Second guessing on Iraq

Who am I with my limited knowledge to second guess these decisions? As they say, hindsight is always 20/20.

However, there were plenty of experts at the time who cautioned about this so-called ending of the war and between 2011 and today many more experts of various disciplines warned of the problems developing in Iraq and Syria. If nothing else, the history of internal conflict and the early behavior of Iraqi leadership should have been clues, not to mention one party in a conflict cannot end a war on its own.

The real question was whether or not we had accomplished any goal sufficient to justify the sacrifices made by our military personnel. It’s questionable whether simply “getting out” meets that criteria.

Another apparent simple question is why getting in seems so easy.

In 1960 the logic of the Communist threat and the Domino Effect got us into Viet Nam. Democratic presidents escalated the war and a Republican ended our involvement which in that case ended the war as a loss and waste of 50,000 plus American lives. In the 21st century we have the reverse between Democrats and Republicans, but now the world is a much different, much smaller place and the enemy has the ability to come to us. Does a brutal Islamic insurgency mean anything to us?

Could the US be secure without vigilance and involvement in the Middle East? How do we factor in ethnic, tribal and sectarian divisions (which our naive politicians apparently have not done)?

“All I’ve said about this job, I take it back,” Mr. Biden later recalled telling Mr. Obama. “Thank you for giving me the chance to end this goddamn war.”

“Joe,” he remembered the president responding, “I’m glad you got to do it.”
For two men who had run for office on the promise of getting out of Iraq, it seemed like a moment of validation. But that moment has proved achingly ephemeral. It was not the end of the war or even the end of their involvement.

Two and a half years later, Mr. Obama has ordered up to 300 Special Operations members back to Iraq and may yet authorize airstrikes to prevent the collapse of the government at the hands of a brutal Islamic insurgency. New York Times June 23, 2014

Can we simply end a war on our terms? Can we look the other way and not get involved at all? Maybe history will have the answers fifty-years for now, but it is clear to me that playing politics and relying on hope and naive optimism doesn’t work in the twenty-first century.

5 comments

  1. Interesting points made here. My personal view is that the purpose of American involvement in wars like Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan is to make obscene profit for the defense industry and the ultra-rich sociopaths who own them. And of course, allowing the oil industry to do its thing world-wide is another theme of modern war.

    Like

  2. When conflict created on other shores again hit our homeland, watch the reaction from our “back down”, “let them fight their own war” advocates. These lawless terrorists have no boundaries. The recent release of detainees from Guantanamo have promised to carry on their fight. There are no lines of battle like there were in WW-I or WW-II. Some would call me a hawk but others know that I truly believe in human rights – even those of warring factions. To see thousands of innocent people slaughtered for no other reason than that of being of a different religion should sicken anyone – especially if members of your family or homeland are involved.

    Yes, these type of wars have been going on for thousands of years – but aren’t times different today one would ask? The world of today has the intelligence and ability to communicate in real time. Leaders should not be allowed to lead by pilfering from their constituents or by mass murder. The civilized world needs to learn when and how to intervene in these situations and that does not always meant the U.S. dollars or troops.

    You do not end a war by exiting the battle field saying “have at it boys” especially when we have dumped millions of dollars and lost thousands of our finest soldiers. If a leader is weak and not as effective as they should be they should be removed. Momentary tranquility in a country does not mean all is right. Growth in the economy and the pulse of the people are the real tests of a good government.

    We can not say we did not see this coming. Even the locals are now saying their government has failed them and our answer was to “end the war”! It is obvious we will be involved – one way or another.

    Like

  3. .

    Iraq and Syria are similar situations. Both are unnatural pluralistic nations created after WW1
    by carving up the old Ottoman Empire. Syria is a multi-religious, multi-cultural pluralistic nation
    held together because of a strong man in power [Assad.] Iraq under Saddam was the very same.
    Once the strong man is taken out, all the different tribal and religious factions in such artificially
    created states will naturally fight against each other.

    .

    Like

Leave a Reply