But I didn't say that, did I? I said it was one of the arguments being made in favour of regime change, and some people who happened to be in government subscribed to it, but that the argument was sidelined by the security rationale. (Which is why it wasn't just a "neocon war"). The arguments, the debates, the policy making, it was all pretty loud, and it was there to read and follow.
Iraq - Still, In Fact, Going On
- Thread starter padraig (u.s.)
- Start date
But I didn't say that, did I? I said it was one of the arguments being made in favour of regime change, and some people who happened to be in government subscribed to it, but that the argument was sidelined by the security rationale. (Which is why it wasn't just a "neocon war"). The arguments, the debates, the policy making, it was all pretty loud, and it was there to read and follow.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
Fair enough, I've probably misremembered some things. I hadn't really thought about it before, it just popped in to my head reading this thread, so I posted it.
You're clearly suggesting that the war may have been motivated by moral reasons, out of concern for the Iraqi people.
Bullshit.
Plenty of work was done on "what to do next" (e.g. State Department's massive Future of Iraq project) - but what actually happened was that the post-war transition was delegated to the Department of Defense, probably the central decision leading to subsequent disaster. Rumsfeld had no interest in nation building; his view of the war was, go in, take Saddam down, leave again, job done.
Even so, none of this stuff:
...was, you know, part of the Game Plan.
Even so, none of this stuff:
...was, you know, part of the Game Plan.
Really? Examples pls.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
But it is, nonetheless, broadly what happened. You can give reasons why a peaceful, democratic Iraq somehow failed to appear after the invasion, but if the argument is that the nation-building project was left to the wrong arm of the US government that doesn't let the US off the hook in any way, does it?
And, if you've been paying attention to what I've been writing, letting the US government off the hook is precisely what I'm not doing. I'm attempting to explain why specific Bush administration decisions led to the outcome. What you want me to say is that there was never a legitimate regime change argument, which I won't, because there were several.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
OK, fair enough.
It is hard to, but all the examples of non-intervention have been equally disastrous. The total disengagement from the Syrian conflict at a crucial time is a compelling case in point.
People are happy to look at Libya as a major example of a terribly unfocused and hasty military intervention (certainly not at the behest of the Americans, it ought to be pointed out), and they are right to do so, but the context of the time was Gaddafi's forces surging to Benghazi in an exceptionally menacing manner.
It is also worth noting that other powers are perfectly willing to engage themselves, for example the Saudis or Iranians or Russians, particularly if the West does not engage itself.
People are happy to look at Libya as a major example of a terribly unfocused and hasty military intervention (certainly not at the behest of the Americans, it ought to be pointed out), and they are right to do so, but the context of the time was Gaddafi's forces surging to Benghazi in an exceptionally menacing manner.
It is also worth noting that other powers are perfectly willing to engage themselves, for example the Saudis or Iranians or Russians, particularly if the West does not engage itself.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Perhaps because they were all equally badly planned? Or maybe it's an inevitable response in a part of the world where people, whatever their politics or beliefs, are just sick to death with European and American meddling, whatever its supposed motivation?
Also, I don't really like to do counterfactuals, but it is surely worth considering what would have become of Iraq without some species of intervention. Apart from other potential outcomes, the idea that in 2003 the Saddam regime was safely contained is a fallacy; on the contrary, both Russia and France were very interested in dealing with it again. Iraqi society was in a state of dangerous decay from within, while the Ba'athist leadership was gaining an increasingly strong hand, through rogue state connections, UN corruption and various international overtures. Iraq was not a problem that was by any means solved, and the country remained technically in breach of UN resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War.
Ah, I getcha - you mean like the Russian invasion of Afghanistan?