“”Of course the people don’t want war.
But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy,
and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy,
a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
|—Hermann Göring, noted expert on starting wars, interviewed during the Nuremberg trials|
| It never changes|
|A view to kill|
The Iraq War refers to either of two recent conflicts:
- a) the liberation of Kuwait in 1990 from the occupation by Saddam Hussein's regime (codenamed "Operation Desert Storm")
- b) the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (codenamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom", a misnomer of significant magnitude)
Indeed, the latter was "the worst foreign policy disaster in American history" and "a case of national stupidity." The U.S. was mired in Iraq for a good eight years, at a cost of half a million Iraqi lives (by one estimate), and $2 trillion dollars.
- 1 Gulf War
- 2 Iraq War
- 3 Mission Accomplished (we think?)
- 4 Fallout
- 5 See also
- 6 Videos
- 7 External links
- 8 Notes
- 9 References
“”Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off.
|—Then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney sensibly explaining why the US didn't topple Iraq's government in 1991.|
Threatened by Iran's Islamic Revolution, Saddam ordered an invasion of the country in 1980, leading to a devastating eight year tussle called the Iran-Iraq War. Afterwards, Iraq was mired in $37 billion worth of debt, much of it owed to Kuwait. Hoping to fix this, they decided to call up OPEC to raise the price of oil and asked Kuwait to please kindly drop that whole debt issue. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait rejected this idea, and in 1990, Iraq retaliated by invading Kuwait after citing an island dispute. Before the invasion, however, the United States decided to advise Kuwait to stay demilitarised even in the face of a clear building up of troops on the border, not to mention the fact that the United States was selling the Iraqis various weapons and actually assisted Saddam in acquiring chemical weapons.
For a brief period Saddam set up a republican government in Kuwait, and US policymakers were worried about Saddam crowing "Mission Accomplished" and withdrawing troops while leaving said government in place. Had Saddam not been an idiot and annexed the country as his troops went around looting stuff, the US might have found it harder to justify destroying Iraq's basic infrastructure with airstrikes under the pretext of "liberating" Kuwait.
Sanctions and coalition-building
The UN ordered Iraq to back the fuck off, and when Saddam predictably didn't do that they imposed a destructive worldwide ban on trade with Iraq. Iraq proceeded to annex Kuwait and occupy the province with 300,000 troops. This act of aggression combined with the probable threat towards Saudi Arabia, prompted the US and NATO to station almost a million troops in the Arabian peninsula. The US also assembled a coalition of 34 nations to oppose Saddam, including the UAE, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Senegal, South Korea, Qatar, Oman, and also Honduras for some reason. Following more defiance from Saddam, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 687, which authorized the coalition to use "all necessary means" to uphold the previous resolutions and liberate Kuwait. Now with the green light from the UN, the coalition prepared for war.
During this period, Kuwait also engaged in an all out propaganda blitz, hiring American PR firm Hill & Knowlton who was notable for defending Indonesia from (entirely justified) charges of genocide in Timor-Leste, and creating an astroturf organization known as Citizens for a Free Kuwait. This led to the infamous Nayirah testimony, a false testimony given to Congress by the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the US. She outlined numerous "atrocities" carried out by Iraqi forces, such as throwing babies from incubators to their deaths. The Senators chairing the committee were aware of Nayirah's true identity, and Kuwait's association with Hill & Knowlton, but said and did nothing. This testimony was later revealed to be entirely fabricated, with Nayirah not even being in Kuwait at the time of the alleged crimes, and no evidence has ever been revealed. To date, no one responsible for this has faced any consequence whatsoever.
Operations Desert Storm and Desert Sabre
Military action commenced with a massive US-led air campaign known as Operation Desert Storm, which would persist for the duration of the war. The attack successfully destroyed Iraq's air defenses and did heavy damage to its communications systems, government buildings, weapons plants, infrastructure, and oil refineries. The coalition subsequently shifted their focus to the front lines in Kuwait to prepare for Operation Desert Sabre. This was a huge allied ground campaign which pushed north from Saudi Arabia into Kuwait and southern Iraq. By the end of February 1991, US and Arab forces successfully pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. The remaining Iraqis were bombed to bits during the retreat to Baghdad.
The rapid victory appealed to US military planners, and they began to hope to end the war a mere five days after the initial ground invasion, which would surpass Israel's prestigious success in the Six Day War. Thus, the ceasefire was set for February 20th. However, US military ground commander sounded the alarm that such an early ceasefire would allow Saddam to keep a large amount of his military strength intact. These warnings ended up being accurate, and there were consequences.
Some relate the Iraq War to the Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), and name it the Second Gulf War, even though the vast majority of combat did not occur along the sea.
Aftermath and mishandled peace
The never ending war
The coalition controversially decided to keep Saddam in power. In order to prevent another conflict (ha!), the coalition decided to maintain sanctions on Iraq until the country had divested itself of chemical weapons and any other variety of WMD. Fearing that removing Saddam through violence would create a vacuum for Iran to exploit, the US instead settled on the hope that internal turmoil following his loss would do in the regime on its own. However, the war had been halted unnaturally early, and Saddam had been able to preserve much of his army, allowing him to suppress any domestic opposition. The US was forced to maintain a constant sanctions and occasional military response regime throughout the Clinton years. Saddam's status as a permanent thorn in America's side had severe consequences. After 9/11, Bush ordered his advisers to search for evidence of Iraqi culpability, with predictable results.
