Three years in: The War in Iraq doesn't even have the dignity of a name other than the "War in Iraq," and after about the first month it has been a war of attrition. Wars of attrition are dispiriting as hell: the cost in lives and treasure piles up, atrocities and resentments accumulate on all sides, idealism drains down into deep-worn ruts of reflexive behavior, civilian populations on all sides lose patience and despair, and the causes either turn opaque or to fanaticism while entropy squeezes the whole affair in its rusty hands.
When you are an occupying force, when you strive to build positive change, your opposition simply has to outlast you, to prevent the chaos from congealing into something recognizable as progress, something to hang your hope hat on.
It began with a victory march in 2003, a white-hot razor operation through buttery opposition right up to the palace doors of the murderous despot Saddam Hussein, and Bush adminsitration planners and their cheerleaders crowed and strutted, their plumage high, the first Gulf War finally won, their hubris rising in a cloud utterly guaranteed to offend the Geometry of the Universe.
For all the effectiveness of the original shock and awe sweep to Baghdad, the planners and foreseers hadn't quite got around to planning or foreseeing what to do with victory's child once delivered. The "victors" performed ancient rituals of territorial acquisition while simultaneously denying that any territory had been acquired; they presumed a simple "us" vs. "them" conflict had clearly, almost comically, resulted in a big "W" for the "us" team on the scoreboard, even though what had actually transpired was more akin to winning the pregame coin toss.
Immediately, disruptive forces from within (Baathists, Saddamist clansmen, resentful Sunnis, Islamists) and without (jihadis, al-Qaeda, scheming neighbors) burst out and in like respective boils and puncture wounds upon the envisioned grateful and acquiescent body politic. Chaos reared up proud and implacable, a retributionist dust devil here, a mad whirlwind of carnage and omnidirectional hatred there.
And so the time has passed: Since Bush's "mission accomplished" statement almost three years ago, more than 2,300 Americans have died, the "insurgency" has inflated to the brink of sectarian civil war — many say well beyond that brink — and the president's own standing has plummeted. A recent Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey found only 40 percent of respondents said Bush was trustworthy, a 22-point drop from September of 2003 - a direct result of the "credibility gap" (to resurrect a Vietnam-era term) between administration rhetoric and stark reality.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JP
Had Bush made the case you've made here in the beginning, before setting expectations for a very short conflict with all the hype about "Shock and Awe" (which is still to me a very arrogant and presumptive term to use publicly before you attack) - public opinion might be a little different.
Your assessment is fair but I disagree on two points. First, that "only a fool would have REALLY bought the administration's rosy scenarios along the way". I believe in building a strong case for war with good intelligence, and making a truthful case to the people. We didn't have convincing evidence about WMD, the reason most frequently cited, and that alone is a red flag. The case for spreading democracy or making "positive change" wasn't made, it was "regime change" due to an impending threat. Now that the scenario painted for us was clearly wrong, it's hard to have confidence in the administration.
Second, I think the truth is the "threat" is more directly to Israel, and perhaps to our economic interests in the middle East, than a direct threat to the USA. I didn't feel for one minute threatened by Iraqis dropping bombs on the US mainland. If we're going to fight for Middle Eastern safety, we should be honest about it.
Finally, any comments on the assertion that "I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein" in yesterday's Cleveland speech, colorfully illustrated by Keith Olbermann?
2 - gazelle
is the lesson from this, in spite of the neocons,
(1) to be yet more overtly unilateral and be truthful about the stated aims :: iraq's been a threat to israel, that is why the US is occupying and installing a new government,
or
(2) to take multilateralism more seriously and follow the security council and sanctions regimes to the letter, after a properly reformed UN and global governance reflecting current realities :: iraq was a regional threat with possible WMDs and too much aggrieved/aggressive for global oil business stability (opec, oic, al, wto..).
I do understand, not buy, the argument (1) which EO makes. i dont see meaningful lessons being drawn by the US either :: either (1) or (2) for example.
It seems there is no high ground, just a lot of dirt. still (2) if properly done is the better option than (1).
best
3 - Eric Olsen
thanks guys - I disagree that Israel is the deus ex machina behind this and/or all our action in the Middle East. What magical hold is Israel presumed to have that causes us to dance about like a marionette doing its bidding? Israel is our closest ally in the region and our interests often coincide with theirs; when they do they do and when they don't they don't.
The time had come to be aggressively proactive in teh region and Iraq was the logical place for that proactivity.
4 - Dave Nalle
Oh Eric, don't you know tha the bearded elders of AIPAC pull the strings of our puppet government here in America. Shame on you for your blindness!
That aside, great and realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq.
Dave
5 - gazelle
What magical hold is Israel presumed to have that causes us to dance about like a marionette doing its bidding?
good question. why is it an ally. there are obviously ties that bind.
and israel is more developed than its neighbours, only since 1948? but you are right the other major stability factors were shah's iran till 1979, post nasir egypt and saudi arabia, all decades behind.
and why after saddam fought post-revolutionary iran with US assistance during the eighties did things eventually come to such a a head that all of a sudden saddam decided to invade kuwait, threaten saudi arabia and burn the oilfields.
and why did the US backed mujahidin in afghanistan after defeating the soviets suddenly have little useful to do.
I would call it neglect and opportunism involving mercenary and client states.
why iraq becomes a site for pro-activity after the 9/11 suddenly is beyond me, unless there were reasons lying about from before - such as 'his desperate scud attacks on israel' in 1991 and proclaiming to be an arab/islamic hero standing up to the US and Israel, in the background of having little else to do after the costly loan-heavy war with iran 'defending the arab states', dispute with kuwait which iraq claimed in the first place, and islamic (not arab) resurgence concurrent with the palestinian intifada.
and of course the neocon links with likud are well-known. hence israel.
but my argument was really centred on the unilateral v multilateral equation, and israel as an ally of distintion in the region was a convenient example. there are obviously other factors in US policy in the region. i agree.
best
6 - Eric Olsen
thanks Dave, much appreciated!
good points gazelle, thanks for clarifying. Sometimes it seems like the best multilateralism is clear and decisive unilaterism, but I realize the efficacy of this is as the exception rather than the rule.
7 - valery
"Saddam was a dangerous malignancy...."
And now most of the civilized world recognizes Dubya Bush as a far more dangerous disease.
8 - Harvard Liberal
Relax. Here is the final word on Iraq.
The mystery is solved.
9 - MCH
Here's how our soldiers who are actually serving in Iraq feel, according to Natalie Davis' "Iraq, What the Troops Say" post on BC March 2, '06:
"On Feb. 28, Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies and independent pollster Zogby released the first-ever survey of ground troops in Iraq. Get this: According to the poll, a whopping 72 percent of US soldiers surveyed say troops should leave Iraq within the next year - and 29 percent say the US should send the soldiers home right now."
10 - Bliffle
"The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people,"
Absurd on the face of it. There is no evidence this is true, and there is no a priori supposition that supports the assertion. Pure political hyperbole and propaganda.
11 - nehad ismail
Iraq is in a bloody mess. The US and its allies are bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq. The killing spree is proceeding unabated. For every American soldier killed, some 60 Iraqis are slaughtered mainly by an assortment of insurgents. terrorists, sectarian death squads.
The top priority is to get the Iraqis trained to take care of their own security. This will provide the face saving formula for the US to leave.
The Iraqi security forces are not yet able to take care of their own security.
nehad ismail,
camberley,
england
12 - Bliffle
"The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid,..."
Isn't that ideology Islam? So, doesn't that make this a McCarthyist attack on Islam?
13 - Eric Olsen
If you mean the part of Islam that seeks to force the world to adhere to a fictional form of Islam that they claim existed 1000 years ago via means of mass murder of civilians and intimidation, then I guess the answer is "yes."
I believe the vast majority of Muslims would reject this ideology
14 - JP
Bliffle, re #10 - I dispute that assertion too, with the exception of the soldiers currently in Iraq of course; outside of them and any Americans in neighboring states, Iraq wasn't a threat to our security.
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Eric,
I disagree with your analysis of the situation. Your country went into Iraq, unhorsed a dictator and have overstayed your welcome there.
At this point, Americans are doing little more than trampling about in Sumerian manure. One life lost to a battle is too many, but considering that your soldiers have been there for three years, 2,000 casualties are not that many to suffer.
So what is the solution?
The solution is to recognize that the three Turkish sanjaks cobbled into Iraq in 1919 ought to be allowed to go their own way. It was a mistake to cobble them together in the first place, but you can't cry over spilt beer. You can wipe it up, though.
Kurdistan ought to be allowed to become autonomous at the very least, if not independent, with a small American "tripwire" force to protect it. Mosul should be part of Kurdistan.
The Shia territories in the south ought to be given the option of joining Iran or becoming independent of Iran. British troops should be pulled out of Basra.
The Sunni district of the country ought to be encouraged to hook up with Jordan to form the base of an Arab state that can stretch from the Jordan River to the Iranian foothills. If the Olmert régime forcibly pulls out of most of Judea and Samaria, this Arab state can take over and incorporate the territory into its own and attempt to provide a stable régime tht can absorb the refugees from the 1948-9 War of Israel Independence.
In return for us sacrificing our land, we get all of the Gaza Strip, all of Jerusalem, the settlement blocs designated by Kadima, and the Golan Heights; the Arabs living in Gaza are permanently removed to the new Arab Kingdom and a tripwire force of American soldiers are stationed in Judea and Samaria. Also, American foreign aid to Israel ends.
I don't like this solution - it costs us in Israel a lot, and from the point of view of Judaism, it may not work at all - but it is the most realistic one to your problems on offer. It solves three big problems. It creates a possible future for the peoples of Mesopotomia, it gets rid of the "Palestine refugee" problem once and for all, and finally - it ends the regime of Hamas here. In sum, it builds nations and allows the majority of your soldiers to come home.
Then you face a real problem which will dog all of you for the rest of your lives: paying the bill from this war.
16 - JP
Ruvy, I respect your very thoughtful comments. When you say it might not work from the point of view of Judaism, how do you mean that exactly? Simple ignorance here, not intending to insult by my qeustion.
Going back to the creation of Iraq, I also see that as the beginning of the mess; all three groups should be appropriated land in a more rational way. It's obvious the existing lines aren't conducive to agreement.
Eric, I have a question - expanding the scope just a bit, how do you see this in relation to our aborted effort to get Osama Bin Laden? I believe he was the true threat to America, and to the American mainland; do you feel that mission should have been accomplished before Iraq was undertaken? If not, why not?
17 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
JP,
According to my faith, this land is not ours to give away. We Jews were gifted with this land by G-d and are forbidden to give it away. The proposal of the Olmert (pronounced eau le merde)régime does precisely that. It is my personal opinion that the Olmert's proposal will not come to pass for that precise reason.
Nevertheless, even without Israel giving up territory, the proposal could still fly, only that the latter portions relating to Israel and Arab refugees would not necessarily apply. The basic idea is to create a viable Arab kingdom of Sunni Arabs, a Kurdish state and an entity of some kind for Shia Arabs AND to allow most of the American forces to come home.
18 - Eric Olsen
I disagree with splitting up Iraq - the factions can work out a political compromise that will keep them at least loosely unifed. We have already seen that. It doesn't make sense to try to disentangle them geographically and not sure what Iraq has to do with a plan for Israel, anyway.
JP, of course it would have been prefereable to capture/kill bin Laden sooner rather than later, but also don't know why that should have held up operations in Iraq. They are related, but only broadly
19 - JP
Eric, wasn't BL a more immediate threat to America?
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Eric,
The whole area that we are talking about is not all that big. It is about 15 hours by tank from Baghdad to Amman. It is about 13 hours by car. People traveled from Iraq to Israel to live. In essence, we are talking about the fertile crescent, with Mesopotamia on the east and Israel on the west. When you view it through that lens, it is clear that all the territories in the region are interconnected in one way or another. And the truth is - they are.
21 - ss
Eric, congrats on a very good article.
I'd have to agree there isn't much we can do but see it through. And I'd have to agree Ruvy's plan is likely to create even more chaos in a troubled region, though in a way he raises a valid a point.
Jordan is ruled by a peaceful reformer. Why aren't we spending one tenth of what we spend in Iraq to aid King Abdallah in his peaceful reforms? Wouldn't a strong modern ecomomy and a constitutional monarchy (in the sense that England is a costitutional monarchy) in largely Sunni Jordan create oppurtunities for Iraqi Sunnis that would help ease thier fears?
Wouldn't the reforms we want to see be more attractive to others in the region if they were accomplished peacefully and without a Western army on their land?
Lastly, and most importantly, why do we consitently only see the part of this equation that allows us to exercise influence by force, and totally ignore pieces of the puzzle that would use peaceful means?
22 - td
This article is a very well though out assumption. My problem with this though is that by putting all our belief in one train of unproven though we may be missing out on better solutions. For example.
"...for a variety of reasons practical, logistical, political, and diplomatic, it was simply not feasible to invade and overthrow the governments of either North Korea or Iran"
I don't disagree that invading either of these countries is practical or feasible. My problem with this statement is that it assumes Iraq was. The Iraq war is not over. We do not know when it will be or if it will succeed. So you cannot say with any certainty that the Iraq was practical or feasible. If it ends up taking 40 years is it 'practical'. If it ends up costing trillions of dollars was it 'feasible'.
"....was Iraq under Saddam Hussein a threat?"
Yes. But then you go on to assume that Saddam was the highest priority threat that was 'feasible'. This war was about terror, not just Saddam. And the money spent on Iraq could have been used to put economic pressure on countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran that are more of a threat in terms of Islamic Extremist Terrorism than Saddam was.
"And the Iraq invasion has clearly met its corollary goal of fostering change in the region."
What, because of one quote. I don't buy it. You assume that Iraq will succeed and that as a result it will effect the region.
What if Iraq does not succeed. What if regardless of our efforts it falls into a brutal civil war between the Sunni and Shia sects. What effect will that have on the region, on terrorism, and on our economic stability.
"...helping the Iraqis defeat the terrorists in their land, we bring greater security to our own,"
You assume that it will work out for the best and then use this assumption as a basis for proof that the war was worth it. I can easily do the same and assume the worst and use it as a basis for proof that the war was not worth it.
"I agree and can't see any other choice."
I think this is the worst statement of it all. Every decision has an opportunity cost. There is never one perfect solution. This kind of blind faith is what leads to shortsighted decision making.
Was Iraq worth it? I think Iraq was a very worthwhile undertaking.
But whether it was 'worth it' compared to the many other worthwhile undertakings we could have pursued instead in the fight against terrorism is left to been seen.
23 - [MR]Chip
People often make comparisons with the situation under Saddam. But in order to evaluate the usefulness of the American troops in Iraq, you'll have to start at t=0, right after the moment we now know as 'mission accomplished'. Have things gotten better since then? What has been achieved? Are the people of Iraq better off now? Is the opposition stronger or weaker? Are less people dying or more?
People who say 'stay the course' might want to have a look at where that road is leading.
24 - John Doe
"But the only reason he didn't have WMD was because of an ongoing, expensive, and onerous international system of sanctions. The sanctions and military efforts and expense required to enforce them could not have been sustained forever."
I think that if you consider the cost of this invasion in US lives and treasure, it seems inconcievable that maintaining sanctions wouldn't have been cheaper. While I"m far from a millitary expert, but I don't think that most people would believe that sanctions would cost more than a prolonged war. And like you said, most people didn't REALLY believe that it would be a short victorious war. If the rest of the world got sick of paying it, the US could've picked up the tab and we would've still come out on top.
25 - Jim,MtnViewCA,USA
I don't know.
If you consider that the US was flying air missions for what--ten year?--over Iraq, that was not a solution that would work forever.
Weren't the sanctions accused of killing thousands of Iraqis every month, esp children?
Doesn't the Oil-for-food investigation show the sanctions were falling apart on their own due to successful bribery of Euro and UN leaders?
Time will tell where the road leads. The reporting on the war makes it really difficult to determine where things stand. But it seems that with multiple elections and with thousands of Iraqis signing up to join their armed forces and police that the people have a chance to choose the direction of their country.