Podcast Summary
Considering the US military's capability during the Iraq War: The Iraq War highlighted the importance of assessing a country's readiness for large-scale military interventions, with significant consequences for American lives, Iraqi people, and Middle Eastern politics.
That while the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 had significant consequences for the US military, Iraqi people, and the broader Middle East, it's important to consider whether the US had the capability to handle such a massive undertaking. General Mattis' question, "Does the American military have the capability to do the right thing?" is still relevant 20 years later. The invasion resulted in thousands of American military deaths and injuries, as well as countless Iraqi lives lost. The conflict also had far-reaching effects on US foreign policy in the Middle East and the intersection of US politics and foreign policy. Eli Lake, a seasoned journalist and analyst, has reported extensively on America's engagement in Iraq and offers valuable insights into the decisions leading up to, during, and after the invasion. As we reflect on the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War, it's crucial to examine the legacy of this experience and consider the implications for US foreign policy moving forward.
The complex history of instability in Iraq: The betrayal of Iraqis during the first Gulf War left deep mistrust and resentment, setting the stage for the US intervention in 2003 and ongoing instability
The instability in Iraq, which came to a head in 2003 when the US invaded, had roots that went back much further. The first Gulf War in 1991 saw the US-led coalition driving Saddam Hussein's army out of Kuwait, but there was no mandate to overthrow Saddam. When the Iraqi people rose up in major southern and northern cities, encouraged by the US, they were brutally suppressed by Saddam's regime with the US looking on. This betrayal left a deep sense of mistrust and resentment among the Iraqi population, which festered throughout the 1990s. Saddam, despite international pressure, never fully disarmed, keeping his stocks of chemical and biological weapons and even a nuclear program. The US patrolled Iraqi airspace and imposed crippling sanctions, but the sense of betrayal remained. This complex history set the stage for the US intervention in 2003 and the ensuing instability that continues to this day.
Historical mistrust between Iraqis and US during Iraq invasion: The Iraqis' past experiences of abandonment and brutal treatment under Saddam Hussein's regime deeply affected their trust towards the US during the 2003 invasion, impacting the US-Iraq relationship and post-invasion reconstruction efforts.
During the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Iraqi population, particularly the Shiites in the southern regions, held deep distrust towards the US due to past experiences of abandonment and brutal treatment under Saddam Hussein's regime. The Iraqis had suffered through years of conflict, including the Iran-Iraq War, the Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, and the invasion of Kuwait. These experiences left a lasting impact, leading the Iraqis to view the US as unreliable. Despite the US's intentions to liberate Iraq, the population's distrust was evident during the early stages of the invasion. This history of conflict and mistrust significantly impacted the US-Iraq relationship and the challenges faced during the post-invasion reconstruction efforts.
The aftermath of a dictatorship's fall can lead to widespread violence and societal breakdown: Decades of repression under dictatorships can result in widespread violence, emotional toll on families, and prolonged instability after their fall
The aftermath of a dictatorship's fall can lead to widespread violence and societal breakdown due to decades of repression. The execution of condemned individuals by survivors, as seen in Saddam Hussein's Baath party meetings, fosters loyalty to the tyrant and sets the stage for extensive score-settling. This was underestimated in the aftermath of the Iraq War, resulting in the discovery of numerous mass graves containing tens of thousands of bodies. The emotional toll on families and the potential for prolonged instability make it crucial to consider the implications of allowing a dictatorship to continue, even if it means intervening militarily. The decision to stop short of toppling Saddam Hussein in 1991, despite America's involvement in Iraq, led to more years of tyranny and potential moral dilemmas for the international community.
The Complexity of the Iraq War's Consequences: Despite Saddam Hussein's tyranny, the US invasion of Iraq had unintended consequences, including a power vacuum that led to the rise of extremist groups. America's lack of long-term planning and understanding of Iraqi culture contributed to the instability.
The invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003 was a complex issue with consequences that cannot be solely attributed to American actions. Saddam Hussein's regime had caused significant damage to Iraq and its people for decades, and leaving him in power may have led to more instability and potential for greater bloodshed. However, America's role in the aftermath was also crucial. While the US military tried to prevent ethnic cleansing and learned from its mistakes, it was not prepared for the long-term administration of Iraq and lacked the temperament for a prolonged presence. After the US withdrawal in 2011, the power vacuum was filled by leaders who acted like former dictators, leading to the rise of groups like ISIS. Therefore, while there is blame to be shared, it is not accurate to say that all the misery and bloodshed in Iraq is America's fault.
Iraq's Progress After the US-Led Invasion: Despite challenges, Iraq has made significant strides in democracy, economy, and health since the US-led invasion in 2003, but ongoing issues like corruption and militia presence remain.
Despite the challenges and odds faced by Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003, including violent conflicts and corruption, the country has made significant progress. They have held multiple competitive elections with high voter turnout, ratified a constitution, and increased their average lifespan and GDP. However, it's important to acknowledge the presence of ongoing issues such as corruption and the presence of Shia militias. Before the war, Iraq faced extreme inflation, high unemployment, and a lack of basic services. Saddam Hussein's regime was compared to a hostile takeover of a nation state, with the potential for international security threats due to its oil reserves. The debate over weapons of mass destruction often overshadowed Saddam's intent to project the capability to turn on weapons of mass destruction when desired. Iraq's journey since the war has been complex, but recognizing its accomplishments is crucial.
Saddam's Deception: Hiding WMD from the International Community: Saddam Hussein intentionally misled the world about his WMD capabilities, leading to the Iraq War in 2003. The post-war administration and resources required to stabilize Iraq added to the challenges.
