8 ms·

The invasion of Iraq was stupid. It was likely illegal, based on false pretenses, and well....shouldn't have happened. The invasions initial execution was beaut

by jcbeard 10y ago

The invasion of Iraq was stupid. It was likely illegal, based on false pretenses, and well....shouldn't have happened. The invasions initial execution was beautiful (first few days). The US Military performed splendidly. The follow through (driven by political leaders) was idiotic. Stupid decisions like not listening to his generals (Bush), disbanding the Iraqi security forces (Paul Bremer), and the odd focus on turning on the oil taps as soon as possible after the invasion doomed any hope of short term success (yeah, sure, lets pay for the invasion with oil...that'll work, right). Many generals argued for an occupation force in the millions to keep the peace. If the occupation were modeled after the plan for Germany in WW2 where the allies planned for a prolonged insurgency (that never really appeared, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf), we should have had more troops than were available in the entire US Military combined. Likely given a real, concerted effort (Marshall Plan-like) to re-build Iraq after we'd destroyed it, we might have had a chance. Oil never lasts, it's not sustainable, and in every country where natural resource mining is dominant, we see a rise of more despotism. We never understood the cultures of Iraq, nor will most people. To defeat an enemy you have to understand them (see Sun Tzu). NYT isn't the only problem. Our pride was the problem. We thought we could fix everything, do it better. The US was led by a person (Bush) who spouted all kinds of wonderful nationalistic straight talk (sounds like somebody that's running for president this year). Bush had no real plans and he unfortunately didn't listen to his experienced military leaders. He, as the commander in chief, is where the buck should stop for Iraq...and the long slow disaster that followed. Sure, we're all to blame for going along, but short of impeachment from our congress there is nothing the American people could have done to stop it.

