Reflections on the War in Iraq

[Marauder06]

A civilian friend of mine messaged me on Facebook and pointed out that it was the 20th anniversary of Colin Powell's now-infamous "WMD in Iraq" speech. She asked me if I had any thoughts about the Iraq War and the intel angle. Below is how I responded. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts as well. I may turn this into an article, not sure yet.

Knowing what we knew at the time, a legit case could have been made (and IMO was made) that Iraq was trying to develop WMDs. Hussein had, and used, chem weapons in the past. There were examples of dual-use technical acquisition, and some of the initial reports seemed plausible. Also, Hussein wanted people, especially the Iranians, to think he had WMDs as a regime security measure. He assumed that the CIA would know he didn't have them. Which, of course, either they didn't, or they did know and wanted us to go into Iraq anyway.

In hindsight we know the intel was super-sketch and circular, and that much of the intel community came to the answer that they knew the Bush Administration (and many others outside of it) wanted. So going into Iraq, especially when we were already fighting Afghanistan, was a mistake. But we made things far, far worse, and perhaps ensured that we would never be able to win, by doing the following:

1) de-Baathification
2) disbanding the Iraqi military
3) not adequately securing the borders with Syria and Iran, and
4) trying to turn a Middle Eastern dictatorship into a Western-style democratic state overnight.

 

[Devildoc]

'Love' because it's all true, and a lot of people said that if we did those things it was going to lead to bad outcomes; we did them anyway, and it led to bad outcomes.

 

[amlove21]

Cannot believe that it has been 20 years since that speech. I was in the military trying to make it through selection and distinctly remember the instructors talking about it and what impact it could possibly have.

Years later, after my first failed attempt and subsequently successful re-attempt, I found myself in Iraq for the first time living out the consequences of that event.

@Marauder06 I agree with your assessment and words. Looking back with a "what I know now and applying it to the context back then" lens- it almost seems surreal. What a wild ride.

 

[Marauder06]

I don't think it's a stretch to attribute just about everything that went wrong with Iraq, including the decision to invade, on an over-subscription to the "Democratic Peace Theory." The argument is that democracies don't fight each other, so you just need to force every country to become a democracy and **poof** problem solved! And for there to be a democracy, you need to 1) de-Baathify, 2) disband the Army, and 4) (yes I skipped 3, see my above post) just declare your newly-conquered, only-held-together-by-a-ruthless-dictator country a democracy! Good to go!!

And lest anyone get confused by the "democratic" part of "Democratic Peace Theory," I'm laying this one at the feat of neocons, not progressives... although it probably sounded pretty good to them too.

 

[Devildoc]

And lest anyone get confused by the "democratic" part of "Democratic Peace Theory," I'm laying this one at the feat of neocons, not progressives... although it probably sounded pretty good to them too.

Oh, there were a LOT of progressives who swallowed it, too. I think a lot the electorate can take a bite of that shit sandwich.

 

[Marauder06]

Oh, there were a LOT of progressives who swallowed it, too. I think a lot the electorate can take a bite of that shit sandwich.

For sure. But my fellow Conservatives (or at least Republicans) were in charge at the start of both Afghanistan and Iraq, so I'm blaming them.

Or I guess I could just blame it on Trump, that seems to be the default these days. ;)

 

[Locksteady]

I don't think it's a stretch to attribute just about everything that went wrong with Iraq, including the decision to invade, on an over-subscription to the "Democratic Peace Theory." The argument is that democracies don't fight each other, so you just need to force every country to become a democracy and **poof** problem solved! And for there to be a democracy, you need to 1) de-Baathify, 2) disband the Army, and 4) (yes I skipped 3, see my above post) just declare your newly-conquered, only-held-together-by-a-ruthless-dictator country a democracy! Good to go!!

And lest anyone get confused by the "democratic" part of "Democratic Peace Theory," I'm laying this one at the feat of neocons, not progressives... although it probably sounded pretty good to them too.

Agreed.

DPT has pretty sound limits, one of the biggest being that it's not something that should be forced onto countries that aren't already leaning that direction in the first place.

In this and several other cases, it was more a surface-level rhetoric used to help justify invasion by that administration. I think the oversubscription you mentioned may more accurately describe the populace that was cowed by it than the leadership that took advantage of the public support for spreading democracy to do what it planned to do regardless.

 

[AWP]

The Bush Administration can eat a bag of rotten donkey dicks. Cheney and Rumsfeld for creating the war they wanted (that no one needed) to Bush's weakness in allowing them to make that war. They shit all over Colin Powell and maybe worst of all? They went after the weakest, lowest threat country in the so-called Axis of Evil, ignoring that taking Iran would solve a lot of the world's problems, not just the US'.

Utter clownshoes.

 

[Devildoc]

The Bush Administration can eat a bag of rotten donkey dicks. Cheney and Rumsfeld for creating the war they wanted (that no one needed) to Bush's weakness in allowing them to make that war. They shit all over Colin Powell and maybe worst of all? They went after the weakest, lowest threat country in the so-called Axis of Evil, ignoring that taking Iran would solve a lot of the world's problems, not just the US'.

Utter clownshoes.

I would agree. Now (well, even at a time not terribly long after the invasion). At the time of Powell's UN speech? I bought it. He wasn't a politician; he was SECSTATE, the architect of Desert Storm. But it didn't take too long after the invasion to see what they did to him and what was behind it.

