Iraqis still ask if U.S. invasion was worth it

[Ozme52]

As far as the Iraquis are concerned they're still in minus from the invasion. But it's a bit short-term view to see it in. Democracy takes many years to evolve into something useful. Right now everything sucks ass in Iraq. They have less safety and less protection from the law than they had before. I still support the invasion.

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.

[mkemse]

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.

after 5 years and currenty spending $12 billion a month i hardly see ANY Bright Spot

[Ozme52]

after 5 years and currenty spending $12 billion a month i hardly see ANY Bright Spot

Don't complain to me. Go tell Reuters. It is their report you used to start this conversation and it is their right to show both sides of the debate.


They used the term 'bright side'

[mkemse]

Don't complain to me. Go tell Reuters. It is their report you used to start this conversation and it is their right to show both sides of the debate.


They used the term 'bright side'

i know they used that term, that was a genric remark directed at them not you, i know it was their report not yours

[Thorne]

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

True enough. As far as I can determine, the only possible connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was financial support, probably indirectly. If that justified invasion then virtually every Islamic nation would have to be targeted.

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.

I have to disagree with you here, Oz. While I agree it would have been nice for Bush Sr. to finish him off, the UN mandate for the war was to push him out of Kuwait. Once that was done the job was done. If we'd tried to go further chances are we would have alienated the meager support from those Arab countries which were supporting us. We would have been virtually alone in the attacks and with no supply base or local air bases for support. It's even possible that Iran, which remained neutral and out of the way while Iraq was pummeled, may have sent troops across the border to prevent us from getting to Baghdad. It could have been a disaster.

[Ozme52]

I have to disagree with you here, Oz. While I agree it would have been nice for Bush Sr. to finish him off, the UN mandate for the war was to push him out of Kuwait. Once that was done the job was done. If we'd tried to go further chances are we would have alienated the meager support from those Arab countries which were supporting us. We would have been virtually alone in the attacks and with no supply base or local air bases for support.

That was certainly the reasoning and the rationalization at that time... and it was short sighted. Hussein continued to persecute shiites, kurds, and anyone in Iraq who vocally objected to his methods. He cheated on the oil for food agreements he made with the UN. And he almost certainly used that money to support terrorism worldwide under the presumption that creating chaos was to his advantage.

It amazingly paralleled the apeasement policies that allowed Hitler to rearm Germany in the 1930's... but that's certainly debatable.

If Iraq had been subdued then, everything would have been different... maybe worse, but more likely better.

It's even possible that Iran, which remained neutral and out of the way while Iraq was pummeled, may have sent troops across the border to prevent us from getting to Baghdad. It could have been a disaster.

At the time, Iraq and Iran were beligerents, enemies. Iran would have welcomed Hussein's elimination, and they did when it finally happened. Iran (supporting insurgents) presumably stepped into vacuum we left by not getting the occupation right in the first place.

The Wehrmacht took Yugoslavia with a minimal force and couldn't control the population with 400,000 troops. Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Personally, I rolled my eyes when Bush claimed victory on that aircraft carrier.

[Thorne]

That was certainly the reasoning and the rationalization at that time... and it was short sighted. Hussein continued to persecute shiites, kurds, and anyone in Iraq who vocally objected to his methods. He cheated on the oil for food agreements he made with the UN. And he almost certainly used that money to support terrorism worldwide under the presumption that creating chaos was to his advantage.

It amazingly paralleled the apeasement policies that allowed Hitler to rearm Germany in the 1930's... but that's certainly debatable.

If Iraq had been subdued then, everything would have been different... maybe worse, but more likely better.

I'm reminded more of 1945, following the surrender of Germany. Supposedly George Patton advocated rearming the Wehrmacht and pushing on against the Russians, under the assumption that we were going to have to fight them sooner or later anyway, it might as well be right then when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do it. Would it have been the smart thing to do? Possibly, but probably not. The same holds true for Iraq in '91. In hindsight it might have been wiser to go on and depose him, but probably not.

At the time, Iraq and Iran were beligerents, enemies. Iran would have welcomed Hussein's elimination, and they did when it finally happened. Iran (supporting insurgents) presumably stepped into vacuum we left by not getting the occupation right in the first place.

True, Iran would probably not have joined with Saddam, but they wouldn't have stood by and let "The Great Satan" move into the region. Iran in 1991 was much more belligerent and threatening than they are now.

The Wehrmacht took Yugoslavia with a minimal force and couldn't control the population with 400,000 troops. Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Personally, I rolled my eyes when Bush claimed victory on that aircraft carrier.