tdkl 10y ago
> (sounds like somebody that's running for president this year) Someone else running for president this year has pledged that the first act of her address would be removing Assad. Which brings us back at the beginning of stupid actions.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  She has to pay for the campaign/Clinton foundation donations somehow. Mark my words a vote for Hillary is a vote for war.[0] [0]https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/01/19496/defense-contractor-employees-give-most-money-hillary-clinton https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/01/19496/defense-con...
  - danielbln 10y ago
    So the choice is between war hawk and unpredictable megalomaniac. Sophie's choice of US politics...
    - snomad 10y ago
      Given the utter disdain for both major candidates, perhaps this year we can hope for a 3rd party candidate. Here is a nice visualization of the 4 top candidates and their stances on a wide spectrum of issues http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV
      - anonymousab 10y ago
        In the eyes of a considerable many, voting for anyone else is the same as a vote for Trump. Maybe it has always been this way.
        stronglikedan 10y ago
        In the eyes of supporters of either major party, a vote for a third party is a vote for the other major party. It may not have always been this way, but it has for as long as I've been an engaged voter (~20 years).
        cafard 10y ago
        It depends on who the third party is. More from Republicans: Theodore Roosevelt, probably George Wallace and Ross Perot More from Democrats: Henry Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Ralph Nader Who knows: John Anderson. I think that Roosevelt, Perot, and Nader all had strong effects, I don't think that Thurmond, either Wallace, or Anderson changed the outcome.
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  Well, unlike Iraq in 2003, there will be a war in Syria 12 months from now whether Hillary tries to remove Assad or not. The question is whether we continue to try to shape the outcome. In the meantime, we have this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/toxic-gas-in-the-darkness-assad-regime-drops-chemical-weapons-on/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/toxic-gas-in-the-...
  - tim333 10y ago
    Not so sure about that - the war was mostly Russia and Iran backing Assad against Turkey and the US backing the anti Assad rebels. Now Assad and Erdogan are buddies things may settle down with Assad, Putin and Erdogan all being presidents for life with questionable elections and the US not able to do a lot about it.
    - pdabbadabba 10y ago
      So your position is that if the U.S. would just butt out, ISIS and other anti-Assad rebels would just pack it up and go home? That seems unlikely.
      - tim333 10y ago
        No, that Assad and Russia would defeat them militarily.
        pdabbadabba 10y ago
        Maybe eventually. But that would require more war, would it not? My point was not that the war in Syria will never end, but that Syria will remain in a state of civil war for some time to come whether or not Hillary goes after Assad. So the decision is not between war and peace in Syria. It is between one war and another. The alternative you describe might be shorter (or it might not be, depending on how Hillary would execute her plan to go after Assad, among numerous other factors), but it may also be worse in many other respects.
    - 10y ago
- rm999 10y ago
  Do you have a source? I just searched and see no such pledge. All I'm finding are vague statements from her allies and advisors that they think she'll prioritize Syria.
  - finid 10y ago
    I haven't read that myself, but even in the absence citation, you have to believe it is true, given her Middle East affiliations. Hint: She and her husband are in bed with the House of Saud. Her (their) deep commitment to Israel is unquestionable. Never forget that she's a neocon and worships Henry Kissinger. It's just that she's joined at the waist to a democrat.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      "I haven't read that myself, but even in the absence citation, you have to believe it is true,..." I suspect you would be surprised how much that sentence scares me.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - chishaku 10y ago
    State Department policy on Syria is regime change going back to at least 2011. The method/means is still fluid. See the article and State Department testimony below, emphasis mine. NYT, from 2013: "Last summer, as the fighting in Syria raged and questions about the United States’ inaction grew, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton conferred privately with David H. Petraeus, the director of the C.I.A. The two officials were joining forces on a plan to arm the Syrian resistance. The idea was to vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with weapons. The plan had risks, but it also offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States could work, both during the conflict and ___after President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual removal___. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus presented the proposal to the White House, according to administration officials. But with the White House worried about the risks, and with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, they were rebuffed." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scene-blows-and-triumphs-sense-of-clinton-future.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scen... From 2011, testimony by Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, State Department: "But we take the advent of the [Syrian National Council] very seriously, and we support the broader opposition’s efforts to focus on the critical task of expanding and consolidating its base of support within Syria by articulating a clear and common vision and ___developing a concrete and credible post-Assad transition plan.___" http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jeffrey_Feltman_Revised.pdf http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jeffrey_Feltman_...
