Twenty years on from the US invasion, Iraq is now largely ignored by the international community. And yet it is a country that still faces huge problems. It is divided along religious, ethnic, and political lines. It suffers from weak and corrupt governance and high unemployment. But while it is usual to cast the invasion and occupation as an unmitigated disaster, is this really the case? The answer appears to be a little more complex than it seems. (By the way, do remember that this is not a debate about the legality of the war. The fact that it was illegal is clear. Instead, it focuses on a rather different question: the longer term political and international consequences of the invasion and occupation.)
I thought the purpose of the invaders was to leave Iraq with a longterm instability, weak government, corruption, and chaos. This leaves the country for mismanagement and exploitation of resources cause there is no accountability and the oil companies make money
As much as the second Gulf War was started with unfound evidence and could have been handled better, I think toppling Saddam is ultimately for the better of the region.
Colin Powell during the run up to the war referred to Iraq as a “toothache” for the US and the international community. He wasn’t sure pulling out the tooth was the solution but he went along. There were sanctions on Iraq while oil demand was rising (especially with the growth of China). Saddam would periodically challenge the no fly zone and regularly threatened Israel. So the US pulled out the tooth. Seems like the surgeon hit an artery while also slicing open his arm. Blood everywhere, lots of pain for everyone. Now the doctor and patient have moved on, but with lots of scars.
Colin Powell at least had some integrity as he knew both Cheney and Rumsfeld plan for Iraq was all bullshit, and he resigned from the administration on his own record. At least that speaks something at least.
I was 18 when the Iraq invasion began. At the time, as many Finns, I was very much pro-American and saturated with their culture. I will always remember seeing Colin Powell present his evidence about the Iraq WMDs to the United Nations. I completely believed that Saddam was developing WMDs and backing Al-Qaeda as well. I also believed that given the American power at the time, rebuilding Iraq so it would radiate democracy and freedom all over Middle-East was going to happen. It took me a while to understand that not one word of this was true. At the time I though world leaders in general are highly qualified and do not simply tell lies to the entire world. Suffice to say, it was a formative experience for me in many ways.
This was a hot topic for some of us in high school too. For us it was more about Bush, whom we distrusted wholeheartedly, at least in my circle of friends.
@@joqqeman It was not so much that I trusted Bush, but more that I could not believe any American leader would address the world and make up something that incredible. You know what they say... people are more ready to believe a big lie than a small one.
I was only 8 when Iraq was invaded, and I really didn't understand what was happening. When the US invaded Syria though, I felt much closer to the Syrian civilians being bombed than to the Americans bringing them freedom. It made me very uncomfortable to think that my whole life could be upended and destroyed if geopolitics made it their interest to change something about my country with violent means. The way I heard some europeans talk about the Ukranians in the begining of the war there, that's kind of what I felt in that case despite my country being completely unrelated to Syria, except in that both are in the western peryphery.
@@FOLIPE Fascinating. Similar experience to me as a non westerner as well. One small nit pick tho, The US didn’t actually invade Syria The physical presence it has there was brought in 2014 by a UN and Syrian opposition request to help combat ISIS The country that actually like left brought supreme military power to bear upon the Syrian population was Russia… in 2015 This was my formative geopolitical moment Seeing what Russia did In Aleppo, erasing the 2nd largest city in Syria in the span of a few months, and inflicting more casualties than the first 10 years of American operations in Afghanistan cause Assad asked them to. For all that I now know about the world, there’s something about seeing a city of millions disappear in real time so much so that it’s visible in NASA space photos. It leaves an impact man. When the buildup in Ukraine started I almost had PTSD like symptoms knowing what was to come.
This is a really well done video for general context. As a Lebanese, Iraq never fails to amaze me. There are so many parallels between us both past and present.
Thanks so much Philip. It was so interesting putting this video together and revisiting key news stories from when I was younger. I was just 18 when Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait. I remember hearing the news. And Lebanon was a feature of the news throughout the 1980s. Even now, it is a country that fascinates me.
@@christopher5846 Worst atrocity in Iraq's history? If you're truly from Iraq then you don't even know your own history very well. Even if we're talking about the current country rather than the history of Iraq and it's region before the current state then a comment like this is incredibly ignorant. Let's just ignore the two wars of devastation that Saddam waged on the Iranian people and Kuwait that ultimately led to intervention by a huge coalition of countries in the Gulf War and then ultimately exploited as a pretext for the US invasion of Iraq. Not to mention the tens of thousands of Kurdish Iraqis disgustingly killed by chemical weapons which ultimately also ended up being used as a cassus belli and justification that the Saddam regime still might have WMDs. The reign of Saddam is the worst atrocity that happened in Iraq's history, you can't even look at the US invasion without first looking at Saddam. Some Iraqis may want to whitewash their own history or simply want to view it on a different light but it doesn't change the facts that it was Saddam who helped improve Iraq only to drive it off a cliff into a pit of lava.
Buddy the only ignorant person in this comment chain is you, and you're arrogant on top of it. Let's not ignore whatever wars or massacres happened back then that you only brought up to ultimately downplay the illegal and devastating invasion of my country, pile up every talking point and claim that the U.S. threw in with the foreknowledge that it was either false and complete fabrication or exaggerated prior to the invasion (as admitted by colin powell with the little charade that he pulled off, and countless others later) Saddam's reign doesn't hold a CANDEL to what the illegal invasion and sanctions did to my country.
@@terrestrialextra4790 I'm a Christian Assyrian who lives in Iraq, my people were effected by those same crimes you've listed during Saddam's time which the U.S itself was complicit in as it was in the Iran-Iraq war, our population prior to 2003 was 1.3 million, today we are a hundred to two hundred thousands, if only you knew what we had to face ever since then, it's nothing short of evil. Not even ISIS (which wouldn't exist in a million years if it weren't for the dissolution of old Iraqi army by the coalition) was able to achieve what the U.S did to the Christian population of this country. There were Kurds, those same persecuted minority protesting the early stages of the invasion and many mourned for Saddam after his uncivilised execution, only the politicians were the ones turning the other cheek. You gave this tyrant his hero status people all over the world revere him today because of you. So don't come lecturing me about "oh the humanity!" While your politicians throw the blood of my people from one hand to the next. what gall, what impudence.
I see you chose a light topic to return after your short break :' ) Great summary. If you think about it, its quite scary how rarely people ever talk about it. We really do have short memories, unfortunately.
