It looks like the history books will say that China won.
If you look at it from the perspective of the government it is a success. The military installation in Iraq is one of the largest military bases that we have with over 140,000 personnel there, not to mention that we are guarding the oil field now so that NOBODY can touch it. Now we have a strategic position in the middle east and a facility the size of the Vatican tells me that they never had any intentions of leaving there. Obama promised a few times that the troops would be coming home, and then that deadline passed and then he made another deadline and another. It all sounded good on the campaign trail and people bought it. From most of the general population’s perspective it is a failure with no wmd’s and what some perceive to be Lie’s for going into Iraq. It may be viewed similar with the Vietnam war and many of our soldier’s dying for what? We set up the puppet government they have now so i guess the slogan MISSION ACCOMPLISHED is correct in that sense.
Is anyone else bothering to witness this, or has it become un-pc now that Republicans are trying to convince us they’re fit to lead the nation again?
WMDs were found, although not to the level that we thought we would find them. A brutal dictator was removed and the beginnings of a stable, democratic society were sown (whether it survives remains to be seen). What the level of our commitment to the success of the new government will be remains to be seen as well.
All in all, that’s got to be seen in a positive light. We’ll fare better than we did in Vietnam overall in terms of history.
Commitment won’t solve this:
The aftermath of a folly is seldom pretty.
That’s no cause to blame the cleanup crew.
We don’t start wars. We finish them.
(translated from the original Arabic)
Perhaps Palin-Limbaughists consider Wikipedia to be lying left-wing propaganda, but here is part of its summary:
And do please recall that it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who helped arm and finance the “brutal dictator” decades ago, misleading him to imagine his friends would allow the Kuwait invasion.
Success story?
The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.
Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.
"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
You can take the “almost” out of that last sentence. Even bloody Bush admitted there weren’t any weapons there.
WASHINGTON – President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, trying to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue – whether the invasion was justified because Hussein was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.
Bush’s response was his first reaction to a report released Wednesday by Charles Duelfer, the CIA’s top weapons inspector, that contradicted the White House’s main argument for invading Iraq.
And as far as sowing the seeds for a democracy, that was the happy talk by the same American media who brought you Saddam’s fearsome WMDs. This is how the world outside the west saw the moment when America finally signed a deal to withdraw all troops with Iraq’s new government. This looks a lot like the face of defeat to me which is probably why it never made it onto our teevees :
For the near future both Iraq and Afghanistan are satellites of the United States. We have pacified both nations with several hundred thousand troops and constructed long term fortifications at key points. The question is can the U.S. use these pieces as leverage in any future global crisis? That will be the greatest fruit of our new assets. But disregarding that, the wars have been hugely successful for the domestic interests who lobbied for them. So mission accomplished.
As for the anti-interventionists, please remember that opposing our Mesopotamian adventure doesn’t require them to actually fail or be going badly. To my knowledge, the U.S. government has never opposed a war against its interests by wringing its hands over the impracticability of the task. Rather, it opposes them on moral grounds, usually citing their grave wrongness or some such. The U.S. did not tell the Soviets they should leave Afghanistan because it was unlikely they could pacify the resistance. I don’t think Vietnam protesters would’ve put the signs down and gone home if we had crushed the Viet Cong and conquered all of Vietnam. Well, scratch that – but the point is, this sort of opposition shouldn’t be contingent on the aggressor’s agenda. The cops don’t let bank robbers go because the robbers’ plan went to perfection.
As always, the solution is dissolution.
Hardly. Iraq failed to turn into the libertarian paradise the free market fanatics wanted; it failed to become the springboard for general conquest of the Middle East that the neocons wanted. It failed to bring Iraqi oil under permanent US control. It greatly strengthened Iran. Nor we likely to “use these pieces as leverage” for anything; on the contrary, they militarily cripple us, pin us down. Which is good for the rest of the world but awkward for American imperialism.
If morality was a concern we wouldn’t have conquered Iraq. America is a nation of cowardly, bloodthirsty bullies; thieves, murderers and torturers, as we have demonstrated in Iraq. Moral appeals don’t work with people who have the morality of a street gang. Pointing out that something is difficult or dangerous might.
Activist Judges: Iraqi court forces parliament back to work
Sabotage: Iraq’s Maliki: Opponents will use U.S. leaks against him
History’s judgement on 2010 will be that the clusterfuck in Iraq continued for another year. We’re not even seeing a glimmer of that shining city of hope nowdays.