- Diederich 10y ago
  > ... has pledged that the first act ... Citation please?
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  > Someone else running for president this year has pledged that the first act of her address would be removing Assad. Great plan, weren't there all these terrorists cutting of heads and stuff, making him look like an angel. Also there is this tiny problem of Russian troops fighting for Assad, which could interfere with the otherwise genius plan.
- sn41 10y ago
  I wonder why people forget Libya. There's already a proven track record of bungling by this person. No one in the Pentagon wanted the war. Look at what is left of what in 2011 was Africa's wealthiest nation.
nickik 10y ago
Any real look at the history of toppling governments in societies as divided as Iraq should understand the difficulty. The western world has hundreds of years of experience. The interesting thing is that, when they were successful in 2007 (more troupes) it was completely accidental. They had no idea why it worked at first, and it took them a while to figure it out. As everybody know, the US could not stay their with this much troupes forever and thus they could never credibly commit to long term stability and peace between the different sections. If you can not stay somewhere for 1-2 generations, don't go there in the first place.
Noseshine 10y ago
I wonder how much use there is in putting a lot more effort into any of those countries. My angle is climate change. There is a record-breaking heat wave going on there right now, with temperatures close to making human life impossible. Outlook: Getting a lot worse. They already have water shortages. The population still is growing. The trouble in Syria is said to have been caused with a mismanaged big drought as a major contributing factor. We would have to create infrastructure for AC-based indoor living in the entire region and beyond on a grand scale, or only for some and see the rest of the population live in a vegetative state during much of the year. If climate change and the predictions are real anything less is futile. Basically, the entire region is becoming Arizona - without AC for most people, much higher humidity directly at the Gulf, with even less freshwater and many more people who also are much poorer. Just a dark thought: Maybe there simply is no solution. The climate problem is independent of all the human problems, so solving them, already seemingly impossible, would not even help much with this new issue growing stronger.
- intended 10y ago
  > infrastructure for AC-based indoor living in the entire region and beyond Thats a huge amount of constant power and infrastructure, which is just not going to be built. Easier to build an underground city with high ceilings and taking advantage of physics than managing to give AC to everyone in the region, which is to say both options are extremely difficult and require pre-existing infrastructure. And this still doesn't solve the problem of what precisely people will do for work in the region
  - pjc50 10y ago
    > underground city with high ceilings and taking advantage of physics Ancient Iranian architecture was quite close to that, which you may be alluding to: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Architecture/wind.htm http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Architecture/wind.htm What people will do? Well, same as everywhere else, everything from agriculture to software. It's more a question of how many of them the local agriculture can support. The number of people who've fled Syria is more than its entire population was in 1950. Similar applies to places like Yemen. Malthusianism may not apply globally, but it can certainly bite locally.
ebbv 10y ago
> The invasions initial execution was beautiful (first few days) War is not beautiful. The invasion was a revolting, unnecessary horror from conception to now, where it still has not ended and shows no sign of an end. As far as Bush not listening to generals, etc. I don't believe Bush was anything more than a figurehead. Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. were the decision makers. They knew what they were doing, and they didn't have an exit strategy because exiting was never their goal.
NikolaNovak 10y ago
>> in every country where natural resource mining is dominant, we see a rise of more despotism. I think we're still doing reasonably OK in Canada... :->
- Kurtz79 10y ago
  Also, Norway: "The country maintains a combination of market economy and a Nordic welfare model with universal health care and a comprehensive social security system. Norway has extensive reserves of petroleum, natural gas, minerals, lumber, seafood, fresh water, and hydropower. The petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) On a per-capita basis, Norway is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East." (Wikipedia)
- shwouchk 10y ago
  Lets not forget the US either
ilostmykeys 10y ago
It's sick to call war "beautiful" especially given that in those first few days innocent people were bombed out of existence along with bridges and infrastructure vital to the subsistence of millions of people. I didn't expect a sick comment to be rewarded on HN. But now I see the blatant and racist hypocrisy.
- douche 10y ago
  "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it" - R.E. Lee
- sevenless 10y ago