 

[BloodStripe]

I’d love to go on one more mission with the boys. We were young and felt invincible. Everything from the barracks parties, drunken PT sessions, knocking down doors… we were full of life and never stopped to think about some day in the not so distant future we’d be old, broken, and some nights lonely.

 

[Gunz]

I’d love to go on one more mission with the boys.

Yeah, me too. I can't still shoot.

 

[Cookie_]

Iraq was not a military failure, it was a political one.

There were two books that really drove that home for me.

The first was Masters of Chaos. The book is mostly a history of SF from Vietnam to (at the time of publication) current day, but it was one of the first times I saw accounts of how De-Baathification screwed things up.

I remember seeing that, when standing up the Iraqi Army and Police Force, any members of the Baath party/former system weren't allowed.
The argument was that we disenfranchised all of these trained men who had to join that system to survive, and essentially built the insurgency because of that.


The second was The Mirror Test by a former FSO.

This one got a lot more into the overall failures of those actions. Like the fact that mayors, doctors, business leaders, etc weren't allowed to participate in the new Government because they were Baath party members, but not acknowledging that you couldn't hold any meaningful position in society without joining.

De-Baathification basically sent Iraq's entire government and civil structure back to square one, while taking everyone who knew how to run a country and putting them opposite of our goals.

 

[RackMaster]

Our brigade was training to go somewhere. After Powell's speech, it sounded like we were coming along for the Iraq party. Then crooked mouth, Prime Minister Chretien changed his mind and we got sent to Kabul. Good times.

 

[Topkick]

I think its great that we have some combat vets in congress now. Hopefully, we'll make better decisions in the future regarding who to go to war with.

 

[Gunz]

Cheney and Rumsfeld

Utter clownshoes.

I can't think of anybody during the wars who needed adult supervision more than those two...And W as well...in his flight suit and carrier landing stunt to announce victory. One of many cringe-worthy moments from OIF.

 

[Devildoc]

I can't think of anybody during the wars who needed adult supervision more than those two...And W as well...in his flight suit and carrier landing stunt to announce victory. One of many cringe-worthy moments from OIF. There were plenty in OEF, too, beginning with the debacle at Tora Bora. But OIF takes the cake for lack of thought and wholly inadequate post-invasion contingency planning.

The people with brains who understood the enormous differences between conducting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, who pointed out from the get-go many of the problems that could hamstring operations once Saddam was deposed, weren't the ones making the decisions. The ones who were, were riding the whirlwind.

And the people with the brains who brought these things up were told to pound sand or fired. That's when you know there are alternate agendas going on. You may not like the smartest guy in the room, but you should listen to the smartest guy in the room.

 

[Gunz]

It boggles the mind how simplistic some of the thinking was at the highest political levels.

 

[Marauder06]

Iraq was not a military failure, it was a political one.

There were two books that really drove that home for me.

The first was Masters of Chaos. The book is mostly a history of SF from Vietnam to (at the time of publication) current day, but it was one of the first times I saw accounts of how De-Baathification screwed things up.

I remember seeing that, when standing up the Iraqi Army and Police Force, any members of the Baath party/former system weren't allowed.
The argument was that we disenfranchised all of these trained men who had to join that system to survive, and essentially built the insurgency because of that.


The second was The Mirror Test by a former FSO.

This one got a lot more into the overall failures of those actions. Like the fact that mayors, doctors, business leaders, etc weren't allowed to participate in the new Government because they were Baath party members, but not acknowledging that you couldn't hold any meaningful position in society without joining.

De-Baathification basically sent Iraq's entire government and civil structure back to square one, while taking everyone who knew how to run a country and putting them opposite of our goals.

De-Baathification was a bewildering policy. We left the traditional power structure in Japan--who sucker-punched us in the Pacific and brutalized much of the Pacific Rim--largely intact after WWII. We incorporated literal Nazis into our space program. But people who joined an Iraqi political policy so that they could have a good job and maybe not get straight merk'd by their own government? THAT is where we draw the line? OK boomer...

 

[DA SWO]

I hate Rummy and Darth Cheney because of Iraq.
I believe we lost Afghanistan because we stopped doing what was working and locked folks onto FOB's.
Shinseki got Iraq right, and was fired for being truthful.
Rummy was McNamera 2.0.
Same results.

 

[AWP]

Not saying this is here on the board, but when I mention Iran people assume I'm talking about the nuke problem. That's true, but not necessarily on our horizon in 2002-2003 when this Iraq stuff began. You'd have 3 immediate effects, with more recent events as a bonus.
1. You have an overland supply route into Afghanistan AND you've eliminated or minimized cross border support for the Taliban.
2. You cut off support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. We knew about Iran's support of terrorists and did...nothing. We talk how important Israel is as an ally but think about that situation if Iran can't fund some its greatest threats. I honestly think reducing the terrorist threat to Israel would benefit Palestinians, but whatever.
3. This Strait of Hormuz nonsense is gone. That has driven oil supplies (and thus cost) since the Ayatollah arrived on scene.

We'd still take casualties, we'd still have IED threats and a hard-fought war. It wouldn't be an easy road, but the road would lead somewhere.

Or...we could have just stayed home instead of inventing a war out of thin air. That wouldn't be so bad, would it?