The uprisings of 1991
Before the invasion, President Bush had encouraged Iraq's minorities to rise up against Saddam's tyranny. Unfortunately, this actually happened. Kurds rose up in the north while Shiites rose up in the south. However, the rebels were vastly outgunned by Iraq, defeated though it was, and Saddam's forces were able to brutally suppress the rebels using helicopter gunships. The situation was exacerbated by the Bush administration's lack of vision for what kind of Iraq they would create, and this created situations of indecision and inactivity. During the uprisings and the slaughters, US commanders were frustrated with the lack of direction from above on how they should respond and protect people. In the process of putting down the rebels, Iraqi forces summarily executed thousands of civilians by firing indiscriminately into residential areas and attacking hospitals. The lack of US aid did enormous damage to the image of the West, especially among Shiites, which is a big part of why so many Iraqis weren't quite as thrilled to be "liberated" in the second war as US strategists had expected.
Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda
In the early days of the war, Saudi diplomats and leaders feared that Saddam would follow up his success in Kuwait by invading their country. To deter him, they broke with tradition and invited American and Western troops to garrison their country. The aftermath of the war saw unprecedented trials for the Saudi royal family, as an economic slowdown and domestic bubblings over the foreign troops saw the rise of an increasingly radical Islamist political opposition. The failure of foreign troops to withdraw from sacred Saudi land (the country has two of Islam's holiest sites) sparked increasingly furious response from the Islamists, especially towards the royals, who they saw as complicit in a Western occupation. Meanwhile, the relations between America and Saudi Arabia had rapidly cooled after Washington brushed off the royal family's offer to purchase $20 billion of US military goods.
In 1996, Osama bin Laden gave a rambling manifesto declaring war on the United States, citing the foreign presence in Saudi Arabia as his primary grievance. Al-Qaeda proceeded to launch a variety of terrorist attacks against the United States and finally reached its pinnacle with 9/11. This leads us directly into...
“”The invasion of Iraq will surely go down in history as one of the most cowardly wars ever fought. It was a war in which a band of rich nations, armed with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, rounded on a poor nation, falsely accused it of having nuclear weapons, used the United Nations to force it to disarm, then invaded it, occupied it, and are now in the process of selling it.
|—Arundhati Roy, acceptance speech for the Sydney Peace Prize.|
Back in the nineties, a group of hardcore neo-cons including Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Donald Rumsfeld (Dick Cheney came onboard almost at once, but it's unclear if he was part of the original group) cooked up the idea of invading Iraq as a way to bring about a new Pax Americana. Iraq is located next to Iran and Syria; with Afghanistan invaded, the planners thought it would bring "freedom" to the ME and isolate Iran.
Also, they were resentful that Bush the Elder hadn't gone all the way and crushed Saddam when he had the chance. The drum-beat to invade Iraq began in 1998, when Bill Clinton took the bait on Operation Desert Fox. They publicly tried to get Clinton to take military action against Saddam, claiming he was producing weapons of mass destruction. It almost reads like Cato's "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed" with regards to Iraq.
Mind you, not a single one of them had the slightest bit of expertise on the subject. Recall all those asinine claims made before the war: "We will be greeted as liberators." "Five days." "Oil revenue will pay for it."  These people actually believed all of it. And when they did consult an actual expert on Iraq, Gen. Tony Zinni (the person in charge of keeping Saddam contained), he said that they underestimated the Iraqi insurgency and how long it would take to stabilize the country. After this mob slimed their way into the White House, Zinni resigned from the military.
When Coalition forces led by the U.S. invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003, news media heralded the initiation of the Iraq War. When George W. Bush announced the end of major combat operations on May 1, 2003 the war "ended" and the formal occupation of Iraq began, the media began to refer to U.S. and U.K. efforts to administer the nation as "the Occupation of Iraq."
The invasion of Iraq was advertised as being part of the wider-reaching War on Terror (although that phrase was eventually jettisoned by the UK administration for sounding too "Hollywood"). Whilst the U.S. and U.K. insist upon maintaining a presence in the Middle East and introducing laws that erode civil liberties within their own nations as effective steps towards "winning" this war, critics often observe that these actions have worsened security both abroad and domestically. It would appear to many that the War on Terror is also ambiguous in its aims, as there does not appear to be any universally accepted end point to such a campaign.
“”It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran... the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.
|—David Manning in the infamous "Downing Street memo," 23 July 2002|
- 9/11: Saddam was the sitting president of a recognized nation with an (albeit pathetic) air force and army. Using passenger jets as suicide bombers was the work of Islamic terrorists, aka Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and everyone knew it from the start. The White House claimed that Saddam, who had a major beef with the U.S. (and the Bush family specifically) going back a decade, was backing the terrorists. Ironically, Saddam also had a major beef with the aforementioned terrorists, going back at least as long, when they were openly offering their services to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. This was well known, yet entirely ignored.
- Evidence is good that the government actually believed this propaganda, as well. The CIA had been seriously politicized by the Bush White House; they were told to ignore anything that suggested Saddam wasn't packing heat, or in league with Al-Qaeda. So they ignored the mountains of evidence that said otherwise. (CIA Director George Tenet famously said the case against Saddam was "a slam dunk.") Many Al-Qaeda fighters were captured and interrogated about ties between Saddam and bin Laden. They thought the interrogators were joking, nobody could actually believe something so ludicrous.
- Finally, they resorted to torturing people until they got a "confession". The CIA's star witness was subjected to mock burial in a box 20 inches high, just days after the start of the war. He later recanted. Afterwards, he was disappeared.
- WMDs: It was a known fact that Iraq was given chemical weapons by America to use against Iran in the 80s. Nobody disputed that. The administration knew about the older weapons and admitted that they were not dangerous. Bush and Cheney were claiming newer, active stashes of weapons as a reason for going to war. Moreover, they claimed Iraq was trying to manufacture nuclear weapons. Back in 2002-2003, a conservative talking point was that opponents of invading Iraq were "peaceniks".