Thanks so much. Yes, it wasn’t quite what I had in mind after my holidays. I had something rather different planned. Hopefully, I’ll do it next week. But you’re absolutely right. It did strike me that for an issue that was so dominant and divisive for so long, it seems all but forgotten now. But how is everything with you? I hope all is well at your end.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for asking! I'm doing well, currently working on a little video about the resolved Hans Island dispute. Hope to see you break the 100k subscriber mark very soon - well deserved!
@@PoliticswithPaint Good to hear you’re working on something new! I’ll look forward to it. Yes, quite exciting. (But I’m not sure if I’m meant to be too serious to admit that sort of thing. 😀)
As an Iraqi I can say u did ur research man well done But u missed a lot Well anyway The shia and the kurds didn't get the control they wanted (only a few corrupted family's and religious people and cleric got the power) And al-sadr is the worst politician in the world (he's a living meme here in Iraq between the cultured people of our country) And to be honest with u the simple people of Iraq really wants saddam back to rule not because he's good just because he was shutting all the nonsense that's happening now. And there's more and more but that's enough up here ☝ Thank you anyway for the video man
@@ArshadKhan-uj6kb well I don't think that's gonna happen normally Cuz one of every five Iraqis can't even read or write And the one's who does usually don't care about politics they only wanna live normally (although they can't) The rest want change without doing shit so to cut it short without more complications They need a benevolent dictator like that of Singapore or napoleon who will rule with an iron fist and build and fix the contrary problems and the people will support him cause they are just sick of the situation right now But that will result in a war which is inevitable What was taken by power can only be restored by power
@@user-wc2zq8cl7j yes you definitely find the right solution. I think Saddam Hussian has keep the country unity for long period of time. However, he may he doctor,according to west, but at the same time he has binding force to hold unity among the people.He became victim of western imperialism.Iraqi people will miss such man because of which the current division.You will find nothing in western democracy which is the product of western society.Every society have problem in their own domain and the solution lies in the same society. It is the people of Iraq to answer current destruction not western society.
Asking whether it was "worthwhile" to invade Iraq is a very pragmatic, realistic question - as morally it was an inexcusable action. I think it was a bad decision that created major instability in the middle east and forced the US to become more and more entangled in the region's problems, created anti-US sentiment in the issue, greatly increased the problem with extremist islamism and terrorism, and led to several refugee crisis in the region and Europe. I think the reasoning for the invasion relied on a cost/benefit assessment that greatly overestimated the US's capacity to reshape the region after a military invasion, and the costs of that reshaping. Basically, hubris
Thanks you so much. I thought long and hard about the question. I know that it may seem potentially offensive, but it seemed the only way of framing the discussion that opens up enough ambiguity to perhaps have a bit of discussion. Is I asked whether it was legal or justified, the answer would have had to be no. But asking whether it was worth it tries to get at a very different set of factors. I was never as convinced as many others were that it was about oil. But I think that you are absolutely right. To my mind, this was essentially about hubris.
@lati long The thing is the Neo-conservatives we’re formed by Liberals that believed in continuing the Vietnam war. They never believed the war was a lost cause, and believed in escalation. The thing was Afganistán is considered a military success because the Soviets lost, and America didn’t send their troops. The neo-cons memory of Iraq was the Gulf War, which was one of America’s most successful conflicts. Besides the Vietnam war, the neocons had no other major failure to make them think that invading Iraq was pointless(plus they were out for blood for 9/11).
@@ViceCoin This is a very strange statement. So, policy is completely divorced from morality, do you really believe that or want that? If so, the implications are likely genocidal, authoritarian and brutal.
I think it was a disastrous US imperial misadventure. But I wonder if -- from Israel's point of view -- it has yielded fruits: by changing the balance of power in the Middle East, and thereby ultimately facilitating the rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, to the detriment of the Palestinians?
No doubt that Saddam was a problem for Israel. Twice threatening (in both US led wars) to launch chemical weapons into Israel, forcing the entire population to store gas masks and build special gas-safe rooms in their homes. But, Israel did warn the US not to invade and topple Saddam, since they well understood the dynamics of what would come afterwards in terms of Iranian takeover of most of Iraq.
@@banto1 Mearsheimer and Walt show very clearly Israel was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the war. As to their motives, it doesn't look to me like the Israeli leaders actually care about the safety of their people. I think you are being naive. I think they have broader, and very dangerous geopolitical motives (like many elites in many nations).
@@cuttysark57 Unfortunately these 2 clowns have been on the ayatoolah's payroll for a long time and you can't believe anything they say. The reality is that Israeli political leaders warned the US the invasion would lead to instability, and as usual, they were right. If you want to blame lobby's in the US that DID push for the invasion, you don't need to look further that the oil lobby of the weapons manufactures lobby, who actually DID push hard for the invasion.
Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby very forensically documents the voracious Israeli support for the war, even in the face of American hesitation. Chomsky and other commentators have also noted the same
Not a US imperial adventure. There is no US imperialism, just foreign policy. If we did have an imperial impulse, Iraq would have been conquered and subjugated as well as the entire region and the US would own all the oil and natural gas and exploit it for its own purposes and wealth creation. You are correct about Israel, however, and the Abraham Accords etc...though Trump also has a great deal to do with that as well.
As an Iraq war veteran, I would certainly say that the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was NOT worth it. I had served as a U.S. Army solider in Iraq (Camp Anaconda, Balad) from April (Camp Udri, Kuwait) to November in 2003. This $6 trillion war was based on the lies of Saddam having "WMDs", Iraq having "ties to Al Queda/9/11 attacks", or " to bring democracy to Iraq". The only ones of whom benefited from this war were the "Military Industrial Complex" (like Haliburton/KB&R, General Electric, Blackwater, Boeing, etc.), International bankers, and "Big Oil"!!!! While many servicemen and women have been either killed, are missing limbs, have TBI (traumatic brain injuries), PTSD, got exposure to toxic burn pits, etc. Not to mention over a million Iraqis were killed in this senseless war!!! And as famously stated by Marine general Smedley Butler, "WAR IS A RACKET" and that "MILITARY MEN ARE PAWNS FOR FOREIGN POLICY" a quote from former Secretary of State under Nixon Henry Kissinger. One of the real reasons for the U.S. Invasion of Iraq was to protect the "PETRODOLLAR" to remain as the world's reserve currency (to keep Saddam from switching to the Euro in trading/selling Iraqi oil on the world market).
"over a million Iraqis were killed" Note that the estimates have a wide range and this is the upper limit. Some other estimates are lower such as 600k or 100k. Of course, that's still an enormous human cost and can still make the invasion to be not worth it.
