9 ms·

The initial Iraq invasion was to enforce Kuwaiti sovereignty and stop Saddam's unilateral aggression which was destabilizing the region. We tried bribing him wi

The initial Iraq invasion was to enforce Kuwaiti sovereignty and stop Saddam's unilateral aggression which was destabilizing the region. We tried bribing him with aid, but he still invaded, so the U.S. kept true to their promise to enforce agreements. The U.S. helped a small country and protected its image. The second Iraq war may or may not have been WMD based, but Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of mostly Shi'a and Kurdish civilians. Saddam's badness to ease of defeat ratio was probably the highest in the world, making him an easy target. You never know what will replace a bad dictator, but I can see how it would be hard to stand by knowing the guy has killed so many and do nothing. (Not a conservative, per se, but I try to understand all sides.)

calsy 5y ago
The problem is that none of those answers were provided as a reason to instigate a 2nd war and occupation of Iraq. Its an attempted justification of a pointless war, an excuse. 'We got rid of the bad guy', If someone bombed your cities, destroyed your power and water supply while going on to occupy your country for years leading to the deaths of 100,000s, would you hail them as liberators? As for Iraq, its completely destroyed. Saddam was peanuts compared to the unholy inferno the US brought down on Iraq. Good guys don't instigate wars and decimate cities. The US spent 100s of billions to 'fight terror'. How do you fight terror? With terror apparently.
oaiey 5y ago
Please do not forget to mix oil in the ratio.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Please cite a source for that claim.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - afavour 5y ago
    “Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.” Richard Perle, chair The Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board July 11, 2002 https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/who-said-war-would-pay-itself-they-did/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/who-said-war-would... "Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      That's a source that Iraq has oil. What is your claim? I often see it claimed that the US for some reason wanted Iraqi oil. I just haven't seen evidence for this.
      - afavour 5y ago
        I've added a second quote that more directly addresses the question. But even the first one clearly points to the role of oil in deciding the invasion: there's no need to price the thing out because Iraq has more than enough oil to pay for any and all reconstruction itself. Of course that's going to be a factor in any invasion decision. In any case, further quote from the second one: > To this end, as Whitehall documents obtained by the Independent show, the US and British sought to privatise Iraqi oil production with a view to allow foreign companies to takeover. Minutes of a meeting held on 12 May 2003 said: "The future shape of the Iraqi industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of Opec, in both of which we have a vital interest." > A "desirable" outcome for Iraqi's crippled oil industry, officials concluded, is: "... an oil sector open and attractive to foreign investment, with appropriate arrangements for the exploitation of new fields." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
- queuebert 5y ago
  The interest in regional stability is probably rooted in oil. The U.S. hasn't taken any captured oil fields and sold the oil for themselves, as far as I know, so I think they just want the region to be a stable, predicable marketplace for dead dinosaurs.
  - calsy 5y ago
    And blowing up major cities, destroying basic utilities like power and water and creating a situation thats lead to civil war involving factions from neighbouring countries is 'creating stability'. This is some bizarro world logic.
    - queuebert 5y ago
      They already had a civil war. Saddam quelled a big uprising among Shi'a and Kurds. Unity among the Muslim factions is stronger than national unity, so your proposed consequence already existed for 1000 years.
      - calsy 5y ago
        Yeah difference being those conflicts didn’t involve raining 1000s of bombs down over major cities. The situation for civil war already existed, so the best option is to light the fuse by bombing the place and leaving a power vacuum? Not a great plan to eliminate terrorism or promote stability. It’s not hard to think of better ways to spend tax dollars and avoid the emotional toll of losing many good people.
nipponese 5y ago
I think this is a very fair answer. Additionally, the Clinton admin bombed Iraq for four days in 1998, the same year the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal broke.
- calsy 5y ago
  You can't retroactively justify the war in hindsight on false reasoning. 'Saddam was a bad guy' is not a justification for war and occupation. If the American people were told they would need to spend 100s of billions and lose countless young lives for the sole purpose of overthrowing a dictator in a foreign country, there would have been no war. The reasons for going to war were a lie, and claiming that the removal of Saddam was the true victory is an excuse.
sudosysgen 5y ago
This is an unfair answer. The Second Iraq War was not based on any altruistic motive. If it was, the US would say so, instead of manufacturing evidence for WMDs. We can safely conclude that the actual reasons for the invasions are something that the US government wanted to hide. Beyond that, the war in Iraq killed more people than Saddam Hussein's genocide, so that justification simply doesn't fly. It's complete bogus, through and through.
- jollybean 5y ago
  The people behind Iraq invasion were all part of 'Project for a New American Century' which promoted 'Pax Americana' in the Middle East, i.e. a stabilizing occupying force, probably the overthrow of Iraq and Syria. They envisioned Iraq being a little more like Gulf States i.e. more stable, allies, and a buffer between Israel/Iran/Saudi Arabia. And some nice construction contracts for Bechtel. And a geostrategic signal of power. The WMD thing was a populist narrative justification, the real motivation is literally published for all to see, it's just not what the media war was fought over. Nobody ever fought a war for purely altruistic motives, it's unlikely the Americans were to have joined WW2 unless they were at risk themselves, but that doesn't mean there can't be motives and actions that are better than others. Weirdly, the justification for Iraq I think would have been entirely function of historical revisionism given the success or failure. If Iraq was more stable and prosperous then 'it was the right thing to do', if the invasion was a failure, then it 'was a mistake' and that's it. Iraq has $5K/USD per capita GDP now, it has a government, elections, there's progress. Iran has a lot of control and of course Kurds are doing their own thing, but there is baseline order. 'Was It Worth It?' is another question, maybe in 50 years we can understand definitively what the real cost of finally getting rid of a Saddam-like institution was. [1] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_for_the_New_Am... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
  - calsy 5y ago
    Sick of hearing these nonsense hidden reasons that are completely without merit. The reasons we went to war were very clear, 'Saddam was stockpiling WMDs and was a threat to world.'. They were wrong, they simply made a colossal mistake.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
marcosdumay 5y ago
> but Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of mostly Shi'a and Kurdish civilians I'm not saying that this isn't very bad, and worth stopping, but how is it different from what happens all the time on a lot of places on that region? (Is the US planning an invasion of Israel right now? I don't think so.) Countries normally don't interfere on such things because doing it has a tendency of backfiring and making things worse than they were at the beginning. From my impression many thousands of km away, the US people mostly did held that opinion at the time, and would refuse to allow an invasion if the government didn't lie to them. Also, the WMD focus was such a blatant lie that it's impossible that anybody with any power believed it.
nicoffeine 5y ago
The US had no problem providing Saddam with money, arms, and biological weapons in the 80s[1], even after he used them against Iranians. And of course, the US been involved in Iran since 1953[2] when they overthrew their first and only democratically elected PM because he wanted to nationalize their oil reserves. As long as Saddam massacred the "right" people, the US fully supported him. As far as instability, the very boundaries of Iraq were purposefully drawn so that the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis would be locked into the same nation state and easier to control. Saddam was just one of the pawns in the great oil game the US and the western world has been playing there. The fight over access to oil - the singularly important resource that enables modern armies and economies to function - is the underlying cause of the instability in that region, and has been for the last century. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
sitkack 5y ago
You are forgetting the whole part where Saddam asked/told us he was invading, and the US was silent, giving him tacit permission to invade. All to further US aims in the region. Saddam was our patsy.