- Colin Powell, who never quite believed all this nonsense, made a famous speech before the UN where he waved around a bottle of white powder which he claimed was anthrax. Powell also claimed, based upon the testimony of an informant known as Curveball, that Saddam was sending unmanned aerial drones to spray poison over American cities. Unfortunately, when it was later revealed that his entire speech was bogus, that was pretty much the end of Powell's career. (Curveball was later the target of a CIA burn notice, as he was a liar.)
- The White House also claimed that Iraq tried to buy uranium ore from Niger. However, those documents were forged. Nevertheless, President Bush uttered the infamous sixteen words in his 2003 State of the Union Address, claiming that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium. Joe Wilson, an American diplomat who claimed that this was a forgery, had his CIA-agent wife outed. That NSC guy, John Bolton, also intimidated and helped remove an official from the warpath to Iraq.
- Humanitarianism: When the WMDs failed to materialize, they made up new fictions. Bush and Tony Blair preached the importance of spreading democracy to the Iraqi people or, in the words of the Post, "establish an orderly European-style state on the Tigris and Euphrates". Subsequently the capture of Saddam was hailed as a major success, as was the Arab Spring, though Bush and Blair differ on that last point.
- Blair is another odd fish. Crypto-catholic while in office, then converted after he resigned. Vaguely-apocalyptic in his views on Iraq and the ME in general; he seems to fervently believe he was doing God's work in supporting the invasion. He didn't just support it, he actively advised Bush on how to manipulate public opinion.
- The invasion of Iraq shattered a nation built on an authoritarian foundation, but more importantly on a personality's foundation. If they really wanted to "nation build", they wouldn't have “permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money...chemicals, and weapons to Iraq” that were used against the Kurds decades ago, they would have supported the generals who wanted to overthrow Saddam, etc. Instead they waited after hundreds of thousands died from sanctions (see below), destroyed the very tenuous link between all those groups, and banished his entire ruling party and everyone associated with it, basically overnight, with no plan to replace them. Even during Saddam's 'absence', the country had not devolved into chaos. That vacuum was created by Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2, months after the invasion. It was that action which threw the country into chaos, because there was no one in charge. Not just a figurehead or leader in hiding. Literally no more police. No more government anything. Just roving mobs of people with guns. The CIA even tried to justify the invasion of Iraq with "morals", getting Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ (daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States) to testify to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus claiming Iraqi soldiers "entered the Adan Hospital in Fahaheel looking for hospital equipment to steal" they then "unplugged the oxygen to the incubators supporting 22 premature babies and made off with the incubators". After an investigation by the Amnesty International stated that they "found no reliable evidence that Iraqi forces had caused the deaths of babies by removing them or ordering their removal from incubators," thereby disproving Nayirah's claim as "wildly distorted at best".
- As an aside, the infrastructure in Iraq was never rebuilt: Baghdad had regular blackouts when we left, something which rarely happened under Saddam.
“”A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war. I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.
- Preemptive war: In retrospect, the "intelligence" wasn't as strong as it seemed, so the new argument is that Iraq was attempting to develop WMDs, and they needed to be stopped before it was too late to do anything about it. So it should come to absolutely no one's surprise that they didn't find any.
- Realistically, at any point, most developed countries could be within "years" of developing a bomb. Under international law you need a reason to go to war, and the reason claimed (preemptive strike due to illegal weapons) turned out to be false. The US and UK went to the UN to get backing for a strike and got a resolution, but needed a second one. They didn't get it but went anyway. So using this strict definition of war, our actions in Iraq (and Afghanistan) cannot legally be called a war. In fact, if you pay attention to the legalese politicians often use, you'll hear the phrase "combat operations" used a lot.
- The Bush Doctrine's pre-emption was at the very best a tiptoe around—and at worst a blatant disregard for—the most basic norm in international relations which is you can't just invade other nations. It's been the bedrock of international diplomacy since the 1640s, so the question becomes, what's the threshold at which it's acceptable to violate national sovereignty? This kind of argument is self-perpetuating. So, the West intervened in the past and today people view many of those as mistakes. This justifies the West intervening again. Presumably if the West make more mistakes this justifies another go, and so on.
- Prior examples of "preemptive war" include:
- Caesar argued his invasion of Gaul and Germania was to pre-empt Gaulish invasion, if not of Roman territory then of allied Gauls.
- Cao Cao launched a foray into Wuhan (tribes north of China) to prevent their support of the Yuan clan in the civil war prior to the Three Kingdoms.
- Pretty much all of WWI thanks to Germany, and their insane daisy chain of political alliances.
- Nazi Germany vs. USSR, which ended poorly for the Nazis.
- That time the US fought a preventive war with a Communist country propped up by a superpower in the far east. Went super well and was super short and clean if we remember correctly.
Spice must flow
The UN Oil-for-Food program was created to allow Iraq to buy provisions (food, medicine, infrastructure components, and so forth) with oil revenue, This caused a sharp decrease in the price of oil under Clinton economy, which powered the 90's economic boom. Oil went as low as $9 a barrel. (500,000 dead Iraqi children were "worth it".) Bush and his friends are in the oil business (Cheney in particular), so they knew that as long as Iraq was under sanctions and occupation, oil would be cheap. But the euro was rising against the American dollar, and Saddam Hussein was refusing to sell the black stuff in dollars i.e. what got Saddam invaded the first time, and that would have made oil more expensive.
This has to be seen in the context that, in 2002, Iraqi oil imports made up 4% of total US oil imports. Also, petrodollars force countries to maintain a substantial amount of dollars on hand, keeping its value propped up. In 2007 Alan Greenspan admitted more-or-less the same thing.