I agree with you first sentence 100% (US Marines; 2004-Fallujah, 2005-Ramadi). We greatly reduced the number of insurgents/combatants, but a portion of them were caused by our invading their country. Similar to what we see in Ukraine today, unfortunately many of the good/average citizens were negatively affected by our being there. Many of us were aware of the misstep then, but did the best we could to make sound decisions and carry out the US mission statement.
Former Intel analyst here. Those first few months of the war as the insurgency started completely changed the intelligence process. We added the concept of "OK, but what happens after we do this?" to the game. You'd think that would have been there from the start.. or maybe at least since 'Nam, but nah, apparently it took us a while. I mean, hell, it took us a few years after those first few months, to be honest. But, honestly it was was game changing.
Thanks very much. Interesting. And it makes a lot of sense. The US intelligence functions very differently to many other places. It tends to have a far greater formal (and open) analytical input into decision making than most countries.
@@markb8468 us brass" you see this county in the middle east no one really cares about over here?" The president at the time" yea Us brass", it would be tight if you could get us that oil get on the news and just say they have scary guns"
Though it can be noted that the justification for intervening in Libya was a bit different. In Libya there was an internal conflict that had already begun before intervention. In Iraq there wasn't any kind of acute crisis that might prompt an intervention. Thus the decision to invade Iraq feels far more unusual.
@@seneca983 Certainly but then again, we can see from Libyan example that it doesn't really work out even when you try to stop an acute internal conflict. Hard questions with no easy answers.
@@joqqeman I've seen an article on Vox arguing that the intervention in Libya was successful (in that more people would have been killed without intervention). However, that article is from 2016 so I'm not sure if subsequent events would change that estimate.
@@seneca983 yes, these kinds of counterfactuals are very contentious and hard to substantiate. I don't have a strong judgment one way or another but it most certainly didn't bring easy solutions to internal Libyan problems.
@@seneca983 knowing its a hot spot for human trafficking, drug exchange and arm dealing since kaddafi is not there anymore, i think its pretty safe to say it waa better under kaddafi than now, look at any statistics
Considering kurds aren't being killed or gassed by Saddams dogs and Shia population isn't restricted I would say yes. Don't get me wrong the occupation was handled terribly and the reasons for going into Iraq has done damage to our image around the world.
Indeed. The war was clearly illegal. And carried out by deception. But many people who condemn it often fail to recognise, let alone acknowledge, the wider context. My point was not to try to justify it, but merely to try to highlight that sometimes situations are a little more complex than they are presented as being. Iraq is an important case in point.
The question is 'was it worth it?' The multitude of corporations that swooped in to exploit resources and establish franchised services might give you an answer.
Well said. The mess left behind is for all to see and nobody is willing to help cleaning it up. Usual US foreign policy scenario: destroy something and give no thought to what happens after. Any military event must also include dealing with the fallout. US invasion was relatively well planned, but what happened after looked like policy on the run. Trillions of dollars wasted in single purpose foreign invasions could have been much better spent on more holistic projects, where military action is only one part of the strategy.
Excellent video once again! I think it’s a shame we went into Iraq and I don’t think it’ll ever fully recover, socially, back to a pre-invasion level. Blair made a tremendous mistake by committing British forces to the invasion and I do think if Britain stayed out Blair would’ve probably been PM until 2010. Sadr announcing his retirement recently has just added more fuel to the fire in Iraq too.
Thanks. Great point. I often wonder how Blair feels about it. He will know that his whole reputation has been shredded over that war and that it probably did bring his term in office to a premature end.
Saddam Hussein was a terrible person that, in theory, I would've been happy to see deposed. You simply can't march into a nation without invitation and build a free democratic state at the point of a gun, though. I personally think that military and economic support to groups resisting oppression or threats of invasion by authoritarian states can sometimes be justified - it's ridiculous to say the US is an imperialist because it supports Taiwan, for instance. Entering a territory without the positive consent of its people though, as we did in Iraq, is completely unacceptable, let alone 'worth it'.
what the US is doing now was what the British Empire did in the past as part of its imperialism strategies. the British Empire, knowing they had to deploy forces around the world, doesnt just straight up invade. their first step is find locals who they can support. for example, Kuwait was a protectorate under Britain since 1913. obviously, the UK's objective is not to invade Kuwait, but to support their imperial objectives in the region.
@@hkchan1339 Germany and Japan were pretty developed even before the invasion as they were as compared to let's say.. Iraq. On top of that they had an idea of a functioning government (Germany went through some troubles in Weimar era but they still had some ideas) Iraq was a different case.
I remember watching one of your videos when you only had less than 5000 subscribers. But i knew your quality content would get noticed by many one day.....
It's sad that long years of occupation were wasted like that. If there was more care going into remodeling the nation the way it was in postwar Japan, Iraq could've looked different now. At least, things look brighter than for Afghanistan
@@JamesKerLindsay, I wonder if Iraq and Afghanistan would have been better if the US had restored their monarchies, making a compromise with tradition and democratic government. Perhaps a monarchy closer in form to Jordan than to Saudi Arabia. The current and recent US administrations seem not to understand that the republic is not an ideal form of government to all people. Perhaps you could make a video about US misconceptions about ideal governments in foreign nations and so on?
@@licmir3663 Thanks so much. That’s an absolutely fascinating idea! I think it probably would have been a hard sell for the US, especially as the monarchy had been deposed almost fifty years earlier. But I can see how it could have worked.
@@JamesKerLindsay the immediate transfer from dictatorship to democracy is one of the main issues, you can't just immediately give people freedom and get surprised when corruption is rampamt, discipline is gone and everyone wants to control the gov under their rule, had they installed a type of authoritarian democracy while addressing and building the infrastructure, political system and education needed to leave the country run autonomously things would've been way better.
The people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussain (and one of his sons after him) with torture, genocide, brutality, poverty, war and no chance of change? Who said change was ever going to be easy in that Country. At least now they have a chance that they never would have had under Saddam!
In addition to the suffering that the war caused, the Iraq war drew attention and resources away from Afghanistan which also may be considered a failure.
11:10 This is nothing new. Super powers have always invaded less powerful countries with impunity. Acting like the invasion of Iraq brought a new power paradigm is daft.
The country is more dangerous, we not sure if we made way for a new dictator and even if you are correct, it might take decades for things to get back on track.
Usually I appreciate the concise nature of your videos but I can't help but feel like this topic deserved a little more time. I'm sure you've considered longer-form videos before, and you did do a Q&A, but I wonder if you might have considered doing longer scripted videos perhaps with more historical context/analysis? Either way the video was highly informative as usual, thank you!