calsy 5y ago

The problem is that none of those answers were provided as a reason to instigate a 2nd war and occupation of Iraq. Its an attempted justification of a pointless war, an excuse. 'We got rid of the bad guy', If someone bombed your cities, destroyed your power and water supply while going on to occupy your country for years leading to the deaths of 100,000s, would you hail them as liberators? As for Iraq, its completely destroyed. Saddam was peanuts compared to the unholy inferno the US brought down on Iraq. Good guys don't instigate wars and decimate cities. The US spent 100s of billions to 'fight terror'. How do you fight terror? With terror apparently.

oaiey 5y ago

Please do not forget to mix oil in the ratio.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Please cite a source for that claim.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- afavour 5y ago
  “Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.” Richard Perle, chair The Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board July 11, 2002 https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/who-said-war-would-pay-itself-they-did/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/who-said-war-would... "Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    That's a source that Iraq has oil. What is your claim? I often see it claimed that the US for some reason wanted Iraqi oil. I just haven't seen evidence for this.
    - afavour 5y ago
      I've added a second quote that more directly addresses the question. But even the first one clearly points to the role of oil in deciding the invasion: there's no need to price the thing out because Iraq has more than enough oil to pay for any and all reconstruction itself. Of course that's going to be a factor in any invasion decision. In any case, further quote from the second one: > To this end, as Whitehall documents obtained by the Independent show, the US and British sought to privatise Iraqi oil production with a view to allow foreign companies to takeover. Minutes of a meeting held on 12 May 2003 said: "The future shape of the Iraqi industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of Opec, in both of which we have a vital interest." > A "desirable" outcome for Iraqi's crippled oil industry, officials concluded, is: "... an oil sector open and attractive to foreign investment, with appropriate arrangements for the exploitation of new fields." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
queuebert 5y ago
The interest in regional stability is probably rooted in oil. The U.S. hasn't taken any captured oil fields and sold the oil for themselves, as far as I know, so I think they just want the region to be a stable, predicable marketplace for dead dinosaurs.
- calsy 5y ago
  And blowing up major cities, destroying basic utilities like power and water and creating a situation thats lead to civil war involving factions from neighbouring countries is 'creating stability'. This is some bizarro world logic.
  - queuebert 5y ago
    They already had a civil war. Saddam quelled a big uprising among Shi'a and Kurds. Unity among the Muslim factions is stronger than national unity, so your proposed consequence already existed for 1000 years.
    - calsy 5y ago
      Yeah difference being those conflicts didn’t involve raining 1000s of bombs down over major cities. The situation for civil war already existed, so the best option is to light the fuse by bombing the place and leaving a power vacuum? Not a great plan to eliminate terrorism or promote stability. It’s not hard to think of better ways to spend tax dollars and avoid the emotional toll of losing many good people.