  Terrorism all depends on the beholder, doesn't it? The forced restructuring of Iraq's economy along right-wing neoliberal lines by the occupying force was another war crime. Read "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Chandrasekaran.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > The forced restructuring of Iraq's economy along right-wing neoliberal lines I don't think 'right-wing neoliberal' is the right term for what's basically a soft version of the Warsaw Pact's command-and-control economies. > Read "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Chandrasekaran. I did, and it's very good — excellent. The short, short version is that basically everyone is incompetent, time-serving, disinterested and/or corrupt.
- hx87 10y ago
  Something can be aesthetically beautiful and morally terrifying and wrong at the same time. Please disentangle aesthetics and morality, since not doing so tends to debase both.
  - ilostmykeys 10y ago
    <<Something can be aesthetically beautiful and morally terrifying and wrong at the same time.>> That borders on psychotic. To watch people die and call the destruction aesthetically beautiful is mental illness.
Synaesthesia 10y ago
The initial execution was not beautiful, it and the occupation that followed were remarkably brutal. Dropping bombs on a Baghdad, destroying the civilian infrastructure like sewage, electricity etc. It was a case of aggression, the same crime for which the Nazi's were hanged at Nuremberg.
- finid 10y ago
  > The initial execution was not beautiful It was "beautiful" because you were watching it on TV and marveling at how we manage to drop bombs from a distance through a building's smallest opening. For the men, women and children of Iraq, it was hell. It was not fun, and, most definitely, was not beautiful.
finid 10y ago
> The invasion of Iraq was stupid. It was likely illegal, I agree that the invasion was stupid, but it was not "likely illegal," it _was_ illegal.
- falsestprophet 10y ago
  legal: 1) of, based on, or concerned with the law; 2) appointed or required by the law. [1] Military force was authorized by Public Law 107-243 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 [2]. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal [2] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107p...
  - finid 10y ago
    How beautiful! Congress voted to invade another country. That makes it legal. Next you'll get together with your wife and make the decision to invade your next door neighbor. That should be legal, right?
    - douche 10y ago
      Yes, that is exactly what that means. Legislatures decide what the laws are and what is legal. This is how this works... If you're looking for morality, you're in the wrong department.
      - finid 10y ago
        So in your view, it was illegal, but immoral, right?
- metaphorm 10y ago
  it still amazes me that people argue that there is even such a thing as "legal" war. war is the breakdown of social order. law is only relevant in the presence of existing social order. when a country like the U.S. chooses to initiate a war of aggression against a foreign population it is effectively just an assertion that there is no such thing as law when it comes to wielding geo-political power. in the case of the congressional vote to authorize force, that wasn't really an exercise of law. that was a public performance of assent to break the law. it was congress saying "we capitulate to your plans and will not attempt to interfere with the war".
thetruthseeker1 10y ago
I don't think we should say let's pay for the invasion with their oil, it's probably more accurate to say let's take their oil or steal it because when you say 'pay' it implies Iraqis asked for invasion(which they didn't) and you are talking of oil as payment.
mytddu 10y ago
> The invasions initial execution was beautiful (first few days) The initial "Shock and Awe" campaign in Baghdad killed an estimated 6,600+ civilians. [1] It's stated purpose was to "impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on ... [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels." That is to say, it was terrorism. And what's even more disgusting is that Americans watched it on TV like fireworks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Casualties
- douche 10y ago
  That is an impressively small civilian death toll for a bombing campaign that entirely gutted the defense capabilities of a regional power. That's basically a textbook example of how to surgically destroy your enemy's warmaking capabilities with the least loss of noncombatant life.
- webXL 10y ago
  Please don't redefine terrorism. Terrorists don't give fair warning. Terrorists don't primarily target military installations. Terrorists don't accept surrender. As abhorrent and terrifying as war is, nothing can excuse the deliberate targeting of civilians. Yeah, it was disgusting, but the whole world watched because the whole world's media decided to broadcast it. Without the terror of Saddam's reign coupled with the "shock and awe" of 9/11, none of this would have ever happened.
  - ttepasse 10y ago
    The first instance of the word terrorism was the terror of a democratically legitimated state against civilians. Its own in this case: I'm speaking of the Reign of Terror of the french revolutionary state. Since then the word terrorism was somewhat redefined. But of course not everywhere. Even you describe Hussein's actions as terror in your post. I think it's acceptable to describe as terror that thing which kills you, wether you are someone in Bagdad 2003 who is too poor to flee to Jordan, wether you are a victim of ISIL or if you are a 16 year old male shepherd in Waziristan where there is a full legal procedure which in the end lawfully decides to kill you because you're you.