"you break it, you own it" really only applies if the guy breaking it can be made to pay the bill and feel the pinch. From a geopolitical perspective, Iraq could be hell on earth and the US would not be worse off. That's the same for the Vietnam war and the Afghanistan occupation. Neither of these adventures had costs nearly enough for the US to have any serious introspection, Yes people die and money is wasted, but the people back home were not forced to endure shortages or participate in the draft. This lack of introspection, cobbled together with the need to prove oneself in the face of failure by doing the exact same thing (meddling and escalation of geopolitics without proper ramifications) plus the need to portray a strong front against geo political rivals creates a disturbing pattern which sees the US blundering from one geopolitical fracas to another until it sets of the one great conflagration that will engulf the entire world. And there lies the problem, the current US foreign policy won't undergo a significant shift until it has suffered serious consequences, and the only way for a consequence is to be serious enough is something akin to WW3.
As usual, great work, Professor! I would like to ask you if you think that even if the medium future (up to 50 years) can Iraq have any form of peace and stability?
I think it accomplished the unspoken goals of raiding all Iraqi banks and robbing them. Sadam Hussein was said to have had the largest amount of privately held gold in the world. Upwards of 30 billion in bullion. That was confiscated and never seen again. Where did it go?
As an Iranian who obviously lives his day to day life with politics, bad news, financial problems and fear of war, I can understand better than any regular Western citizens (and much better than most Western politicians) why the Middle East is plagued with conflict and distress. We are located at the junction of the world, and we have been here for thousands of years. This creates inevitable conflicts. I don't think this situation will ever be solved, because you can't "solve" the geography and human nature. We are so damn frustrated and tired that we can only hope in vain for peace and prosperity while we know our efforts are ultimately fruitless...
You can't change human nature but you can direct it in constructive ways and the geography of the region is both its weak and strong point, that could be leveraged in positive ways, as it has multiple times in the past. I think the main problem with the middle east are politics and religion, as long as religious and political radicals have a say you won't have either peace or prosperity.
@@behroozkhaleghirad Very funny. Islam was spread via the pointy end of a sword, way beyond the geography of Arabia where it all started. When the world finally decides they are better off without oil, the whole middle-east will sink back into obscurity.
What astounds me is how western media and public discourse doesn't (or refuses) to see how Iraq, along with many other post-1991 conflicts/geo-political mistakes (Afghanistan, NATO expansion, bombing Serbia/Libya etc.) that seemed good at the time- may have been *very* influential in creating the situation we have today with a paranoid reactionary and perhaps even revanchist Russia.
NATO expansion was the best thing the west has done since WW2. Russia is the way it is because of decisions by it's leaders, and they chose fascism and imperialism. Do you think Estonians or Poles think NATO expansion was a mistake? Of course they don't. The mistake made by Georgia and Ukraine was not getting into NATO quickly enough, just in case. There's a reason Russia hasn't invaded any NATO countries, and it's because they know they will lose. Saying "NATO expansion bad" means you're either a Russian Imperial Apologist on the left or right or you hate China so much you want to use Russia against them like Mearsheimer in an equally immoral position. NATO, which is a defensive alliance, is the only unequivocally good thing the US military has been involved with between WW2 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Another great video professor! This was, as expected, a refreshingly nuanced look, especially on an extremely controversial topic Just want to fill in a some additional details for those who may be unfamiliar In 1991 as a condition for the UN coalition not taking out Saddam Hussein, Iraq agreed to end its WMD programs, relinquish control over the airspace of the north and south, and submit to UN weapons inspections. Throughout the decade, Iraq violated or claimed to violate these UN resolutions, flying into the no-fly zone, ejecting UN inspectors from the country, and eventually earning himself NATO bombing in 1998, the same year America passed a bill that was signed into law by President Clinton unrecognizing the Baath regime and committing America to regime change (assumed at the time to be through covert action) However one of the problems with the latter plan was that almost no intel networks had any real penetration into Iraq, and so there was relatively little knowledge about potential Iraqi opposition, besides the hyperbolic Iraqi defectors promoted by opportunist pro-American Iraqi Shiite Ahmed Chalabi. There was likewise little known about Iraq’s weapons programs following the ejection of UN inspectors, and whether he was reconstituting. It was not a bad assumption that he was, especially considering Saddam regularly bragged about having them, but also far from the certainly it was later presented as. That said, the WMD issue was really only one of a range of issues with Iraq that caused the 1998 regime change act. Then you had 9/11, and America, which was already riding high off the end of the Cold War, the peaceful falling in line of the world behind the US in the 1990s, and the American-led tech revolution, now felt like that peace had been shattered, and the only was to preserve this new era was to win the new global war that had been brought to home shores in the worst of ways. The Taliban regime had been successfully overthrown in Afghanistan and American soldiers were greeted by flowers in Kabul, and it was thought that America would now be the liberators of the Middle East just as in Europe after WWII. That latter argument was especially strong with the neoconservatives (social liberals working for hawkish Democrat Scoop Jackson who then broke with the left over opposing the Vietnam War and found a home in the Republican Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 White Houses, people like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, etc). You then had the other group of advocates, hawkish lifelong conservatives (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, etc who all worked alongside the neocons in those Republican White Houses) who were less into the idea of being liberators or building democracy, where a conservative autocracy would work just fine, but supported regime change. Ultimately it was the inability to reconcile these two visions that doomed the expedition to the long counterinsurgency slog it became. Despite the war’s relative unpopularity, and lack of WMDs discovered, had the country remained stable following the successful overthrow of Saddam, the entire legacy of the conflict would be different. The reasons this didn’t happen are many, but the biggest reason is that the two clashing visions for the post-war Iraq created inconsistency on the ground: * you had the military and defense department wanting to conduct a fast strike to set up a new regime quickly like in Afghanistan, thus deploying a limited number of troops and even decreasing troops upon the fall of Baghdad, preparing (supposedly) for follow up campaigns in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Libya, all of which America had actual connections to the opposition unlike in Iraq, so it seemed like a good jumping off point * But then you had the state department and some parts of the defense department wanting to focus on the rebuilding of Iraq and the creation of a true democratic society there which could inspire the rest of the Middle East to follow suit without needing to recourse to military force, however this plan required an extensive occupation force for multiple years, which the defense department leadership did not provide. So you basically ended up with an enormous power vacuum, a foreign occupation authority with way too few troops to actually enforce the occupation, thus leading to mass looting. There were a few months where the issue could have been corrected but instead the miscommunication and indecision persisted resulting in further blunders which you mentioned, and the emergence of a full fledged insurgency by the following spring. As to your main question, whether it was worth it, well as far as at the time, I’ve long made the point that America had to go to war in Afghanistan as any lesser response to 9/11 would have been viewed as unacceptable by the public, but Iraq is different, it was no doubt a war of choice and at the time there were strong geopolitical arguments both for and against it. The result was kind of a mixed bag, obviously way more casualties than anticipated (I will note however that America, Britain and most allied forces always take much greater caution to avoid civilian casualties or “civcas” than any other militaries in the world), and a total PR debacle (again stemming from a hyperbolic pre-invasion narrative and the lack of a coherent post-invasion narrative especially when things went south), but in the end the Surge and Gen. Patraeus got the country calmed down and even militia leaders like al-Sadr stopped fighting and joined politics. Then the Iraqi state, unlike Afghanistan (strangely enough considering it was going better than Iraq most of the time) in 2021, managed to stand on its own in 2016 and fight off the Islamic State threat, even reimposing its sovereign authority over the Iraqi Kurds. While this latest outbreak of violence is a setback, al-Sadr’s calming reaction shows just how far Iraq has come since 2011, plus al-Sadr’s Iraqi nationalist stance no longer works to oppose America’s presence but instead works to oppose Iranian interests in the country. There are still a ton of problems no doubt, but even if flawed Iraq is undeniably a relatively free society. So was it “worth it”? Well let’s just say it wasn’t was anybody signed up for, but it appears that long-term it the desired outcome, at least in Iraq itself, may have been achieved. Wow that was a lot longer than I thought, thanks for taking the time to read this all if you do, I just find it to be so multi-layered a subject. Once again great video, this really was a nuanced look at a topic many people overlook the subtleties of. Thanks again professor!