Australian Defense Minister Brenden Nelson said that oil was a key factor keeping Australian troops in the US-led war in Iraq. He was, however, hastily reprimanded by his boss (former Prime Minister "Honest" John Howard), who reassured the media that democracy and preventing the spread of terrorism was his main concern. As part of the coalition, Australia had 1500 troops stationed in and around Iraq.
More primal explanations
In 2013, New York Times reporter Peter Baker quoted a former senior White House official who suggested that America went to Iraq just to "find somebody's ass to kick." Rumsfeld himself said that invading Afghanistan was boring because there was nothing good to bomb.
“”We are in a war against terrorists, to have a blame meeting isn't, in my opinion, constructive.
|—Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) on misplacing $8.8 billion dollars of Iraqi money|
Eric Shinseki said that they needed "several hundred thousands" of soldiers to invade Iraq and "win the peace." Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld dismissed his warnings. They were obsessed with a notion of "Kinetic warfare" wherein American technology would eliminate the fog of war, allowing them to proceed with as little as 50,000 American troops. The Pentagon was still reeling from Vietnam and the quagmire which ensued.
Modern warfare allowed armed forces to take over the country at unprecedented speed. Victory was declared very quickly. However, there was no plan to win the peace. They had no idea how to secure the population. Wolfowitz sent in his lackey, Paul Bremer, to run the entire country. Bremer decided on his own to disband the Iraqi police and the military. He also wanted to "de-Baathify" the government: Under Bremer, all former Baathists were banned from the new government of Iraq, effectively alienating the military and a vast majority of the experienced public officials.
This and the lack of investment in infrastructure turned public opinion against the provisional authority. Tens of thousands of newly-unemployed men with assault rifles were left on the streets. Foreign fighters (with Iranian support) flooded Iraq, killing many in the crossfire. The population quickly turned against America, as it couldn't even protect them from thugs. Bremer was strutting around the Green Zone in his Brooks Brothers suit as his men were torturing prisoners. After the Abu Ghraib scandal was uncovered, 92% of Iraqis told pollsters that they considered the U.S. a hostile occupying force, a massive shift in public opinion in only weeks.
Soldiers' families were buying body armor and Humvee panels and sending them to Iraq and Afghanistan. That's not corruption, because Cheney could have positioned himself to make money supplying that stuff, just like Halliburton was raking it in with facilities, logistics, and oil work (not to mention hiring out Blackwater to be Bush's and Cheney's private bodyguards). But the White House was incompetent in setting up a supply chain or any plans lasting longer than a day and a half. Bremer also managed to lose track of 9 billion bucks and 190,000 guns. Now you have Shiites and Sunnis trying to kill each other; suicide bombings and beheadings became commonplace.
"This guy was really under-qualified for the role of governor of a combat zone. His resume is from business and while he was a real "go-getter" he never had any experience with international affairs and didn't even bother to take any Arabic-speaking aides with him....Bremer was the fat kid in the candy store whose mother told him, 'You deserve this, Honey.'" — Jon Davis
"I am beginning to feel some sympathy for those American officials who led the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq ten years ago and immediately began destroying existing political parties, standing armies, and traditional institutions of political consultation and authority. The deepest reason for this colossal blunder was not American hubris or naïveté, though there was plenty of that. It was that they had no way of thinking about alternatives to immediate—and in the end, sham—democratization. Where should they have turned? Whose books should they have read? What model should they have relied on? All they knew was the prime directive: draft new constitutions, establish parliaments and presidential offices, then call elections." — Mark Lilla
By this point the war was becoming unpopular in the UK, and their presence in Southern Iraq was causing unrest, so the decision was made to pull the British troops out.
“”US could fail to find WMD on the ground in Iraq and be unpersuasive to the world... it could take eight to 10 years, thereby absorbing US leadership, military, and financial resources... Recruiting and financing for terrorist networks could take a dramatic upward turn from successful information operations by our enemies, positioning the US as anti-Muslim... Iraq could experience ethnic strife among Sunni, Shia, and Kurds...
|—Donald Rumsfeld's "Iraq List of Problems" memo, 15 October 2002|
In 2007, we turned a corner. Not only did we get a "surge" of tens of thousands American troops, we also had the Iraqis revolting against foreign fighters: Sunni rebels were sick and tired of foreign fighters slaughtering Iraqis, so they joined up with the American forces. Generals Petraeus and McChrystal switched gears to form a counter-insurgency to win the hearts and minds of the Iraq people. There are also drones that wiped out hundreds, if not thousands, of insurgent fighters.
In 2008, the U.S. entered in a status of forces agreement with Iraq and agreed to leave by 2011. Tony Blair declared the world "a safer place." Obama took over as President in 2009, and pulled troops out as planned. Everyone assumed that Iraq could protect itself.
In 2014, a civil war broke out, fracturing the Iraqi Army. The Shia are the majority population in Iraq, and the minority Sunnis, who had been the favored guys under Saddam Hussein (who was Sunni), rejected the Iraqi government. Sunnis attacked Shias. Syria blew up. DAESH gained power, and recruited many former (and disgruntled) Baath officers. This so-called "surge" appears to have only worked in the short term.
But wait, there's more!
“”The events for which the Iraq War will be remembered by us and by the world have not yet happened.
|—Thomas E. Ricks in 2009|
The Arab Spring was a spectacular failure. Each of those states apart from Tunsia have either failed, regressed into totalitarian regimes, or suppressed those dissidents and stayed the same.