by jcbeard 10y ago

tdkl 10y ago

> (sounds like somebody that's running for president this year) Someone else running for president this year has pledged that the first act of her address would be removing Assad. Which brings us back at the beginning of stupid actions.

cmdrfred 10y ago
She has to pay for the campaign/Clinton foundation donations somehow. Mark my words a vote for Hillary is a vote for war.[0] [0]https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/01/19496/defense-contractor-employees-give-most-money-hillary-clinton https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/01/19496/defense-con...
- danielbln 10y ago
  So the choice is between war hawk and unpredictable megalomaniac. Sophie's choice of US politics...
  - snomad 10y ago
    Given the utter disdain for both major candidates, perhaps this year we can hope for a 3rd party candidate. Here is a nice visualization of the 4 top candidates and their stances on a wide spectrum of issues http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV
    - anonymousab 10y ago
      In the eyes of a considerable many, voting for anyone else is the same as a vote for Trump. Maybe it has always been this way.
      - stronglikedan 10y ago
        In the eyes of supporters of either major party, a vote for a third party is a vote for the other major party. It may not have always been this way, but it has for as long as I've been an engaged voter (~20 years).
        cafard 10y ago
        It depends on who the third party is. More from Republicans: Theodore Roosevelt, probably George Wallace and Ross Perot More from Democrats: Henry Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Ralph Nader Who knows: John Anderson. I think that Roosevelt, Perot, and Nader all had strong effects, I don't think that Thurmond, either Wallace, or Anderson changed the outcome.
pdabbadabba 10y ago
Well, unlike Iraq in 2003, there will be a war in Syria 12 months from now whether Hillary tries to remove Assad or not. The question is whether we continue to try to shape the outcome. In the meantime, we have this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/toxic-gas-in-the-darkness-assad-regime-drops-chemical-weapons-on/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/toxic-gas-in-the-...
- tim333 10y ago
  Not so sure about that - the war was mostly Russia and Iran backing Assad against Turkey and the US backing the anti Assad rebels. Now Assad and Erdogan are buddies things may settle down with Assad, Putin and Erdogan all being presidents for life with questionable elections and the US not able to do a lot about it.
  - pdabbadabba 10y ago
    So your position is that if the U.S. would just butt out, ISIS and other anti-Assad rebels would just pack it up and go home? That seems unlikely.
    - tim333 10y ago
      No, that Assad and Russia would defeat them militarily.
      - pdabbadabba 10y ago
        Maybe eventually. But that would require more war, would it not? My point was not that the war in Syria will never end, but that Syria will remain in a state of civil war for some time to come whether or not Hillary goes after Assad. So the decision is not between war and peace in Syria. It is between one war and another. The alternative you describe might be shorter (or it might not be, depending on how Hillary would execute her plan to go after Assad, among numerous other factors), but it may also be worse in many other respects.
  - 10y ago
rm999 10y ago
Do you have a source? I just searched and see no such pledge. All I'm finding are vague statements from her allies and advisors that they think she'll prioritize Syria.
- finid 10y ago
  I haven't read that myself, but even in the absence citation, you have to believe it is true, given her Middle East affiliations. Hint: She and her husband are in bed with the House of Saud. Her (their) deep commitment to Israel is unquestionable. Never forget that she's a neocon and worships Henry Kissinger. It's just that she's joined at the waist to a democrat.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    "I haven't read that myself, but even in the absence citation, you have to believe it is true,..." I suspect you would be surprised how much that sentence scares me.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- chishaku 10y ago
  State Department policy on Syria is regime change going back to at least 2011. The method/means is still fluid. See the article and State Department testimony below, emphasis mine. NYT, from 2013: "Last summer, as the fighting in Syria raged and questions about the United States’ inaction grew, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton conferred privately with David H. Petraeus, the director of the C.I.A. The two officials were joining forces on a plan to arm the Syrian resistance. The idea was to vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with weapons. The plan had risks, but it also offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States could work, both during the conflict and ___after President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual removal___. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus presented the proposal to the White House, according to administration officials. But with the White House worried about the risks, and with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, they were rebuffed." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scene-blows-and-triumphs-sense-of-clinton-future.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scen... From 2011, testimony by Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, State Department: "But we take the advent of the [Syrian National Council] very seriously, and we support the broader opposition’s efforts to focus on the critical task of expanding and consolidating its base of support within Syria by articulating a clear and common vision and ___developing a concrete and credible post-Assad transition plan.___" http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jeffrey_Feltman_Revised.pdf http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jeffrey_Feltman_...
Diederich 10y ago
> ... has pledged that the first act ... Citation please?
allendoerfer 10y ago
> Someone else running for president this year has pledged that the first act of her address would be removing Assad. Great plan, weren't there all these terrorists cutting of heads and stuff, making him look like an angel. Also there is this tiny problem of Russian troops fighting for Assad, which could interfere with the otherwise genius plan.
sn41 10y ago
I wonder why people forget Libya. There's already a proven track record of bungling by this person. No one in the Pentagon wanted the war. Look at what is left of what in 2011 was Africa's wealthiest nation.

nickik 10y ago

Any real look at the history of toppling governments in societies as divided as Iraq should understand the difficulty. The western world has hundreds of years of experience. The interesting thing is that, when they were successful in 2007 (more troupes) it was completely accidental. They had no idea why it worked at first, and it took them a while to figure it out. As everybody know, the US could not stay their with this much troupes forever and thus they could never credibly commit to long term stability and peace between the different sections. If you can not stay somewhere for 1-2 generations, don't go there in the first place.