nipponese 5y ago

I think this is a very fair answer. Additionally, the Clinton admin bombed Iraq for four days in 1998, the same year the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal broke.

calsy 5y ago
You can't retroactively justify the war in hindsight on false reasoning. 'Saddam was a bad guy' is not a justification for war and occupation. If the American people were told they would need to spend 100s of billions and lose countless young lives for the sole purpose of overthrowing a dictator in a foreign country, there would have been no war. The reasons for going to war were a lie, and claiming that the removal of Saddam was the true victory is an excuse.

sudosysgen 5y ago

This is an unfair answer. The Second Iraq War was not based on any altruistic motive. If it was, the US would say so, instead of manufacturing evidence for WMDs. We can safely conclude that the actual reasons for the invasions are something that the US government wanted to hide. Beyond that, the war in Iraq killed more people than Saddam Hussein's genocide, so that justification simply doesn't fly. It's complete bogus, through and through.

jollybean 5y ago
The people behind Iraq invasion were all part of 'Project for a New American Century' which promoted 'Pax Americana' in the Middle East, i.e. a stabilizing occupying force, probably the overthrow of Iraq and Syria. They envisioned Iraq being a little more like Gulf States i.e. more stable, allies, and a buffer between Israel/Iran/Saudi Arabia. And some nice construction contracts for Bechtel. And a geostrategic signal of power. The WMD thing was a populist narrative justification, the real motivation is literally published for all to see, it's just not what the media war was fought over. Nobody ever fought a war for purely altruistic motives, it's unlikely the Americans were to have joined WW2 unless they were at risk themselves, but that doesn't mean there can't be motives and actions that are better than others. Weirdly, the justification for Iraq I think would have been entirely function of historical revisionism given the success or failure. If Iraq was more stable and prosperous then 'it was the right thing to do', if the invasion was a failure, then it 'was a mistake' and that's it. Iraq has $5K/USD per capita GDP now, it has a government, elections, there's progress. Iran has a lot of control and of course Kurds are doing their own thing, but there is baseline order. 'Was It Worth It?' is another question, maybe in 50 years we can understand definitively what the real cost of finally getting rid of a Saddam-like institution was. [1] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_for_the_New_Am... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
- calsy 5y ago
  Sick of hearing these nonsense hidden reasons that are completely without merit. The reasons we went to war were very clear, 'Saddam was stockpiling WMDs and was a threat to world.'. They were wrong, they simply made a colossal mistake.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

marcosdumay 5y ago

> but Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of mostly Shi'a and Kurdish civilians I'm not saying that this isn't very bad, and worth stopping, but how is it different from what happens all the time on a lot of places on that region? (Is the US planning an invasion of Israel right now? I don't think so.) Countries normally don't interfere on such things because doing it has a tendency of backfiring and making things worse than they were at the beginning. From my impression many thousands of km away, the US people mostly did held that opinion at the time, and would refuse to allow an invasion if the government didn't lie to them. Also, the WMD focus was such a blatant lie that it's impossible that anybody with any power believed it.

nicoffeine 5y ago

The US had no problem providing Saddam with money, arms, and biological weapons in the 80s[1], even after he used them against Iranians. And of course, the US been involved in Iran since 1953[2] when they overthrew their first and only democratically elected PM because he wanted to nationalize their oil reserves. As long as Saddam massacred the "right" people, the US fully supported him. As far as instability, the very boundaries of Iraq were purposefully drawn so that the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis would be locked into the same nation state and easier to control. Saddam was just one of the pawns in the great oil game the US and the western world has been playing there. The fight over access to oil - the singularly important resource that enables modern armies and economies to function - is the underlying cause of the instability in that region, and has been for the last century. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

sitkack 5y ago

You are forgetting the whole part where Saddam asked/told us he was invading, and the US was silent, giving him tacit permission to invade. All to further US aims in the region. Saddam was our patsy.