The Iraq War in Perspective

The second and still ongoing Iraq war was a war of choice, not necessity. To paraphrase what a French statesman of the eighteenth century said about an ill-advised and unwarranted execution, it was also a blunder. There were other viable policy options available to the United States to meet the challenges posed by Saddam Hussein. In particular, the sanctions regime could have been reformed to allow Iraq more leeway in what it could import but also to limit the resources coming under the regime's direct control. Inspections could have been designed to provide considerable if not total confidence that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction. Odds are that Saddam Hussein would have remained in power, but his ability to threaten his neighbors and his own citizens would likely have been circumscribed. The United States could well have accomplished a change in regime behavior and a change in regime threat without regime change.

Some would grant that this second war was not necessary but would hasten to add that it was a justifiable or even desirable war of choice. The best argument for this perspective is the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the avoidance of a possible (but by no means inevitable) future in which Saddam broke out of constraints imposed on him in the wake of the first Iraq war and dedicated enormous resources to military might and adventures. Avoiding this certainly belongs in the plus column; the problem is the associated costs, which include the American, coalition, and Iraqi lives lost and diminished, the huge financial expense, the enduring strain on the U.S. military, the relative enhancement of Iran's position in the region, the rise in terrorism and anti-Americanism, and the hard to measure but all too real cost in the time and attention available to senior officials to devote to other pressing concerns.

George W. Bush inherited a robust economy, a budgetary surplus, a rested military, and, even after 9/11, a world largely at peace and well-disposed toward the United States. He handed off to his successor a recession, a massive deficit and debt, a stretched and exhausted military, two wars, and a world marked by pronounced anti-Americanism. I am hard-pressed to find another set of back-to-back presidential transitions in which so many of the basic features of the domestic and international landscapes changed so dramatically for the worse. The Iraq war of course cannot be blamed for all of this, but it absorbed a great deal of this country's resources and, as a consequence, contributed significantly to the deterioration of the absolute and relative position of the United States in the world. It is quite possible history will judge the war's greatest cost to be opportunity cost, the squandering by the United States of a rare and in many ways unprecedented opportunity to shape the world and the nature of international relations for decades to come. Instead, Iraq contributed to the emergence of a world in which power is more widely distributed than ever before and U.S. ability to shape this world much diminished.

To be fair, it is too soon to calculate additional benefits should Iraq stabilize and come to resemble the model society that many of the war's advocates suggested it would be. But such "success" is highly unlikely given the many fault lines that divide Iraqi society, and even if it were to come about, nothing could erase the considerable costs of the war. More likely is a future in which the costs of U.S. policy continue to mount (albeit at a reduced pace) and Iraq remains divided and falls far short of constituting a normal much less model country.

Still others would say that the principal problem with the second Iraq war was with its implementation, that it was a necessary and even desirable undertaking but that it was carried out poorly so that its costs were increased and benefits decreased. Wherever one comes out on the advisability of the war, it is hard to dispute the criticisms over the conduct of the war and its aftermath. Indeed, criticisms of such decisions as going to war with a relatively small number of troops, demobilizing (or not working to remobilize) the Iraq army, and extending de-Ba'athification beyond the most senior level are frequently made and widely accepted for good reason.

The one question that needs to be raised in this context is whether a "neat" and successful outcome would have materialized even if the United States had used far more troops and made far better decisions about how to manage Iraqi reconstruction. It is not at all obvious this would have been the case given the nature of Iraqi society and its political culture, although it is highly likely that things could and would have turned out better if policies had been better. There is no getting around the reality that the second Iraq war was a war of choice; had it been carried out differently, it still would have been an expensive choice and almost certainly a bad one.

Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars.

Comments

[SamEllison]

The revisionist view that the progressive community was for invading Iraq if somehow we had listened to Gen Shinseki is ludicrous. We used his congressional testimony to discredit Rumsfeld. If the truth was told by the Bush admin we never would have invaded, they would not have gotten the vote, they had to lie and they knew it.
There is one perspective that seems to get lost, Saddam was more an enemy of Al Qaeda than an enemy of the west. His police-state and others like it is what spawned the ideology, lots of people knew that and they were ignored.

[LizM]

I’m not sure I understand your reasoning when you say that there are those who would grant that this war was not necessary but that it was a justifiable war of choice.

Based on what? The argument for this perspective that you present here - a future in which Saddam breaks out of the box he was put in by the international community and allowed to expand his military might and engage in military adventures - doesn’t really pass the smell test, as they say, especially in view of your list of the costs of this unnecessary war. You say that avoiding this scenario belongs in the plus column. But, that would assume that this scenario had a snowballs chance in Hell of ever materializing in the first place!

And, frankly, I don’t think there is anyone worth their salt who would say that this war was competently executed but that doesn’t give anyone any extra ammunition, much less credibility, to make the case that this war was necessary or that it would have had a better cost-benefit ratio.

...continued...

[LizM]

...continued...

I couldn’t agree more with your bottom line, though: “There is no getting around the reality that the second Iraq war was a war of choice; had it been carried out differently, it still would have been an expensive choice and almost certainly a bad one.”