In 2014, disturbing news arose in a country which no one had paid attention to for quite a while. ISIS, a Sunni group that broke away from al-Qaeda because the al-Qaeda leadership thought they were too extreme — captured Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. The American-trained Iraqi army deserted en masse when faced with ISIS forces, and the Bush/Blair gang popped up on various talk shows to defend their creation.
US airstrikes are again a reality. Meanwhile, up north, the Kurds (fighting ISIS) captured the key city of Kirkuk. Facing pressure from everyone at that point, Maliki finally stepped down in favour of an emergency government.
Mission Accomplished (we think?)
“”And finally, and most importantly, the next time we go to war, don't give a specific reason for the war that the left can seize upon and later flog us with it ad nauseam, just do it.
|—Dennis Miller, Hannity & Combs 27 June 2003|
Unlike the Gulf War, which technically ended with Saddam's retreat from Kuwait on 28 February 1991, the Iraq War did not have any universally-recognized objectives.
- No-fly zones are a thing of the past. No more risk of Saddam sparading a beaten and raped pilot on Al Jazeera.
- Saddam is gone, along with his two spermazoid sons.
- The Marsh Arabs have their land again, and the Kurds aren't sucking on mustard gas that we gave Saddam in the 80s.
Sunni Arabs have rejected al-Qaeda in Iraq and stabilized the gigantic Anbar region Iraq is the second democracy to take root in the Middle East The Iraq-US coalition has deterred Iran from its nuclear adventures The well-armed Iraqi army has seen to it that ISIS/Daesh has no hope of taking over the regionD'oh.
- The US is now positioned between Iran and Israel, and can reach out to strike at Syria at any time.[note 1]
- The Saudis are no longer dependent on the US for defense against Iraq, of course.
"I don't know if you could ever say, quote 'mission accomplished,' as much as you could say 'Americans are out of harm's way.' And that's the key to America's concern — casualties."
"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will — that will then prevent us — that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."
McCain said he'd rather lose an election than lose a war, implying that Obama wanted America to lose. You can't win someone else's civil war so it follows that you can't lose it. By the Bush administration's logic, the US already "won" the Iraq War when Saddam was toppled and they've been an occupying force ever since. You can't win an occupation, only end it. McCain was really talking about Obama "losing" our permanent superbases in Iraq, which Wolfowitz and co. (the dummies who got us into this mess) planned to use to project military power into Syria, Iran, and any other country that threatens Little America out there in the Middle East.
The irony of all of this is that Iran is the natural hegemon: it's perfectly situated, it can be secularized and democratized much easier than our other pillar in the ME, Saudi Arabia, whose population is much more radical than the monarchy and has deeper divides along geographic, religious and ethnic lines that also complicate political matters since they parse up the lands rich in oil. Obama's real achievement was going to be the "pivot" to Iran, but his work is currently "under review" by the Republican administration.
“”It is painfully evident that not only were there no meaningful consequences for botching the most important foreign policy call of the last 20 years, it was actually a smart career move to do so. There was no movement to discover, raise up, or hire Iraq War critics after the war became an inarguable disaster. On the contrary, the power elite and arbiters of conventional wisdom generally shunned or passed them over, because they were living testimony to the fact that status quo thinking was (and remains) strategically and morally bankrupt.
The run up to Iraq was uniquely bad, particularly the cheerleading by sensible liberals who were transparently scared of a stab-in-the-back story about Vietnam, and the ugly jingoistic attitudes towards countries and the U.N. who failed to see the necessity in removing Saddam. It's forever amazing that the Democratic presidential aspirants—Clinton, Kerry, Biden—think that being outsmarted by GWB is a compelling argument. You had all the heavyweights on the "left" like Hitchens, Cohen, Hari, Chait, and others acting as if this complete mockery of liberal internationalism was justified. It was a very obvious sign that they'd disregard the tenets if it buttressed U.S. power. The only anti-war voices on TV were Phil Donahue who got fired despite having the most popular show on the network, and Janeane Garofalo who was used as a living strawman for suggesting that we should have actual victory conditions before invading Iraq because at the time no one defined what the actual objective of OIF was other than 'stop Saddam's WMDs'.
Senator Byrd gave a stirring speech, which summed up the position of the anti-war movement at the time. They marched in the streets, drawing very large crowds; they were snubbed by Pelosi and Reid. They bought the ranch next to Bush's; they were ignored. Ultimately enough people gave up and the anti-war movement, which started during Vietnam, was crushed by indifference. The Democrats' reward? Perceived now as fraudulent and warmongering, their standing in the polls as low as Republicans'.
It doesn't help that people like Jonathan Chait still won't admit that the Iraq War was a mistake and answer lefty criticism of it by saying, ah but you can't offer a perfect theoretical solution to this problem the US caused through decades of illicit intervention, so your opinions are idealistic. So many are forgetting how quickly we segued from WMD "smoking gun" to literal 19th century White Man's Burden and civilizing the savages when it came to justifying our continued disastrous war in Iraq, so they think they need to praise Bush to criticize Trump. Apparently he switched parties several times (common among aspiring fascists); while he was a Democrat, he did support the Iraq War initially, only changing his position with financial incentives.
In the UK, one of the most bizarre outcomes of the war is the suicide of David Kelly, a British government scientist who leaked to the media claims that the British government had exaggerated the dangers of Saddam Hussein. Specifically, he told BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan that Tony Blair's office, and spokesman and media chief Alastair Campbell, had "sexed up" a dossier of arguments for the war by adding the incorrect claim that in the event of war Saddam would be able to deploy weapons of mass destruction to the battlefield in just 45 minutes; the actual intelligence available did not support this claim. This was a mere three days before he slits his wrist. Even if Blair and Campbell didn't orchestrate the death of Dr. Kelly (Kelly's family publicly supported the decision to suspend the inquest), they are still personally responsible for hounding him to suicide.