That isn't really fair. Of course people like Wolfowitz and Abrams are extremely biased towards Israel because they're 👃,but if you read their writings you can gleam a sense that they genuinely believe that they can "civilize" the world by bombing them and shoving democracy(that is assumed to be automatically pro American)
something is very wrong here, if you ask people who lived at that time shia and sunni are not actually against each other. most people even dint know their are sects. it only begun to emerge during the occupation. where one group is favoured than the other. the saddam regime was actually a secular group not like iraqi government today run by religious fanatics. if you doubt my word, just ask your self how did iraq with majority shia fight a war against iran a majority shia. you base your research on western knowledge not how the locals know it.
@@sotch2271 80% of the members of the Baath government were Shiites...before 2003 there were one and a half million Christians in Iraq, but today there are only 200 thousand of them left...the Kurds are now the largest group in Iraq that migrates to the West and leaves Iraq, and the most poor group in Iraq currently are the Kurds because Their government hasn't given them salaries for months.
The US invasion might have been devastating for Iraqis, but it was successful in completing US interests. It sent a message to Saudi Arabia ( who probably had some connection to 9/11) by overthrowing a Sunni leader and establishing a Shiite led government next to Iran. It increased US control in Iraqi oil. And most importantly it stunt the country’s technology advancement, which is important for national security. But usually when people ask if the Iraq invasion was worth it, they are actually asking if it’s moral or not. I don’t think it was morally right to do so.
So they protected the Kurds of Iraq. Who will protect the Kurds of Turkey? This seems to be completely ignored internationally. I guess being a nato member allows you to commit ethnic cleansing, "Turkification"
@@Adam-gf3jg I don't support ethnic cleansing.. do you? The Turks want to get rid of and assimilate the Kurds. They are drone bombing Kurdish villages fairly regularly now. That isn't ok. The Kurds seem to be oppressed in every nation they are a part of.
@@g1u2y345 bro those in Syria are the pkk. Go and look up their history, they use the same tactics as ISIS. Enforcement of child soldiers to placing bombs in markets and killing a lot of cvillians etc.
Thank you. Yes, I agree. The second one has also been hugely damaging for the United States and the West in general (even though much of the West opposed it). Many people now equate Iraq and Ukraine. It’s a completely inaccurate comparison in all sorts of ways, but to many it just seems hypocritical of the West to condemn Russia for violating state sovereignty after what the US did.
The most straightforward solution would obviously be to divide the state along ethnic/religious lines as that is a major source of the instability. Unfortunately the Turkish don't want to see a Kurdish state, the Arab world would perceive a Shiite state in the south to be a threat, and the Sunni state would be in a precarious economic position and be heavily distrusted. It's also troubled by the fact that the international community tends to dislike countries breaking apart even though some absolutely need to such as Ethiopia.
The Kurds absolutely deserve a state of their own. They constantly find themselves oppressed by the nations who rule over them. Turkey has done enough damage already.
@@joqqeman Oops. I meant to add 'the line feasible if external powers allowed it'. Of course, we're stuck with another headache and post-colonial drawn up geometric shape state that tries to group together people who don't get along.
I'm sorry my white master, but people outside America tend to live in complete disregard of any lines that could be possibly drawn on a 2d projection of the planet earth
There is no way to make decisions on a scale as large as a nation without screwing over a large number of people. The question is whether the nation as a whole will benefit.
This is a really difficult topic, as much as Afghanistan invasion was. One thing I do agree from the video is this: US after 1991 had the opportunity to shape the world as it wanted it and it wasted that chance. Not only that it showed it does not think carefully about the long term implications of it's interventions (Balkan during the 90's, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine) but it is shown that they do not care about the invaded countries and just leave them in a ruin after intervention is done (pretty much all the countries above with the exception of Ukraine as that is still ongoing conflict). Now their reputation is stained, their debt is biggest in the world and without anything to back it up, their social problems can easily turn into civil war if not managed well and their old rivals are testing their limits more and more due to their inability to wage big wars as they did before. The US is on it's way to become Britain 2.0 - from superpower in the 1920's to a shadow of what it once was in 1997 withdrawal from the Hong Kong. Was the war in Iraq worth it - no it was not. It would only have been if they have stayed and actually set up the country correctly. But instead they have just destabilized the region even more than it was under old regime.
_just leave them in a ruin after intervention is done (pretty much all the countries above with the exception of Ukraine as that is still ongoing conflict)._ The wars were not popular among the general population, initially, yes there was support, but that is the typical initial war support. As wars drag on, the general population unlikes wars, and will start voting against candidates that support the war. The same is happening in Ukraine. The voters in US and Europe already have Ukraine fatigue. If there had been Western domestic support, then Western troops would have stayed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As John Mearsheimer said, it was a monumental mistake because the West, led by the USA, believed that it was the "end of history". American policy has been a series of failures since the fall of the Soviet Union. As an American, I feel that we deserve the loss of lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Too much hubris. China was rising while we were distracted with the war on terrorism. Kishore Mabhubani, who was the president of the UN security council, in the lead up of the war, said that China quietly supported the war the most at the UN. Remember that France was adamantly opposed, but as always they have to fold to the Americans.
Excellent video and analysis but one thing missing: THE NON- ALIGNMENT MOVEMENT! The war between 2 non alignment movement states and the opportunity that it represented the cooperation before the Iraq -Iran war to other non -alignment movement states to work and develop.
Thanks George. As always, there are so many things I have to leave out otherwise the video just becomes too long and complex and difficult to follow. But the NAM angle is certainly very interesting.
Thanks so much! It was really strange looking back at it. It was such a formative series of events for many of us of a certain again. I was eighteen when Saddam Hussain invaded Iraq. I was in Cyprus at the time and I can still remember the news breaking. I was just about to start university and spent my first year at SOAS, where two of my lecturers were in fact leading world authorities of Iraq and Ba'athism. It was incredible hearing them talking about the events unfolding at the time.
Hussain was a symptom of the malady of Iraq, a product of the dominant ideas of the 1960s in the region, aggressive socialist nationalism - be it Nasser, Assad or Hussain. Had Hussain remained, would he have improved with age? Would his passing (whether natural or not) simply have uncorked what the Americans did by smashing the bottle?
I am far from an expert - but it seemed to me that if the war had not happened, in 2011 he would have found himself in the same position as Assad. No doubt his instinct would have been for the same scorched earth approach to retaining power. The sectarian position would be reversed - would a Sunni elite help Hussein cling to power out of a fear or reprisal from the long-excluded Shia majority? Or would a regime long weakened by sanctions have finally crumbled?
@@ow4744 painting the wrong picture. Saddam was getting more and more crazy and so were the members of his regime. Nothing would have weakened their grip on power. Assad had no problems at all fighting the unmotivated and fractured uprising. Until ISIS, which came from welfare funded fanatics from Europe. But oooh, nobody wants to point _that_ out! Or that most have returned as well.
This is good stuff James. The problem with Iraq is the same problem we all have in the aftermath of making a mistake. Instead of trying to learn from our mistake, we focus on justifying it. If the west learnt from the experience that would be more important than whether or not it was worth it.
Definitely not. Sure Saddam was terrible but he was a strong man with authority and things were more stable .If your gonna replace someone like that you need to do it in a way which the succeeding government has the authority and legitimacy to keep power. Because sure Saddam is gone but now you have tons of other splinter groups and more outside intervention and violence. The U.S stacked hundreds of thousands of military authorities and officials. Some of whom would join splinter groups.That destroyed the core group of people that could not only establish and keep a government running effectively but those in the military to keep order or protect the country. That also increased opportunity for corruption with the rebuilding of the country which wasted much of the money. Also due to the destruction with the military that puts more need for security funding. Due to this things like Iran sponsoring Shia uprisings related more problems. The election resulted in an end of Sunni power in the country but without the authority Sunni’s came from other country’s and started fighting . Rising tensions with Shia groups and then you’ve got a civil war. And yes the surge did quite things down but the power and authority was with the us army not the actual countries government so when they left there goes the key authority. The country is extremely divided and the government is corrupt with no authority resulting in more extremist groups rising up.
The invasion was based on a false premise of weapons of mass destruction which the US knew was false, not about bringing "democracy" to Iraq. The idea of bringing democracy to iraq was an afterthought attempt to move the goal post and a post-fact justification after it became clear there were never any weapons of mass distruction in Iraq. The US is completely responsible and must pay reparations to the Iraqi people.
Vladimir Putin said everyone believed that WMD existed in Iraq. Saddam gassed Kurdish villages. He got rid of his chemical weapons..I agree with you that he was not enriching Uranium and Bush knew it. Two Trillion dollars was plenty of reparations thank you.
Thank you. I know it isn’t an easy discussion, and many didn’t like the fact that it was separated from the legality of the war, but it’s one we really need to have.
A good summary. As said in the video I think it's very important not to forget the legacy of Saddam and the Ba'ath rule of Iraq in evaluating the situation both before and after the US led invasion.
@@randomdude2832 During the war with Iran the US was of course closer to Iraq, and that was the most intense moment for Ba'ath regime's human rights abuses. But I think calling it a "close alliance" is wrong, it was just an opportunistic way to oppose Iran. Besides this, the US is a democracy, so administrations changes, and Reagan, with all his 'particular' foreign policy tactics, was the president exactly during the Iran-Iraq war, and very often a changes in the US presidency translates into a change in foreign policy, exactly like in the case with Iraq. I think this is also important to keep into consideration
@@youtubeuser1993 "But I think calling it a "close alliance" is wrong" not a close alliance, just helping him get into power, and give arms and blocking un resolutions.. sounds legit. "and Reagan, with all his 'particular' foreign policy tactics" it was not the us, it was reagan... again, sounds legit. "often a changes in the US presidency translates into a change in foreign policy," that doesn't erase the actions of previous administrations...
@@randomdude2832 "Helping him get into power"? This information is wrong, the US didn't help Saddam get to power, some US media praised Saddam's public administration in the 70', but the US government was not involved in getting him into power, when the party leader died, he immediately became the next party leader. Giving arms and blocking does not mean being close allies, it means using Iraq to counter what was perceived as a greater enemy, Iran. On this point you are wrong, you don't invade your close ally 3 years after the war where he struggled so much in, this point should honestly be very clear. Yes it was a Reagan administration's choice, this is important because the "US" is often blamed for choices that are not liked by commentaros, but it is important to remember that different governments have different ideas and bear different responsibilities, for example the Democrats in the Congress voted against the authorization of military force against Iraq, hence they are not responsible for the Iraq war, since they tried to oppose it. It was the republican party, in particular a few key figures that were responsible for this.
@@youtubeuser1993 "the US didn't help Saddam get to power" do you mean openly? saddam was on the cia payroll. look up operation condor and operation gladio for comparison. "you don't invade your close ally 3 years after the war where he struggled so much in," you do if you're the us, it wasn't 3 years, but look at osama bin laden, or how the translators and others who helped in afghanistan and vietnam were abandoned or the kurds thrown under the buss, and for more recent look at how the us will turn on a dime on zelensky in ukraine after it's clear he lost... "the "US" is often blamed for choices that are not liked by commentaros" so the us gets absolved of its actions because some commentators didn't like it? " different governments have different ideas" I'm not talking about ideas, I'm talking about actions. "and bear different responsibilities, " except the responsability of those actions is still on the us... " the Democrats in the Congress voted against the authorization of military force against Iraq, hence they are not responsible for the Iraq war" most democrats did vote for action against iraq, the few that didn't would probably be exempt in a nuremburd style trial, not so the rest of the government ", in particular a few key figures that were responsible for this." it wasn't just a key figures, or are you going to say that "soldiers were just following orders" when it's a voluntary force? (no forced draft)
Great video as always. Have you looked much into David Keen's analysis of "war systems" and how the US failed completely to take such dynamics into account when it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?
