America's unlearned lesson: the forgotten truth about why we invaded Iraq

[Saunders]

Perhaps the tensest moment in Saturday's Republican presidential debate came when Donald Trump finally said something so outrageous that the other candidates onstageand even the debate audience closed ranks against him.

Here is what Trump did: He accused George W. Bush of launching the Iraq War based on a lie:

You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

Trump's 10-second history of the war articulated it as many Americans, who largely consider that war a mistake, now understand it. And, indeed, Bush did justify the war as a quest for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist

 

The other Republican candidates, who have had this fight with Trump before, did not defend the war as their party has in the past, but rather offered the party's standard line of the moment, which is that Bush had been innocently misled by "faulty intelligence."

But neither version of history is really correct. The US primarily invaded Iraq not because of lies or because of bad intelligence, though both featured. In fact, it invaded because of an ideology.

A movement of high-minded ideologues had, throughout the 1990s, become obsessed with deposing Saddam Hussein. When they assumed positions of power under Bush in 2001, they did not seek to trick America into that war, but rather tricked themselves. In 9/11, and in fragments of intelligence that more objective minds would have rejected, they could see only validation for their abstract and untested theories about the world — theories whose inevitable and obvious conclusion was an American invasion of Iraq.

This is perhaps not as satisfying as the "Bush lied, people died" bumper sticker history that has since taken hold on much of the left and elements of the Tea Party right. Nor is it as convenient as the Republican establishment's polite fiction that Bush was misled by "faulty intelligence."

If the problem were merely that Bush lied, then the solution would be straightforward: Check the administration's facts. But how do you fact-check an ideology, particularly when that ideology is partially concealed from the public view? How do you guard against that ideology, which still dominates much of the GOP, and some of whose ideas are shared by more hawkish Democrats, from leading us astray again?

The moment at Saturday's debate should highlight the degree to which many Americans, from voters right up to presidential candidates, still misunderstand — and failed to learn from — the story of how America came to expend 4,500 of its citizens' lives in a war that would kill well over 100,000 Iraqis, destroy an entire nation, and help send the Middle East spiraling into chaos.

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11022104/iraq-war-neoconservatives

[knapplc]

Here's what I'll say about the WMD. I have no idea if the facts were made up, or if there were or weren't WMDs, or why we actually invaded Iraq.

 

But we know for a fact that Iraq had, and used, chemical weapons in the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq war. Saddam used gas as recently as 1987. The Iraq War was what? 15 years later? So it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that he had them in 2002 when we invaded Iraq.

 

But it doesn't mean he didn't, either.

 

I believed the reason(s) we were given to go to war in 2002. Maybe foolishly. I didn't cry out against it, I know that. Not many of us did in the aftermath of 9/11.

[Saunders]

I believed them too. Of course, I was 18, and like all college aged kids, thought I knew everything, but yeah...

 

There's definitely some opinionated writing in the piece, but looking back almost 15 years later, it makes some sense.

[zoogs]

Well said to both of you. I supported the war at the time; how could you not? I was ready to see as evil and worthy of destruction anybody our government said was so. It was post 9/11 and we needed to crush the bad guys, obviously.

 

Now I look back with horror. Not so much the war itself, but at the unanimity of it. And our lack of accountability for that unanimity, both to ourselves and to those officials who drove it.

 

I think something like 'They lied' hits the broad strokes pretty well, but indeed it doesn't ask us to isolate the blame. There is never learning from history when the 'lesson' is 'look, these guys did a bad, but it was because they were especially bad guys, and now they're gone.'.

[darkhorse85]

Here's what I'll say about the WMD. I have no idea if the facts were made up, or if there were or weren't WMDs, or why we actually invaded Iraq.

 

But we know for a fact that Iraq had, and used, chemical weapons in the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq war. Saddam used gas as recently as 1987. The Iraq War was what? 15 years later? So it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that he had them in 2002 when we invaded Iraq.

 

But it doesn't mean he didn't, either.

 

I believed the reason(s) we were given to go to war in 2002. Maybe foolishly. I didn't cry out against it, I know that. Not many of us did in the aftermath of 9/11.

 

My unit came across a number of vials of sarin gas in late 2004. You can look around the internet and only seem to find some sketchy sources talking about it and they seem to limit the number to 40 vials. I can tell you that the number was more than 40 as I saw them with my own eyes. Now, where the sarin came from (oe how old it may have been) is an entirely different issue. We were finding passports on dead bodies/fighting positions from all over the Middle East, certain North African nations and even Russia/Chechnya. Rather unnerving (pun entirely intended). Just my two cents.

 

Also, the war started in 2003.

[Mavric]

Here's what I'll say about the WMD. I have no idea if the facts were made up, or if there were or weren't WMDs, or why we actually invaded Iraq.

 

But we know for a fact that Iraq had, and used, chemical weapons in the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq war. Saddam used gas as recently as 1987. The Iraq War was what? 15 years later? So it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that he had them in 2002 when we invaded Iraq.

 

But it doesn't mean he didn't, either.