A few days after Kelly was revealed as the source, he was found dead in a field near his home. There was speculation by conspiracy theorists that Kelly was murdered to prevent him revealing the truth about the Iraq War. Theories focused over the question of whether Kelly could have bled to death from the wound he apparently inflicted upon himself. Tony Blair set up the Hutton Inquiry to investigate, or possibly to whitewash. It found that Blair and his government had done nothing wrong; Kelly had killed himself; the government hadn't deliberately leaked Kelly's name, victimised him, or driven him to suicide; the BBC was wrong to claim that Blair or Campbell had exaggerated the threat of Saddam's WMDs; the BBC's procedures were defective; Blair was right and his critics were wrong, the end.
- Gulf War syndrome
- Afghanistan War
- Iran-Iraq War
- Negative evidence — The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
- Anti-intellectualism (Apologize to the ivory tower, conservatives.)
- Libya, another country destabilized by the US under Obama's administration.
- Vietnam War
- Korean War
- Ari Fleischer referring to "Operation Iraqi Liberation"
- A quick recap for those too young to remember the Bush presidency and the start of the forever war - "They got that yellow cake!"
- Charles Krauthammer Has Ashes Spread Over Prosperous, Liberated Iraq − All non-satire news publications should be abolished.
- Labour MPs who backed a rebel backbench amendment that the case for war with Iraq was "unproven", BBC News
- The Iraq War Decision, PBS
- ‘The Moment Has Come to Get Rid of Saddam’, New York Review of Books
- Iraq War's 10th Anniversary: After the War, The Atlantic
- Path Dependence, Iraq Edition, Duck of Minerva
- The Iraq crisis: How the U.S. made a bad situation worse, CBC
- Deadline Iraq - How the world's top journalists became propaganda tools throughout the course of this.
- Iraq Body Count - A site tracking how many Iraqis have been killed since the Iraq War was started.
- Losing Iraq, PBS
- Unlike previously, where the US would have to ask permission of its NATO ally, Turkey, to launch land forces against Syria and could use any of a number of regional bases and/or aircraft carriers to launch air strikes.
- Did a Nazi Leader Say Convincing People to Support War is ‘Simple’? Snopes
- How Just Were America's Wars? A Survey of Experts, International Studies Perspectives
- Iraq in Retrospect, Stephen Saideman
- William Odom of all people
- Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur, "History and National Stupidity," New York Review of Books, April 27, 2006, quoted in Jacoby, Susan, The Age of American Unreason, p. 643. 2008, Pantheon Books.
- Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000, BBC
- Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study, Reuters
- "This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism vs. No It Won’t ", The Onion 26 March 2003, vol. 43 Issue 12.
- Dick Cheney’s 1994 Gulf War Interview Proves Why Jeb Bush Can’t Blame Obama or Intelligence Failures Goodman, H.A. Huffington Post. 05/20/2015
- As Iran Exported Its Shiite Revolution, Sunni Arabs Resisted Shuster, Mike. NPR. 02.14.07
- The Gulf War, 1991 "Office of the Historian". US Department of State.
- Wines, Michael, "CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; Iraq Seen Looting Kuwait of Identity", NYT 29 September 1990.
- Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports Crossette, Barbara. New York Times. 1995
- Persian Gulf War Britannica
- Operation Desert Storm: 25 Years Since the First Gulf War Taylor, Alan. The Atlantic. 01.14.16
- Coalition Members "National Desert Storm War Memorial"
- Security Council Resolutions - 1990
- Operation Desert Sabre Globalsecurity.org
- Peter Turnley's 'Unseen Gulf War', NPR
- Twenty Years Later, First Iraq War Still Resonates Greenblatt, Alan. NPR. 02.24.11
- The Gulf War Victory That Never Was Warren, James A. Daily Beast. 02.21.16
- Remembering the Kurdish uprising of 1991 BBC
- A Lost Opportunity — The 1991 Iraq Uprisings Huffington Post. 12.06.17
- The 1991 Uprising in Iraq And Its Aftermath Human Rights Watch
- Saudi Arabia: The Persian Gulf War and its aftermath Britannica
- Blood and sand Prins, Gwyn. The Guardian. 20.12.01
- Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War Wikisource
- Roy's full speech Sydney Morning Herald
- "Were 1998 Memos a Blueprint for War?", ABC 5 March 2003.
- Heilbrun, Jacob, "What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been", WaPo 2.3.08; Page BW08.
- Greenwald, Glenn, "Wes Clark and the neocon dream", Salon (26 November 2011, 08:45 AM PST).
- Glass, Andrew, "Clinton orders airstrike on Iraq", Politico (16 December 2016, 12:08 AM EST).
- PNAC letters sent to President Bill Clinton, 26 January 1998. Archived by Information Clearing House.
- "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century", PNAC September 2000.
- "Letter to President Bush on the War on Terrorism", PNAC 20 September 2001.
- Transcript for Meet the Press 14 September 2003.
- "Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War", CBS (15 November 2002, 1:54 PM).
- Blustein, Paul, "Wolfowitz Strives To Quell Criticism", WaPo 21 March 2005; Page A01.
- Boyer, Peter J. "The Believer", New Yorker 1 November 2004.
- Leung, Rebecca, "Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'", 60 Minutes 21 May 2004.
- The full thousand words
- Michael Jenkins, Brian, The Invasion of Iraq: A Balance Sheet, RAND Corporation 22 March 2013.
- Hersch, Seymour M., "Selective Intelligence", New Yorker 12 May 2003.