Noseshine 10y ago

I wonder how much use there is in putting a lot more effort into any of those countries. My angle is climate change. There is a record-breaking heat wave going on there right now, with temperatures close to making human life impossible. Outlook: Getting a lot worse. They already have water shortages. The population still is growing. The trouble in Syria is said to have been caused with a mismanaged big drought as a major contributing factor. We would have to create infrastructure for AC-based indoor living in the entire region and beyond on a grand scale, or only for some and see the rest of the population live in a vegetative state during much of the year. If climate change and the predictions are real anything less is futile. Basically, the entire region is becoming Arizona - without AC for most people, much higher humidity directly at the Gulf, with even less freshwater and many more people who also are much poorer. Just a dark thought: Maybe there simply is no solution. The climate problem is independent of all the human problems, so solving them, already seemingly impossible, would not even help much with this new issue growing stronger.

intended 10y ago
> infrastructure for AC-based indoor living in the entire region and beyond Thats a huge amount of constant power and infrastructure, which is just not going to be built. Easier to build an underground city with high ceilings and taking advantage of physics than managing to give AC to everyone in the region, which is to say both options are extremely difficult and require pre-existing infrastructure. And this still doesn't solve the problem of what precisely people will do for work in the region
- pjc50 10y ago
  > underground city with high ceilings and taking advantage of physics Ancient Iranian architecture was quite close to that, which you may be alluding to: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Architecture/wind.htm http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Architecture/wind.htm What people will do? Well, same as everywhere else, everything from agriculture to software. It's more a question of how many of them the local agriculture can support. The number of people who've fled Syria is more than its entire population was in 1950. Similar applies to places like Yemen. Malthusianism may not apply globally, but it can certainly bite locally.

ebbv 10y ago

> The invasions initial execution was beautiful (first few days) War is not beautiful. The invasion was a revolting, unnecessary horror from conception to now, where it still has not ended and shows no sign of an end. As far as Bush not listening to generals, etc. I don't believe Bush was anything more than a figurehead. Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. were the decision makers. They knew what they were doing, and they didn't have an exit strategy because exiting was never their goal.

NikolaNovak 10y ago

>> in every country where natural resource mining is dominant, we see a rise of more despotism. I think we're still doing reasonably OK in Canada... :->

Kurtz79 10y ago
Also, Norway: "The country maintains a combination of market economy and a Nordic welfare model with universal health care and a comprehensive social security system. Norway has extensive reserves of petroleum, natural gas, minerals, lumber, seafood, fresh water, and hydropower. The petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) On a per-capita basis, Norway is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East." (Wikipedia)
shwouchk 10y ago
Lets not forget the US either

ilostmykeys 10y ago

It's sick to call war "beautiful" especially given that in those first few days innocent people were bombed out of existence along with bridges and infrastructure vital to the subsistence of millions of people. I didn't expect a sick comment to be rewarded on HN. But now I see the blatant and racist hypocrisy.

douche 10y ago
"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it" - R.E. Lee
sevenless 10y ago
Terrorism all depends on the beholder, doesn't it? The forced restructuring of Iraq's economy along right-wing neoliberal lines by the occupying force was another war crime. Read "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Chandrasekaran.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > The forced restructuring of Iraq's economy along right-wing neoliberal lines I don't think 'right-wing neoliberal' is the right term for what's basically a soft version of the Warsaw Pact's command-and-control economies. > Read "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Chandrasekaran. I did, and it's very good — excellent. The short, short version is that basically everyone is incompetent, time-serving, disinterested and/or corrupt.
hx87 10y ago
Something can be aesthetically beautiful and morally terrifying and wrong at the same time. Please disentangle aesthetics and morality, since not doing so tends to debase both.
- ilostmykeys 10y ago
  <<Something can be aesthetically beautiful and morally terrifying and wrong at the same time.>> That borders on psychotic. To watch people die and call the destruction aesthetically beautiful is mental illness.