But, I’m left wondering where you think we should go from here and whether or not you are a fan of the Biden strategy - not the strategy as it has been portrayed by the majority of the media and by the previous administration - but the strategy which would seek to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement allowing for a responsible withdrawal of US forces without leaving a failed and fragmented state in their wake.

[toadicux]

How was Saddam ever a threat to the US? He did our bidding in the Iraq-Iran war, he nicely asked our ambassador her opinion about invading Kuwait, and he kept the Shiites and Kurds under control, much to the happiness of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. His country was devastated by a decade of sanctions, he didn't even control the airspace over his country.

Oh, I forgot. We needed to get to Afganistan.

[mitaka]

This guy didn't object to the Iraq War when it was being talked up and waged, and he is now offering a half-hearted apology with some interesting contortions which tell you quite a bit about the fundamental philosophical pathology he shares with the neoconservatives.

"It is quite possible history will judge the war's greatest cost to be opportunity cost, the squandering by the United States of a rare and in many ways unprecedented opportunity to shape the world and the nature of international relations for decades to come. Instead, Iraq contributed to the emergence of a world in which power is more widely distributed than ever before and U.S. ability to shape this world much diminished."

He is not so much worried about what the 'real' costs are but the 'opportunity' costs. He thinks that US has the right to shape the world and laments the wider distribution of power around the world. No wonder that when the time and opportunity strikes, he will probably also cheer up another war of choice when the time and opportunity come. There is little else that his article contributes to the conversation.

[ScreenName05]

Generally, when you are going in the wrong direction, it is better to turn around and go the other way. Going in the wrong direction just gets you to somewhere you don't want to go faster. We have been going in the wrong direction for 8 years, it is time to turn around and go in the right direction, and that doesn't mean Iran or Pakistan. It means coming home and working on improving America.

[johnbatist]

even an untrained monkey would figure this out.

but the government and their behind the scene puppet masters? that will happen when hell freezes over.

[ScreenName05]

If Iraq stabilizes that would be about the same as if Iraq had never been destroyed? Uhh? So how does that make the Iraq war justified? We are getting weird politics these days. Here's a thought, what if Al Gore had won the election in 2000 and started us down the road to energy independence, infrastructure rebuilding and reducing carbon emissions instead of two meaningless wars? Um, I think the answer is about a $5T difference in our budget deficit, and 4,000 less dead American soldiers. And we would likely have avoided the depression as there would have been no need to constantly pump-up the economy through financial manipulations and bad banking practices - Maybe $7T.

But whose counting?

[AntiRethuglican]

Al Gore DID win the election in 2004~

[tnkeating]

I don't quite remember it that way, but you all can believe what you want. This is America, your free to think, talk, meet with others in public. That doesn't sound like much, I'm sure, but thank a vet.

[LITU]

Thank a vet? Well, I'm a vet, and I fought against a concocted enemy who posed no threat to the citizens of this country. That would be the case in every military conflict for the past 60 years. No imminent threat.

I want no thanks. And your jingoism is insulting.

[poppycock]

Yes - but Sociopath in Chief would disagree

[maddy48]

Richard Dear, How is this piece timely? How might this perspective change a most probable disasterous outcome for the US, for Iraq, for the world. We broke it & broke ourselves. Too bad for our kids & theirs.

[MacQ]

Easy for you to say it could have been done without military intervention.
Let's see you do it in afghanistan...in POCK-ee-Ston...in Iran. How about North Korea if it's so easy.
Go!

[johnbatist]

the Empire's total collapse is now eminent . the rot has reach the very core. it will simple fall apart like soviet union had done following the exact same path.

[biwee]

Where was Haass 6 and a half years ago????

[Huffy108]

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_solved118.html

American Free Press
 
Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:
 
"All the (intelligence services) of America and Europe know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in Iraq and Afghanistan."
 
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001. Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America's propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.
 

[Huffy108]

Whoops, sorry folks. A lady in Italy just replied to my post with this:

"I remember that article in the Italian Corriere della Sera; Cossiga was being sarcastic.
He wanted to accuse the left to go after conspiracy theories.
Cossiga is notorious in Italy for his sarcasm and he's well known for being a very strong supporter of the US and Israel.

It's ironic that those sarcastic words used by Cossiga to discredit the left and indeed any critics of the US and Israel's governments' policies are used within the 9/11 truth movement in support of their theses."

[VSamuels]

The one good thing that may have come out of the Iraq War is that more folks now can see through the veiled relationship that took America from defending its interests, for that of Israel. America favoring any nation state over another is a critical moment but when America takes and stakes its position with Israel, knowing that it hides behind rhetoric shielding itself from obeying UN resolutions simply because it enjoys the friendship of the US, we set expose our own hypocrisy and give excuses to extremists seeking revenge. Too often the US has failed to reign in Israel and no where was this more apparent than in George W. Bush's hapless foray into Baghdad, where it was Israel who was threatened, not us.

Indeed, not all within the CFR were behind this fiasco, but many of those who were given the forum appeared to cheerleader this mess and now are silent as their original words and support are gone from the headlines. I hope this blog isn't what is suppose to pass as the After Action Report as it is woefully IN-accurate and UN-compelling to convince one that so many persons here were moved to assist in the killing of 100s of thousands of folks for the unclear motives of a few neo-con clowns and their puppet masters in Israel.