Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Old military maxim.

'We must do something!
This is something.
So let's do this'

The war on Iraq was illogical. Therefore it has had counter-productive effects. As well as costing a lot of lives for no good reason.

YMMV

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What was the war FOR?

Did any of the objectives, visible or hidden, become "achieved"?

---

quote:

---

Intelligene gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

<snip>

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

---

1. Eliminate Iraq's vast stockpile of WMDs
2. Eliminate al Qæda's (and other terrorist's) foothold in Iraq
3. Create a "prosperous and free" Iraq

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Day:
I might not be thinking it through properly, and being simplistic, but is there any reason why Iraq has to stay as one country? During the 2000's we helped in the Balkans by splitting countries up. Is there any reason why Iraq can't go the same way? And if it did, would it be a bad thing?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
Tony Blair recently admitted that 'they' hadn't anticipated inter-Sunni/Shia hostility. Dick Cheney said the two groups would welcome the allies as liberators and unite. Didn't they have any well informed advisors?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've highlighted what Bush claims are the major goals of the war. To sum them up as bullet points, they are:

1. Eliminate Iraq's vast stockpile of WMDs
2. Eliminate al Qæda's (and other terrorist's) foothold in Iraq
3. Create a "prosperous and free" Iraq

So even grading the Bush administration by its own stated goals, the whole thing was an Epic Failure.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Two, the war empowered Iran, and the Maliki govt became enmeshed with Iran. Was this foreseen?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
After Iraq War 1 , when Saddam's forces were expelled from Kuwait in 1990, it was said that entering Iraq, and over-throwing the Baathist regime would not be advisable as it may well be replaced with something worse.
I'm not sure what changed to make the US think this would no longer be the case 13 years later.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Day:
I might not be thinking it through properly, and being simplistic, but is there any reason why Iraq has to stay as one country? During the 2000's we helped in the Balkans by splitting countries up. Is there any reason why Iraq can't go the same way? And if it did, would it be a bad thing?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Old military maxim.

'We must do something!
This is something.
So let's do this'

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

IOW, is this the beginning of the Wars of the Muslim Reformation?

And can the "Christians" be persuaded to stay out of it?

---

I had exactly the same thought.

On your second point - sadly, I doubt it

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Old military maxim.

'We must do something!
This is something.
So let's do this'

---

Current Western mantra:
We must never again stand by and do nothing ( Rwanda, Srebrenica).
It’s happening again.
Let’s do nothing again.

I opposed the Iraq intervention from the beginning and, like just about everyone else right now, I am intensely skeptical about the likelihood of a repeated intervention’s doing any good.

At the same time, we have to face the fact that we are once again witnessing atrocities on a vast scale, with the Sunni ISIS/ISIL massacring hundreds of Shiites, and once again there is very little evidence of sympathy or indignation or inclination to think about how the outside world might ameliorate the situation (apart from the therapeutic satisfaction for ourselves of being able to say, “I told you so!”)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The worst-case scenario is a Muslim version of the Thirty Years War, with modern weaponry.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The worst-case scenario is a Muslim version of the Thirty Years War, with modern weaponry.

---

Many will die, many more will live in hell. And this will continue to be asymmetric so the potential for self correction is even less than the Thirty Years War.

---

So Vietnam on steroids.

Nice.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Alex, for your reference Thirty Years War (via an owly link as the wiki url had characters the Ship BB didn't recognise)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I take no satisfaction is saying that I have been predicting something like this for over a decade, and I'm no Middle East expert. We've been working up to this ever since Sykes and Picot drew a bunch of random lines on a map 98 years ago, and I really doubt there's anything military the US or NATO can do to stop the snowball at this point. The worst-case scenario is a Muslim version of the Thirty Years War, with modern weaponry.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
From a recent discussion (last night) with a historian. He said that a common perspective of military historians is that the problem with Iraq was the failure to destroy and humiliate the Iraqi forces in both invasions/wars. That it is impossible to put reconstruction and democracy before the destruction of the enemy's morale and willingness to continue. With the accompanying problem that the western countries' public and journalists would not tolerate the level of violence required to do this. He also added that it is doubtful that either of Japan and Germany would have become democratic without their total defeats.

He also suggested the ancients understood this when they always killed all of the men, adopted some of the children, and enslaved the women.

I was left with a rather sick feeling.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

IOW, is this the beginning of the Wars of the Muslim Reformation?

And can the "Christians" be persuaded to stay out of it?

---

I had exactly the same thought.

On your second point - sadly, I doubt it

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
From a recent discussion (last night) with a historian. He said that a common perspective of military historians is that the problem with Iraq was the failure to destroy and humiliate the Iraqi forces in both invasions/wars. That it is impossible to put reconstruction and democracy before the destruction of the enemy's morale and willingness to continue. With the accompanying problem that the western countries' public and journalists would not tolerate the level of violence required to do this. He also added that it is doubtful that either of Japan and Germany would have become democratic without their total defeats.

He also suggested the ancients understood this when they always killed all of the men, adopted some of the children, and enslaved the women.

I was left with a rather sick feeling.

---

This is a more complex issue. The U.S. certainly inflicted total defeat on the Iraqi armed forces. The problem when you are dealing with an insurgency, however, is that it is far more difficult to inflict that kind of total demoralization when dealing with non-state actors, who are usually hidden and indistinguishable from the general populace. To do so would require massive collateral damage that most nations would find unacceptable.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Apparently not re total defeat. The former army people went home and changed their clothes joined the insurgency. They found that blowing up some Americans installing infrastructure was far more effective than pretending they could field an army and doing it like "civilized nations" do. Insurgencies work. If American, Europe and allies want to win in Iraq, they will have to kill a lot of people and destroy a lot of infrastructure thereby killing civilians indirectly.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I may have missed in my quick scan of posts any reference to the wider implications of the Iraq situation. Particularly, the connection of Iran to Iraq could be the start of a major middle east conflagration drawing in the world's major powers.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nah, everyone's more sensible than that.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although some Sunni groups fought against Al Quaeda, and with the Americans - particularly the 'Awakening' groups. Many journalists are reporting that these groups are fed up with Maliki, who they accuse of ignoring them, or worse, and they are therefore not opposing ISIS.

---