 

I believed the reason(s) we were given to go to war in 2002. Maybe foolishly. I didn't cry out against it, I know that. Not many of us did in the aftermath of 9/11.

 

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. They had them at one time. They repeatedly refused inspections or whatever else was asked of them over a 10-ish year period. They sure seemed to be hiding something. They had to go somewhere. I don't know where or when but something doesn't make sense.

 

And I don't know where the line should be drawn for when we would go to war to depose someone. But Saddam was brutal to his own people. He had been in wars killing people from other nations. The world is a better place with him gone. I don't know that it justifies the means but it's not the worst outcome either.

[ZRod]

 

Here's what I'll say about the WMD. I have no idea if the facts were made up, or if there were or weren't WMDs, or why we actually invaded Iraq.

 

But we know for a fact that Iraq had, and used, chemical weapons in the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq war. Saddam used gas as recently as 1987. The Iraq War was what? 15 years later? So it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that he had them in 2002 when we invaded Iraq.

 

But it doesn't mean he didn't, either.

 

I believed the reason(s) we were given to go to war in 2002. Maybe foolishly. I didn't cry out against it, I know that. Not many of us did in the aftermath of 9/11.

 

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. They had them at one time. They repeatedly refused inspections or whatever else was asked of them over a 10-ish year period. They sure seemed to be hiding something. They had to go somewhere. I don't know where or when but something doesn't make sense.

 

And I don't know where the line should be drawn for when we would go to war to depose someone. But Saddam was brutal to his own people. He had been in wars killing people from other nations. The world is a better place with him gone. I don't know that it justifies the means but it's not the worst outcome either.

Careful with those last two sentences... The short increase in AQ's influence and the rise of ISIS are both a direct result of diposing Saddam. You could argue he was the lesser evil. But you could also argue that diposing him and the rise of ISIS has also open the door to engage with Iran in a more meaningful way. At present I don't know which is better. A sadistic dictator who we could crush at will, or a festering terrorist group that occupies an entire region.

[Mavric]

 

 

Here's what I'll say about the WMD. I have no idea if the facts were made up, or if there were or weren't WMDs, or why we actually invaded Iraq.

 

But we know for a fact that Iraq had, and used, chemical weapons in the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq war. Saddam used gas as recently as 1987. The Iraq War was what? 15 years later? So it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that he had them in 2002 when we invaded Iraq.

 

But it doesn't mean he didn't, either.

 

I believed the reason(s) we were given to go to war in 2002. Maybe foolishly. I didn't cry out against it, I know that. Not many of us did in the aftermath of 9/11.

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. They had them at one time. They repeatedly refused inspections or whatever else was asked of them over a 10-ish year period. They sure seemed to be hiding something. They had to go somewhere. I don't know where or when but something doesn't make sense.

 

And I don't know where the line should be drawn for when we would go to war to depose someone. But Saddam was brutal to his own people. He had been in wars killing people from other nations. The world is a better place with him gone. I don't know that it justifies the means but it's not the worst outcome either.

Careful with those last two sentences... The short increase in AQ's influence and the rise of ISIS are both a direct result of diposing Saddam. You could argue he was the lesser evil. But you could also argue that diposing him and the rise of ISIS has also open the door to engage with Iran in a more meaningful way. At present I don't know which is better. A sadistic dictator who we could crush at will, or a festering terrorist group that occupies and entire region.

 

 

No. They are only indirect results of deposing Saddam. They are direct results of not handling the situation correctly after he was gone.

[BigRedBuster]

I obviously have no clue what happened to the WMDs. He clearly had them at one time and was not shy about using them even on his own people. He and his two sons are disgusting human beings that I'm glad are not walking this earth anymore.

 

Leading up to the war, Iraq basically knew we were coming in after the WMDs for months before we actually went in. I'm not sure why some people don't believe he could have easily disposed of or shipped them somewhere like Syria during that time.

 

The management of the region since Saddam was taken out has been very questionable and still remains that way.

 

Here is my tin foil belief of what was going on behind the scenes leading up to and during the Iraq war. Our government had restricted what our secret services could do to get information so much, that we were being required to rely on our "allies" for much of our intelligence. Some of those countries were France, Germany, Russia, Israel.

 

All of those countries had motivation to have us knocked off our perch as a world leader or (in the case of Israel) have us go in and take out Saddam. Our administration was very zealous at the time about taking out anyone in the region who could pose a threat. The situation was ripe for convincing the US to go in and take them out.

 

It is not out of the question (at least in my mind) that they fed us faulty information to get us to invade Iraq. France, Germany and Russia immediately gained credibility in the world once they started trash talking our efforts. Israel obviously got rid of a major enemy.

 

Maybe I have been watching too many James Bond movies but, I still don't trust those 4 countries.

[Moiraine]

Let's pretend they didn't lie about it and there were weapons of mass destruction. Everyone had known for years they'd had them before. We still didn't have a good enough reason for invading other than as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/saddam-terrorism-emerging-insights-captured-iraqi-documents-volume-1/p15741

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations