Given our most recent class discussion, I have decided to try and tackle briefly this question: Given its after-effects, was the Iraq invasion of 2003 worth it?
Because the mission has taken longer and resulted in more American casualties than many had anticipated, the quick answer is probably no. This is not to mention the problems it has caused the US in dealing with Iraq's neighbor Iran. By taking out its main counterbalancer, Iran was left free to improve its standing in the Middle East without a proximate challenger. If the old regime under Saddam Hussein were still in power, it is not unreasonable to thinks that efforts would have been made to counter the growing threat Iran poses in the region. That is not to say it's a bad thing Mr. Hussein is no longer with us and doing his thing; in addition to the suffering caused by Saddam's brutal style of ruling (which would still be occurring), it's certainly very possible that had Iraq been left unchecked, it would have eventually pursued a nuclear weapons program. However, given the illegitimate grounds on which the US used to invade Iraq (then-presumed WMDs, now-quest for oil), containing Iran has become much more difficult, if not impossible in the short term. Because the situations are quite similar, it's hard to imagine that states (outside of Israel and probably others in the Middle East) would offer their support or see the US' intentions as benign. Outside of global support, logistics would also be a problem for the US military as American troops are still actively involved in Afghanistan in addition to Iraq. Although Iran sits between those two states, it's still hard to imagine the Obama administration wanting to engage in another potentially costly conflict.
That there might be good enough to end the discussion on the matter, but I won't close the book just yet, and that is because we have yet to read the final chapter of the Iraq invasion. Because US engagement in Iraq is not yet over, I don't think it's entirely fair to call the mission a complete failure. Not yet, anyways. IF, and notice that's a big 'IF', the US can help to establish a stable, democratic government of, for, and by the Iraqi people (that can function on its own without the American troops there to hold it up), I might be able to tell you a different story, one of how the US heroically saved the Iraqi people from a vicious dictatorship and installed a new democratic government that helped it take down its old rival in Iran.
Ok, ok. So it's most likely not going to end that way, and my post would probably not be as glowing as that. But I think it would be fair to say that if we were to achieve our goal of establishing a democracy in a state that was a once an authoritarian regime (that was largely unwilling to comply with US interests), the Iraq invasion could be called at least a minor success. After all, can we really say that we expected the conflict and occupation to last a couple of months or our troops to leave completely unscathed? Maybe that was the expectation at the time (based on the outcome of Bush Sr. Desert Storm invastion), but Bush Sr. wasn't attempting to do what Bush Jr. attempted with his campaign. In other words, the US wasn't going to achieve what it wanted without setbacks and sacrifices along the way (and still won't, most likely). I'll admit that I could be saying that using hindsight (which is somewhat better than my actual sight) or it could be that I was too young at the time to remember now just how swiftly we initially defeated the Iraqis. I just don't know. Point is: something can yet be salvaged from this mess, and that would be a stable Iraqi democracy.
Easier said than done, and I agree that it will still take from now until the point when that is accomplished (if it is even accomplished). But we should try, right?! Ok, that's enough from me. Time for your thoughts. Go!