Paul Bremer is still adamant that he made the right decision getting rid of all Baath party members. Amazing to see how someone doesn't feel the need to reconsider their actions no matter how obviously disastrous the consequences have been. I suppose this sort of cynical egotism is a requirement for high office in an imperialist system!
Don’t underestimate the ability for humans to be absolutely stubborn to the very bitter end and the ability for the human mind to delude itself beyond all reason. Just like at Germany in WW2. Despite the fact the Germans where clearly defeated as early as 1942-1943, they still carried on fighting until they where simply unable to. The human mind is an extremely strange thing
Was it worth it? It depends on who you're asking. If you ask the U.S. elites that sponsored the destruction of the Iraqi government, then absolutely. The war accomplished the immediate goal of inflicting fear on the rest of the international community by sending the message that if you step out of line (a.k.a. pursue your own sovereign agenda), you're going to get crushed. But if you were to ask any normal U.S. citizen, or any citizen of the world for that matter, that answer is an overwhelming no. It was an unprovoked, illegal, and unjustified invasion. It plunged Iraq into a hole nearly impossible to climb out from. And if the U.S. was so concerned about Hussein's human rights abuses, the Reagan administration wouldn't have removed Hussein from the official U.S. terrorist list when he became their convenient ally in the 80s. And they certainly wouldn't have ignored his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, so the flimsy human rights claim is out. The Iraq War will go down in history as state-sanctioned terrorism. It was never worth it from inception.
@@dddz961 saddam? Isis replaced him. Gaddafi? The refugees and the chaos in the sahel replaced him. Bin Laden? Terrorism escalated. Going after a fly with a hammer never works.
I also feel like so many of the issues we currently face can be traced back to this disastrous decision: destabilisation of the entire Middle East region, refugees crises, the proliferation of Islamic extremism, the rise of the far right across Europe who further exacerbate climate change denialism etc. The costs associated with the war also greatly inhibited the US government's ability to respond to the recession in 2007.
I am looking at the Helsinki Accord from 1975 and the detente . In your opinion would it be possible to organise something similar today rather than escalation of the conflicts. Sorry to send here the question.
No problem. It’s certainly an interesting idea! I’m not sure his easy it would be to get anything like that through just at the moment. And it would have to be far more international. But there may be an argument for a major new international agreement after Ukraine.
ايران دمرتنا. السياسيين العراقيين الفسدة يهربون اموال النفط العراقية الى إيران و النتيجة؟ ايران التفت على العقوبات و العراق يعيش بدون كهرباء في الوقت اللي فيه برميل النفط وصل الى مية دولار
Iraq has been left to its imperialist neighbors and is unable to stand on its own. It is sad but true. It is better the Iranians than the Turks who also eye your land. The Turks would have the Arabs removed.
@@ArtVandelay00 Well read what I said. Yes both are bad, but what is Iraq going to do? The Turks already occupy parts of Northern Iraq. Erdogan wants to push further. Iran doesn't occupy any land.
Our most important problem raised after US invasion is that replacing the power of judiciary system by tribal system Which made getting justice for the minorities is so difficult
Great video as always Prof., I'm always impressed by how you present the back story of the situation or country in question with such clarity. Personally I was always appalled by the USA's fabrication of WMD's as a pretext for invasion (with Australia and other Western countries seemingly happy to play along). I wonder if Iraq's recent history would be different if it didn't have it's huge oil reserves.
Thanks so much Luke. I really appreciate it. It was an especially interesting video to work on as Iraq has dominated so much of our lives in the West (or it least its has for anyone in the 40-60 age group), and yet now is seems to get so little news coverage.
How many of it's neighbours has Iraq attacked recently? A failed state is a far safer neighbour than an aggressive dictatorship, so the invasion worked in this sense. This will need to happen to russia and any other country that pesters it's neighbours because if a country can't behave itself it must be brought to total failure ideally by economic means but if necessary using military intervention (or arming the victim states/peoples, as is happening in Ukraine).
I pretty much agree with this presentation. Sadly, the Middle East is a place where peace is not gerally possible without a strong arm government in place. The culture is too tribal and too religious. Both divisive influences. When the US went into Iraq, I was hoping for a better life for Iraqi's but I was naive. I didn't realise Iraq would be flooded with fanatical religous fighters from neigboring states who turned the invasion into a war against the infidels. I didn't understand the Middle Eastern world view where Arab peace is effectivelly an oxymoron (with few exceptions). An opportunity lost.
Pick up a damn history book. Having swallowed the propaganda about the Middle East being "tribal" and "religious" you ignore the massive detrimental impacts the Western powers have inflicted on peace and security in the region. You're also ignoring centuries of sophisticated Middle Eastern political organisation (ie. very much NOT tribal), and the power that secular, even anti-religious states like Ataturk's Turkey, Saddam's Iraq, and Gaddafi's Libya were wielding as the Middle East went to shit. Far from being a place where peace is impossible, the Middle East has been a place where peace has always been subordinated to the interests of Great Powers and oil money. Your comment is shamefully ignorant.
@@tylerlynch2849 I know thus think you say but open your eyes and see true "the propaganda". Born in Europe does not mean taking always same side . I don't like" profit before people". Just visit Africa and Middle East you see the truth. So why we don't fix North Korea?
Iraq was gonna be a basketcase no matter if saddam stayed or not. The problem was the US being naive and ignorant in their assessments that they could "fix" the country when they couldn't and only the Iraqi people can.
Short answer: No. Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Outstanding! Thanks for covering this very important topic.. My perspective is due to domestic political concerns the neo-cons under Bush refused to face the military realities that unfolded in Iraq. Bottom line is Rumsfeld was misguidingly applying his theoretical model of post-industrial age conflict, and under Bush the United States Never used the required military manpower needed to pacify & win in Iraq. The neo-cons did not have the political will or courage to win. Iraq is a failed state due to poor execution of US foreign policy. Since the American Civil War the way in which the American Army defeats an enemy is with overwhelming manpower & robust logistics. This tenant was not followed in Iraq. A true failure in the accomplishment of a desire political goal. But poor execution of Foreign Policy will always result in a failure, and the people in Iraq have beeen the ones who have sadly have suffered due to tge political failure in Iraq. Thanks again for your great political analysis. Keep up the great work. 👍
Thanks Andrew. Looking back, it really does seem incredible just how badly the Bush Administration prepared for the aftermath of the conflict. It was utterly shocking. They were determined to overthrow Saddam Hussain, but had little real idea of how they were going to run Iraq. Maybe they thought that the people would genuinely welcome them. But having thrown out anyone who had practical experience of running the country, they were left with the task of running a state with well over 30 million people.