- Risen, James, "How Pair's Finding on Terror Led To Clash on Shaping Intelligence", NYT 28 April 2004.
- Filkins, Dexter, "Where Plan A Left Ahmed Chalabi", NYT 5 November 2006.
- Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith, "Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted", WaPO 9 February 2007.
- Nichols, Michelle, "Ex-CIA chief says "slam dunk" Iraq quote misused", Reuters 26 April 2007, 6:26pm EDT.
- Silverstein, Ken, "Official Pariah Sudan Valuable to America's War on Terrorism", L.A. Times 29 April 2005.
- Finn, Peter, "Detainee Who Gave False Iraq Data Dies In Prison in Libya", WaPo 12 May 2009.
- Mikkelson, David, "Have Your Yellowcake", Snopes.
- Leopold, Jason, "The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion", Vice (19 May 2015, 9:10am).
- Kampfner, John, Blair's Wars, Simon and Schuster (2003).
- Johnston,Lauren, "Iraqi Drones Not For WMD", CBS (28 August 2003, 10:26 AM).
- DeYoung, Karen, "Falling on His Sword", excepted fromSoldier: The Life of Colin Powell, WaPo 1 October 2006.
- Sauer, Maddy, "Curveball: 'I Am Not To Blame' for U.S. War in Iraq", ABC 24 March 2008.
- Wilson, Joseph C., "What I Didn't Find in Africa", NYT 6 July 2003.
- "Key Players in the CIA Leak Investigation", WaPo (6/3/07 at 11:53 a.m.).
- Hasan, Mehdi, "'We know where your kids live': How John Bolton once threatened an international official", Intercept (29 March 2018, 1:03 p.m.).
- Brownlee, Jason, Was Obama wrong to withdraw troops from Iraq?, The Washington Post 26 June 2014.
- Bush, George W., Remarks by President Bush: "The Arab Spring and American Ideals", Bush Center (17 May 2012, 6:56 p.m. ET).
- Pfeiffer, Tom, "Arab Spring may endanger Mideast peace: Tony Blair", Reuters (23 October 2011, 12:45pm EDT).
- "Tony Blair on Religion: Tony Blair’s faith was long on zeal but light on self-awareness", Economist 6 July 2016.
- "Tony Blair will help US on Iraq, 2002 memo says", BBC 18 October 2015.
- "The USS Vincennes: Public War, Secret War". Nightline transcript 1 July 1992, retrieved 14 April 2018.
- Hiltermann, Joost R., "Halabja : America didn't seem to mind poison gas", NYT via the International Tribune 17 January 2003.
- Morris, Roger, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making", NYT 14 March 2003.
- Dan Senor and Roman Martinez, "Donald Rumsfeld's Iraq revisionism", NYT 15 February 2011.
- Gatehouse, Gabriel, "Baghdad diary: Searching for power", BBC 29 June 2010.
- Quotes Eisenhower Presidential Library
- "Bush: 'Leave Iraq within 48 hours'", CNN (17 March 2003, 9:34 PM). Bush: "Intelligence 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."
- "Text of President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address", WaPo 28 January 2003. Bush: "It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed."
- "Bush: 'All the world can rise to this moment'", CNN (6 February 2003, 6:42 PM EST). Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have."
- "Bush's Iraq WMDs joke backfires, BB C(26 March, 2004, 1:15 PM GMT).
- Schwartz, Jon, "Twelve years later, U.S. media still can't get Iraqi WMD story straight", Intercept (10 April 2015, 11:09 a.m.).
- Chris Ames and Richard Norton-Taylor, " "Blair and Bush planned Iraq war without second UN vote, letter shows", Guardian (29 August 2011, 11:32 AM EDT).
- "Bush makes historic speech aboard warship", CNN (1 May 2003, 9:48 PM EDT).
- "Western air strikes on Syria could let terrorism expand: Iraq", Reuters (14 April 2018, 5:15 AM).
- Barnes, Julian E., "Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam by year's end", LA Times 11 April 2009.
- U.S. Imports from Iraq of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products, Energy Information Administration
- U.S. Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products, Energy Information Administration
- Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security, The Washington Post
- Australia 'has Iraq oil interest', BBC
- No Surprises Here, Esquire
- Rennie, David, "Ex-aide says Bush ignored warnings about al-Qa'eda", Telegraph (22 March 2004, 12:05 AM GMT).
- Pelofsky, Jeremy, "U.S. sent pallets of cash to Baghdad", Reuters (7 February 2007, 4:17am EST).
- Pierce, Charlies B., "Eric Shinseki's Very Long, Very Bad Morning", Esquire 15 May 2014.
- Noah, Timothy, "Birth of a Washington Word", Slate (20 November 2002, 6:40 PM).
- Bachevich, Andrew J., "The Petraeus Doctrine", Atlantic October 2008.
- Andrews, Edmund L., "Envoy’s Letter Counters Bush on Dismantling of Iraq Army", NYT 4 September 2007.
- Packer, George, "Betrayed", New Yorker 26 March 2007.
- Gordon, Michael R., "Debate Lingering on Decision to Dissolve the Iraqi Military", NYT 21 October 2004.
- Grim, Ryan, "When Did Bush Know About Abu Ghraib?", The Nation 2 July 2007.
- "Poll of Iraqis Reveals Anger Towards U.S.", NBC via Associated Press (updated 16 June 2004, 9:08:45 AM ET).
- Schmitt, Eric, "Iraq-Bound Troops Confront Rumsfeld Over Lack of Armor", NYT December 2004.
- Fifield, Anna, "Contractors reap $138bn from Iraq war", FT 3.18.13.