Saddam Hussein's actions leading up to the Iraq War were not just an attempt to evade sanctions, but a calculated effort to deceive the international community into believing he had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein's hostility towards weapons inspectors and his continued production capabilities for chemical and potentially biological weapons indicate his intent to rearm as soon as sanctions were lifted. This disconnect between perception and reality led to the U.S. invasion in 2003, but the unpreparedness for post-war administration and the resources required to stabilize Iraq further compounded the challenges faced. The lack of a dedicated team to handle such transitions within the U.S. government may have contributed to this oversight.
US government's complicated approach to post-Saddam Iraq: Internal divisions and lack of understanding led to distrust, inconsistent policies, and instability in post-Saddam Iraq
The US government's approach to post-Saddam Iraq was complicated by internal divisions and a lack of understanding of the complexities of Iraqi society. Different factions of the US government favored different Iraqi exiles, leading to distrust and conflict among these exiles once they were brought into power. Additionally, the debathification process was inconsistently applied, leading to unintended consequences. The challenge of providing basic security in the occupied country further complicated the situation. It's important to remember that living under a repressive regime like Saddam's meant that everyone was implicated, and it was difficult to distinguish victims from perpetrators. These complexities were not fully understood by the US government, leading to a rocky transition and instability in the early years of the post-Saddam Iraqi government.
Mismatch between occupying forces and local population during Iraq War: Historically successful occupations had a 20:1 ratio of locals to occupiers, but in Baghdad during the Iraq War, it was 700:1, leading to a sense of humiliation and insecurity among locals and providing fertile ground for insurgency.
The lack of adequate security and the large discrepancy between occupying forces and local populations during the early stages of the Iraq War significantly contributed to the chaos and insurgency that followed. The study mentioned in the discussion revealed that successful occupations historically had a 20 to 1 ratio of local population to occupying forces, but in Baghdad during the spring of 2003, the ratio was 700 to 1. This mismatch led to a sense of humiliation and insecurity among the Iraqi population, which was exploited by former Baathist officials, jihadists, and other extremist groups. The decision to decommission the Iraqi army also created an "unemployed young male problem," providing fertile ground for an insurgency. However, it's important to note that the left and Democrats' criticism of the war, which focused on the occupation as the cause of the violence, was misguided. Instead, there were deep-rooted internal conflicts that required a counterinsurgency approach. The decommissioning of the army was a controversial decision, but it was a policy decision made at the highest levels of the administration. As with many policy issues, there were trade-offs, and it's essential to consider the alternatives.
The collapse of Saddam's army led to instability and insurgency: Reconstituting Saddam's army would have been a mistake, instead starting a new army was the best option despite communication and execution issues
The collapse of Saddam's army in Iraq after the war was a significant factor in the instability and subsequent insurgency. The army, which was the principal tool of Saddam's oppression, had largely disintegrated, with many of its Shiite conscripts and Kurdish leaders eager to leave and form new institutions. Reconstituting Saddam's army would have been a major mistake, as it would have alienated key leaders and potentially led to a civil war. Instead, starting a new army was the best option, even if it meant providing severance payments to former soldiers. However, the communication and execution of this plan could have been better, leading some to join the insurgency out of frustration or a desire to maintain power.
The complexity of post-Saddam Iraq: The removal of Saddam Hussein and implementation of de-Baathification were necessary but messy processes, leading to ongoing instability and challenges in Iraq, including the rise of Iran and impact of militias.
The instability and challenges in Iraq following the U.S. invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein cannot be solely blamed on America. The implementation of de-Baathification, which aimed to remove Ba'ath Party members from Iraqi society, was a messy process that was politicized and poorly executed. Despite the mistakes made, it was arguably the only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who had caused significant damage to Iraq. Today, Iraq is better off than under Saddam's rule, but it faces new challenges such as the rise of Iran and the impact of the dollar auction policy and militias. These issues threaten the stability of the government and the success of elections. Overall, the complex situation in Iraq highlights the difficulties of dealing with the aftermath of a regime change and the need for careful planning and execution.
Iraq's Challenges Post-Iraq War: Dependence on Iranian Influence: The Iraq War's end marked a victory for Iraq, but the country's reliance on Iranian influence raises concerns for its future. The US's shift towards non-interventionism could impact its ability to respond to global crises.
The Iraq War, which saw the second largest city in Iraq, Mosul, taken over by ISIS, presented significant challenges for Iraq. The Iraqi military largely disappeared, leaving militias, trained and directed by Iran and its allies, to fight. This reliance on Iranian influence is a major issue for Iraq's future. Despite these challenges, the war's end can be seen as a victory for the Iraqi state, thanks in part to Iran's role. However, the 20th anniversary of the invasion has received limited attention in the United States, with many having moved on from the war. This is concerning as the Republican Party, historically a check against appeasement, now holds positions that seem to support non-interventionism. This shift in politics could impact the United States' ability to respond to global crises, such as the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Significant achievements during the Iraq war: Despite challenges, the Iraq war led to a new constitution, multiple elections, and the start of rebuilding. Politicians' actions in office may differ from campaign promises.
While the Iraq war had its challenges and controversies, it also led to significant achievements such as the establishment of a new constitution, multiple elections, and the beginning of a country's rebuilding process. It's important to remember that political candidates may campaign on certain foreign policy stances, but their actions in office can differ based on the events and intelligence they encounter. Regarding recent comments from potential presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, while his phrase about Ukraine was unfortunate, it did not necessarily indicate a significant shift towards isolationism or a policy much different than the current administration's. It's crucial to consider the full context of a politician's record and statements before making assumptions.