Yeah, and we're having the same problems the Germans did: our troops are not trained or equipped to fight a guerilla war. And the Germans had the chetniks to help them.
BTW, I'm not sure I would qualify an invasion by 21 German divisions as a "minimal force" but I understand your meaning.

[Ozme52]

I'm reminded more of 1945, following the surrender of Germany. Supposedly George Patton advocated rearming the Wehrmacht and pushing on against the Russians, under the assumption that we were going to have to fight them sooner or later anyway, it might as well be right then when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do it. Would it have been the smart thing to do? Possibly, but probably not. The same holds true for Iraq in '91. In hindsight it might have been wiser to go on and depose him, but probably not.

In hindsight...from our own perspective, No. 1) We needed those troops in the Pacific. 2) No one has ever 'successfully' attacked Russia from the west. 3) Because though the relations were tense, we never had that head to head war Patton was predicting... AND 4) They were our allies. You have to do your best to stand by your allies... even if you don't particularly like them.

True, Iran would probably not have joined with Saddam, but they wouldn't have stood by and let "The Great Satan" move into the region. Iran in 1991 was much more belligerent and threatening than they are now.

That would have been the perfect time to invade, conquer, and leave Iraq's neighbors as occupation troops. No Great Satan. No that would have been the great in-and-out campaign the Shrub was hoping for.

Yeah, and we're having the same problems the Germans did: our troops are not trained or equipped to fight a guerilla war. And the Germans had the chetniks to help them.
BTW, I'm not sure I would qualify an invasion by 21 German divisions as a "minimal force" but I understand your meaning.

Hmmm... the Yugoslav and the Greek campaigns both started on April 6th 1941 and I think the 21 divisions was for both campaigns combined... but no reason to quibble as the point is... It takes far more troops to hold territory than it takes to conquer it.

[Thorne]

In hindsight...from our own perspective, No. 1) We needed those troops in the Pacific. 2) No one has ever 'successfully' attacked Russia from the west. 3) Because though the relations were tense, we never had that head to head war Patton was predicting... AND 4) They were our allies. You have to do your best to stand by your allies... even if you don't particularly like them.

#1 - At the time this was believed true, but in hindsight the atom bombs did the job much better. Few, if any, of the regular troops from Europe made it to the Pacific in time to do any serious fighting.
#2 - I agree with you here. But remember, Napoleon did take Moscow, defeating the bulk of the Russian army at Borodino. The remnants of the Russian forces just sat it out in the steppes and Urals until winter drove the French out.
#3 - No, we didn't, and we're all glad about that! I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with Patton. He was a political nightmare, but a remarkable soldier.
#4 - I agree here, as well. Which is why...

That would have been the perfect time to invade, conquer, and leave Iraq's neighbors as occupation troops. No Great Satan. No that would have been the great in-and-out campaign the Shrub was hoping for.

... it would have been the WRONG time to invade. Our allies at the time, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab countries, did NOT want Iraq taken out at that time, mainly because it was an excellent buffer against the Iranians.

Hmmm... the Yugoslav and the Greek campaigns both started on April 6th 1941 and I think the 21 divisions was for both campaigns combined... but no reason to quibble as the point is... It takes far more troops to hold territory than it takes to conquer it.

The Italians invaded Greece at the end of October, 1940, because Mussolini was "jealous" of Hitler's successes in Europe. When the Greeks drove them back into Albania, humiliating the Fascists in Italy, Hitler added Greece to his plans against Yugoslavia in order to help Mussolini save face. The bulk of the German forces drove into, and through, Yugoslavia first, forcing the surrender in about 12 days. It took another 10 days to drive the British out of Greece.

[Ozme52]

... it would have been the WRONG time to invade. Our allies at the time, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab countries, did NOT want Iraq taken out at that time, mainly because it was an excellent buffer against the Iranians.

I still think that's debateable. If anything, and strictly an opinion, the Saudi's would have loved to control Iraq... and buffer states are still buffers so long as you control them.

I think that whole "our allies didn't want us to" thing was a rationalization.

The Italians invaded Greece at the end of October, 1940, because Mussolini was "jealous" of Hitler's successes in Europe. When the Greeks drove them back into Albania, humiliating the Fascists in Italy, Hitler added Greece to his plans against Yugoslavia in order to help Mussolini save face. The bulk of the German forces drove into, and through, Yugoslavia first, forcing the surrender in about 12 days. It took another 10 days to drive the British out of Greece.

True... but... 22 days to conquer. Forever to control.