- Witte, Griff, "Army to End Expansive, Exclusive Halliburton Deal", WaPo 7.12.06; A01.
- Risen, James, "Investigation Into Missing Iraqi Cash Ended in Lebanon Bunker", NYT 12 October 2014.
- "Uh, anyone see 190,000 weapons we lost in Iraq?", NY Daily News via Associated Press (7 August, 2007, 4:00 AM).
- Davis, "Quora Question: Who Is Responsible for the Mess in Iraq?", Newsweek via Quora (14 July 2014, 10:55 AM ).
- Lilla, "The Truth About Out Libertarian Age", New Republic 17 June 2014.
- Henry Mance and Andrew England, "Chilcot report lists British humiliations in Iraq", FT 7 July 2016.
- The 29 possibilities, have fun! (Full context from The Washington Post)
- Tyson, Ann Scott, "Bush's Defense Budget Biggest Since Reagan Era", WaPo 6 February 2006.
- Adam, Karla, ]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904116.html "Ex-British prime minister Tony Blair: The world is safer without Saddam Hussein"], WaPo 20 January 2010.
- Obama: All US troops out of Iraq by end of year, NBC.
- Last U.S. troops leave Iraq, ending war, Reuters
- Zucchino, David, "Why Iraqi army can't fight, despite $25 billion in U.S. aid, training", LA Times (3 November 2014, 5:00 AM).
- Murphy, Dan, "With US gone, Iraq's Maliki is setting the board for a power grab", CSMonitor 21 December 2011.
- Swidley, Neil, "Where Did ISIS Come From? The Story Starts Here", Boston Globe 10 March 2016.
- The Book that Foretold the (Possible) Collapse of Post-American Iraq, PopMatters
- A Rogue State Along Two Rivers: How ISIS Came to Control Large Portions of Syria and Iraq, The New York Times
- The Iraq Mess: Place Blame Where it is Deserved, The New Yorker
- The Neocons Are Back to Relitigate the Invasion of Iraq, The Atlantic
- Three Lines I Don't Need to Hear on Iraq, The Washington Post
- Obama authorizes air strikes in Iraq, Reuters
- Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki Says He Will Step Down, NPR
- "Miller Unplugged", partial transcript from Hannity & Combs 30 June 2003.
- Yes, this was all preventable. (Or, in Chalmers Johnson's words, "We know Saddam at one time had weapons of mass destruction because we have the receipts!")
- Win the Battle, Lose the Election?, Politico
- McCain Would Rather Lose an Election Than a War?, The Washington Post
- Heilbrunn, Jacob, "The neocons: They're back, and on Iran, they're uncompromising as ever", LA Times (2 April 2015, 2:42 PM).
- De Luce, Dan, "Trump Keeps the Iran Deal Alive, For Now", Foreign Policy (17 May 2017, 7:21 pm).
- Cooper, Ryan, "Why America is asking for more wars",26 March 2018.
- Peter Baker and Shailagh Murray, "Iraq Pullout Would Lead To Bloodbath, Bush Warns", WaPo 20 April 2007.
- Peter Baker and Shailagh Murray, "Democrats Split Over Position on Iraq War", WaPo 22 August 2005.
- Friedersdorf, Conor, "Behold the Hatred, Resentment, and Mockery Aimed at Anti-Iraq War Protesters", Atlantic 21 Match 2013.
- Millican, Julie, "Bill O'Reilly declares end to his France boycott in wake of Sarkozy victory", Media Matters (9 May 007, 5:56 PM EDT).
- Manu Raju, Elana Schor, and Ilan Wurman, "Few senators read Iraq NIE report", The Hill (19 June 2007, 7:45 PM EDT).
- Beinart, Peter, "What's Missing From Hillary's Iraq Apology", Atlantic 9 June 2014.
- Hitchens, Christopher, "Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore", Slate (21 June 2004, 3:26 PM).
- Hasan, Mehdi, "Nick Cohen’s Nazi confusion", News Statesman 7 June 2010.
- Hackwatch, Private Eye no. 1076, 23 March – 3 April 2003, page 5.
- Lipton, Carol, "The Kenneth Joseph Story", CounterPunch 12 April 2003.
- Chait, Jonathan, "Actually, Let’s Hear More From Dick Cheney on Iraq", New York Magazine (18 June 2014, 2:15 pm).
- "Some Critical Media Voices Face Censorship", Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting April 3, 2003.
- Kurtz, Howard, "No Kidding", WaPO 27 January 2003.
- "War protesters end vigil near Bush's ranch", NBC via Associated Press (2 September 2006, 11:45:37 PM ET).
- Alfano, Sean, "Cindy Sheehan Calls It Quits", CBS (29 May 2007, 9:05 AM).
- Fishwick, Carmen, "'We were ignored': anti-war protesters remember the Iraq war marches", Guardian (8 July 2016, 9:54 AM EDT, last modified on 5 Jul 2017 8:08 AM EDT).
- Graham, David A., "How Democrats Came to Feel Nostalgic for George W. Bush", Atlantic April 2017.
- Chait, Jonathan, "Iraq: What I Got Wrong, and What I Still Believe", NY Mag (19 March 2013, 5:17 pm).
- Kieley, Eugune, "Donald Trump and the Iraq War", FactCheck 2.19.16.
- "Kelly: 'I'll probably be found dead in the woods'", Independent via PA Media (21 August 2003, 12:00am).
- David Kelly: An end to the conspiracy theories?, Robert Lewis, The Guardian, 2013
- David Kelly – what is behind the conspiracy theories?, The Telegraph, 2011
- See the Wikipedia article on Hutton Inquiry.
- Chilcot Inquiry: Findings at a glance, BBC