals of annexing Iraq and adding it to their territory. And was that ever anything but America projecting its goals onto Iran? > [@godix](#): > > I did not say Saddam was in a position to do it. I did not say if it is a better or worse outcome. What I said is that we are guaranteed that Saddam will not develop WMDs because of our invasion. No ‘we have to maintain a blockade, no fly zones, and low level hostilities for twelve years’. No ‘maybe continuing sanctions will prevent it’. No ‘the inspectors need more time’. None of that. Everyone is absolutely crystal clear it will not happen now. On this one issue, it truly is a mission accomplished. It was a mission that was already accomplished before the war, and we knew it. Our troops ignored all those supposed WMD sites to head straight for the oil ministry - because it was always about the oil, and never about the nonexistent WMDs. > [@godix](#): > > It’s way to early to predict that. There are many factors that can influence relations between the US and Iraq. If Iran develops nukes, if Israel pisses off the middle east even more than normal, if Iraq’s future is stable or a civil war, etc. At the moment, it could go either way, although it does appear to slightly favor a long term Iraq/US cooperation more than a Iraq/US enemy relationship. Nonsense. We slaughtered them, we leveled their country,we tortured them; all in an act of naked aggression. I don’t believe for one moment that the vast majority of Iraqis will ever feel anything but hatred for America for generations. That’s how in the real world the victims of wars of conquest feel, despite our self delusion that they would love us for deigning to massacre them. > [@godix](#): > > Plus consider the past. We turned Vietnam into a hellhole, and we flat out lost that war. Yet now relations are fairly decent. They aren’t our allies, but they aren’t our enemies either. We killed far more Japanese and Germans in a war than we have killed Iraqis, yet both are very close allies with the US. Russia was our ally in a war, yet it was our enemy for decades after. Different situations, all of them. Japan and Germany started it in both cases, and they knew it. Nor did we go out of our way to make the occupation disastrous, as we have in Iraq. Vietnam won. And Russia had ideological reasons for being our enemy. > [@xtisme](#): > > Why wouldn’t it contain some individuals or even groups that weren’t friendly? Do you think that everyone in a government has to be in lock step agreement?? Over all, the current Iraqi government is much more friendly towards the US than the previous regime, but just about any yardstick you care to use. > > You might note that I used the qualifier ‘nominally friendly’ in any case. Which translates to “they lie to our face about it.” If anything under the surface the present government is likely more genuinely hostile and dangerous to us than Saddam’s, since they don’t have a dictator on top ordering them to not support any hostile actions towards America. Nor was the old government afraid of being mass murdered by its own people for collaboration with America. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-history-books-say-we-won-or-lost-the-war-in-iraq/538504/162 "2010-10-25T22:09:13Z")
You are projecting again Der. You feel that way, so you assume everyone else does too. The reality is not so cut and dried, nor so black and white. [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Historical revisionism. We tried, we failed. The government wasn’t puppet enough - or suicidal enough - to just hand over the oil like we demanded, they openly defied us [/QUOTE] 😛 Seriously…does this make logical sense even to you? So, what you are saying here is that we viciously conquered them, crushing their army and enslaving their people, killing millioins, and then when we demanded their oil they said no…and we tucked tail and said ‘Oh…well, alright then’ and wandered off? Really? I have to admit, it is good for a laugh if nothing else. > [@](#): > > No, our goal was to use those bases for a general conquest of the region; that isn’t going to happen either. And we’ve increased anti-Americanism there, as well as crippled the democracy movement in the ME by associating it with chaos and mass death; more failures. If our actual goal was general conquest then we don’t seem to have done much to fulfill that goal. I’d have thought that if our actual goal was general conquest of the region then we wouldn’t have tried to invade Iraq on a budget and with troop strengths actually below what the Pentagon was requesting…we’d have invaded with MORE troops than were needed, so that we could then go on to other conquests and stuff. That’s how you actually do an operation like that in the real world…no go in with minimal troops that aren’t even enough to do the first invasion and then keep your thumb up your ass for a few years before realizing that, hey, maybe we need more troops just to do the original job! :smack: > [@](#): > > The first priority of the Bush White House with regards to 9-11 was to use it to excuse an invasion of Iraq. The connection is fairly direct. About as direct as the connection for our imminent invasion of Iran…to be sure. And it was all foiled by the conquered Iraqi’s telling us no, we couldn’t have their oil after all. 😛 > [@](#): > > What makes you think there is any such thing? They don’t have the power to order us to go, that’s all. We are justifiably hated in Iraq. We are justifiably hated by SOME people in Iraq…and we are justifiably liked by others. And, by and large, I’d say that most people are ambivalent about the US in Iraq these days, with equal parts anger and liking, but falling somewhere in the indifferent group by and large. I realize that YOU think that we are universally hated in Iraq, but the reality seems to be a bit less extreme. It’s easy to get that impression since the folks we generally see in the news are the ones who really hate us…or, at least really want to fight either us or fight the current Iraqi regime who we support. And why wouldn’t they have the power to order us to go? After all, they said we couldn’t have the oil, according to you, and that stopped us seemingly in our tracks, right? So, they COULD just tell us to go and we’d go. Hell, I’d say that Obama would be thrilled if the Iraqi’s would tell us to go so he could pull all the troops out. I’D be freaking thrilled if they told us to go. Last I heard, however, they were asking us to stay longer, though. > [@](#): > > And was that ever anything but America projecting its goals onto Iran? Depends on if you think that Iran has regional ambitions I suppose. If the US has or had projection goals into Iran we sure went about invading them in a strange way though… -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-history-books-say-we-won-or-lost-the-war-in-iraq/538504.md?page=8)