Synaesthesia 10y ago

The initial execution was not beautiful, it and the occupation that followed were remarkably brutal. Dropping bombs on a Baghdad, destroying the civilian infrastructure like sewage, electricity etc. It was a case of aggression, the same crime for which the Nazi's were hanged at Nuremberg.

finid 10y ago
> The initial execution was not beautiful It was "beautiful" because you were watching it on TV and marveling at how we manage to drop bombs from a distance through a building's smallest opening. For the men, women and children of Iraq, it was hell. It was not fun, and, most definitely, was not beautiful.

finid 10y ago

> The invasion of Iraq was stupid. It was likely illegal, I agree that the invasion was stupid, but it was not "likely illegal," it _was_ illegal.

falsestprophet 10y ago
legal: 1) of, based on, or concerned with the law; 2) appointed or required by the law. [1] Military force was authorized by Public Law 107-243 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 [2]. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal [2] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107p...
- finid 10y ago
  How beautiful! Congress voted to invade another country. That makes it legal. Next you'll get together with your wife and make the decision to invade your next door neighbor. That should be legal, right?
  - douche 10y ago
    Yes, that is exactly what that means. Legislatures decide what the laws are and what is legal. This is how this works... If you're looking for morality, you're in the wrong department.
    - finid 10y ago
      So in your view, it was illegal, but immoral, right?
metaphorm 10y ago
it still amazes me that people argue that there is even such a thing as "legal" war. war is the breakdown of social order. law is only relevant in the presence of existing social order. when a country like the U.S. chooses to initiate a war of aggression against a foreign population it is effectively just an assertion that there is no such thing as law when it comes to wielding geo-political power. in the case of the congressional vote to authorize force, that wasn't really an exercise of law. that was a public performance of assent to break the law. it was congress saying "we capitulate to your plans and will not attempt to interfere with the war".

thetruthseeker1 10y ago

I don't think we should say let's pay for the invasion with their oil, it's probably more accurate to say let's take their oil or steal it because when you say 'pay' it implies Iraqis asked for invasion(which they didn't) and you are talking of oil as payment.

mytddu 10y ago

> The invasions initial execution was beautiful (first few days) The initial "Shock and Awe" campaign in Baghdad killed an estimated 6,600+ civilians. [1] It's stated purpose was to "impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on ... [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels." That is to say, it was terrorism. And what's even more disgusting is that Americans watched it on TV like fireworks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Casualties

douche 10y ago
That is an impressively small civilian death toll for a bombing campaign that entirely gutted the defense capabilities of a regional power. That's basically a textbook example of how to surgically destroy your enemy's warmaking capabilities with the least loss of noncombatant life.
webXL 10y ago
Please don't redefine terrorism. Terrorists don't give fair warning. Terrorists don't primarily target military installations. Terrorists don't accept surrender. As abhorrent and terrifying as war is, nothing can excuse the deliberate targeting of civilians. Yeah, it was disgusting, but the whole world watched because the whole world's media decided to broadcast it. Without the terror of Saddam's reign coupled with the "shock and awe" of 9/11, none of this would have ever happened.
- ttepasse 10y ago
  The first instance of the word terrorism was the terror of a democratically legitimated state against civilians. Its own in this case: I'm speaking of the Reign of Terror of the french revolutionary state. Since then the word terrorism was somewhat redefined. But of course not everywhere. Even you describe Hussein's actions as terror in your post. I think it's acceptable to describe as terror that thing which kills you, wether you are someone in Bagdad 2003 who is too poor to flee to Jordan, wether you are a victim of ISIL or if you are a 16 year old male shepherd in Waziristan where there is a full legal procedure which in the end lawfully decides to kill you because you're you.