One might try to judge the war on either of two criteria:
(1) Was it good for the Iraqi people?
(2) Was it good for the U.S.A. and its interests?
But (1) was never the criterion and never should have been. I might be more inclined than most to see the U.S.A. assume the role of altruistic policeman, but your dosages of mind-altering drugs definitely need adjustment if you want to evaluate that War on that basis. There are many troubled countries in Africa where U.S. intervention could have been performed for a far FAR lower cost, with a much MUCH greater chance of success, with much MUCH more international and local support, and where the suffering of people under tyranny was FAR greater than that of the Iraqis. Anyone who thinks of this war as an act of charity for Iraqis needs to report to BBQ Pit immediately for help in adjusting their dosages. 
And BTW, the abandonment and suffering of Iraqis has been enormous over the past 7 years; since one can’t predict an alternate-world where Saddam dies without War, no one can ever suggest this War was beneficial to Iraqis.
(2) Did the War serve U.S. interests? In the present climate, it may be doubtful that a future free Iraq will be both democratic and pro-American. Frankly, a dictator allied with U.S.A. might be best for U.S.A., at least in the short term. We once had that under Saddam!
I have much sympathy with the “Neocons”; aiding Saddam during the 1980’s as we did may not have been unwise! From what I’ve read Saddam’s 1991 invasion of Kuwait was less a rejection of his American allies and more a result of American diplomatic incompetence.
As to the 2003 War, it is silly to ask if it was “moral” or not. What it was was stupid. It may have been driven by “Neocons” but they were imbecilic Neocons who made no attempt to plan ahead. Richard Haass, a Neocon with a good brain that he uses, has said he expects to go to his grave without ever knowing the reason for the foolish Iraq War of 2003.
Hope this helps,
Septimus
You really believe this, don’t you? You genuinely deeply believe that a few canisters of overlooked chemicals (that were supplied by the USA), buried in the desert somehow count as “WMD’s”, even though they were degraded to the point where they were completely unusable.
By this standard, every country in the world is currently hiding WMD’s
By this standard, you yourself have WMD’s under your kitchen sink.
Whatever helps you sleep at night I suppose.
On the contrary, we escaped Vietnam with few long term negative consequences. The level of wasted resources, harms to our civil society, and social-diplomatic consequences will hurt us for decades to come.
It was an incredible success. Do you have any idea how much money Blackwater, Bechtel, Halibuton and other contractors made? Then we bribed lots of Iraqis too. They will love us until we quit giving them American tax dollars.
Iraq wants us to stay a while longer. They love the money we put into the country.
They had an election 8 months ago and still have not formed a government. How can that be acceptable?
After all that , we still don’t know if Iraq is governable without US troops.
This is a good point. At least when I went to school, even junior high history books in the US were capable of keeping win/lose separate from necessary/stupid.
IIRC, even the book that our teacher wanted to get rid of because it was too biased and jingoistic still managed to say that the Spanish-American War was based on a mistake, and probably wasn’t worth it even though we won.
So, there’s no reason the history books can’t say the same thing about Iraq (assuming it turns out that way).
If you twist things enough, there were even positive consequences of the Vietnam War. For example, when both the US and China were afraid to take out Pol Pot, Vietnam did it. And they only dared to do so because they’d recently defeated the US. Therefore, the Vietnam War was a good war!
But fortunately, history books don’t usually look at events through such a ridiculous crazy straw.
Just to toss out a random comment, because of US actions we are guaranteed that Saddam will not develop WMDs. Of all the ways to view it, the WMD is actually the most clear win for the US, not a loss as others have indicated.
Granted, I don’t think history books will be looking at it that way. I suspect the answer will depend entirely on if there isl a recognizable democratic government in Iraq when those history books are written.
Can someone tell me what Black Knight means in this context. I have seen it used several times here, it seems to allude to a Conservative behavior. But I dont know if it’s just a simple reference to Monty Python or a specific meme. Thanks.
One problem with that argument is that the war wasn’t responsible for that. He already was in no position to do any such thing. Another problem is that Saddam with WMD would have been a better outcome than the war, for ourselves and the Iraqis both.
Considering that a democratic government in Iraq would be our enemy I don’t think that would qualify as a win either.
I expect it refers to Curtis/Qin Shi Huangdi’s refusal to admit defeat despite the facts, like the Black Knight did.