More boots on the ground was the key, yep. Finally got enough of it in the Surge to win, in 2007. Should have happened in 2003, but with much more troops (350K).
@@JamesKerLindsay I completely agree. The driving factor was Rumsfeld blind adherence to his theoretical model, which was low troop numbers, and thus not having the required forces to pacify & to provide for civil stability of an occupied county. The historical exames of Germany's and Japan's occupation, then subsequent success of positive cultural change, and effective governance is proof of a positive outcome. But most likely that proven model of success was rejected by neo-cons because it was planned and conducted by FDR's "New Dealers". Blind adherence to any idology is proof of ignorance.
Multilateralism started and ended with the gulf war. It's completely forgotten but UK and USA troops occupied north Iraq to provide humanitarian assistance after the brutal post gulf war cracks downs by Saddam Hussein. This was done without a UN Mandate.
Imo, no. Whilst ridding the world of Saddam Hussain was good for the Kurds (And Iran who’s influence has significantly grown in Iraq since the war) and it’s neighbours like Kuwait no longer have to worry about being invaded, the damage that was done as a result of the war vastly eclipses any benefits that were gained from it. Saddam killed around 250,000 people during his 24 year rule, it is estimated that from 2003 to 2017 around 600,000 people died in Iraq as a result of the Iraq War, the Iraqi Civil War, disease, starvation, the ISIL insurgency and other terrorist attacks, over double Saddam’s estimated death toll in less time than he was in charge and people still continue to die to this day as evidenced by the 600 people killed over the last few years during the protests. Beyond Iraq itself, it massively destabilised Western Asia as Iraq became a terrorist hub for many terrorist organisations that used it to conduct terrorist attacks in various countries throughout the region and when the Syrian Civil War kicked off, Al Qaeda and other terrorists organisations sent fighters into the conflict who then went on to radicalise the opposition movement to Assad and made any hope of a more democratic and free Syria all but destroyed, it also radicalised a small minority of Muslims around the world and inspired them to commit terrorist attacks in their respective countries (The 7/7 Bombers cited Iraq and Afghanistan as a justification for their actions) Speaking at the wider geopolitical level beyond Iraq and Western Asia; the US (And more broadly the West as a whole) had their reputations throughly and utterly ruined by this invasion, especially amongst countries not traditionally within the West’s orbit, thus driving those countries that could have been our allies into the hands of Russia and China and as you said in the video, the war has given Russia (And its supporters both within and outside the west) to at the very least provide an excuse to justify Russia actions in Ukraine by portraying the US and the West as massive hypocrites uncaring of those outside their orbit and thus it has been incredibly difficult to get other countries not in the West’s orbit to sanction Russia and put more pressure on Putin to end his war in Ukraine. The Iraq War was the biggest foreign policy disaster of the US since the Vietnam War and much like the Vietnam War will go down in history as one of the biggest geo political blunders the US has ever made. Whatever few benefits where gained from removing Saddam from power were obliterated both in the short term and long term by all of the problems that came after the invasion. It was never worth it unless you were an Iraqi Kurd or the Iranian Government. One last thing I also wanted to say; you say that the invasion was forgotten. I think it’s more accurate to say that the West washed their hands of the disaster that they caused and went out of their way to make their populations forget about it in order to avoid the sense of embarrassment that they must feel for the sheer disaster they caused. Much in the same way the US swept the Korean War under the rug in the minds of the American public because of them failing to defeat North Korea and deal a bloody nose to both Communist China and the Soviet Union in the opening stages of the 1st Cold War.
The debacle may be (actively) forgotten in the English speaking world. But not in other parts of the West, and certainly not on its outside. For America's standing and for the unity of the West, this was without doubts the most disastrous event ever, far worse than Yalta or Vietnam. From here, it only went downhill.
@@jmolofsson I don’t see much discussion about Iraq in countries like Poland, France and Germany so I’m not sure about it only being forgotten in the English speaking world but that might be because I don’t live in those places. But I can believe it given the difference in, for example, some countries coverage of Ukraine compared to others (Japan for example is giving a lot of coverage to the Ukraine war but in the US, the coverage has significantly died down since Russia’s failure to capture Kyiv and especially after the fall of Lysychansk. And yeah outside the West, the war is certainly not forgotten, much like how the Korean War is not forgotten by the people of East Asia and especially Korea. I agree about Yalta and Vietnam
@@g1u2y345 yes, but then again we could extend this claim and counterclaim to much of the world without ever resolving anything. Fact is, it was and still is an established sovereign nation.
@@joqqeman yea im not arguing for invasion or something. Maybe one day if the people of Kuwait wanted to, they could reunite. What happened with Kuwait is the epitome of greed for oil.
Kuwait was a part of Iraq during thr Ottoman Rule. It was always a part of iraq. But the british seperated kuwait from iraq, seperated brothers and sisters. Im not saying saddam's invasion of kuwait was justified, but you should have told this historical fact.
@@bigboss7681 2 different stiuation.. kuwaitis and iraqis are literally the same. Same ethnicity, same language. Kuwaitis and iraqis are arabs, turks are turks.
Great to see you back Prof James. All US Greater Middle East wars were bad and have only left a corrupt elite who prey on their own people (aka like food aid for the needy etc..). At times it seems worse than it was previously, in the sense that it causes large migration flows as they have no basic amenities. Iraq Syria Libya, Somalia (drone war), Yemen (not direct intervention) etc. Change can only come from within and not via intervention. Democracy needs to naturally arise over time through them. The West has lost influence in that region over the true hearts and minds. Great analysis.
The problem with your assertion is that some of these states, such as Yemen, requested intervention. Moreover, there's plenty of extremely important and successful revolutions and nation formation that only succeeded with outside intervention.
We went into Iraq over a lie and murdered over a million Iraqi just to get one guy. All while claiming our excuse was “freedom and democracy”. It makes me sick to my stomach to see our country pretend to be virtuous when we literally made war a business.
Thanks. But it wasn’t really ‘one guy’. It was someone who sat atop a regime that invaded two countries, persecuted its minorities, and committed truly appalling human rights abuses on its population. There are many Iraqis who are thankful he has gone. Let’s not lose sight if this - even if we also accept the war was illegal and took a huge toll.
I don't think the original aim was to make Iraq any better. It was just to make sure there is no powerful army in the region. And that was successful. And will be like that for the coming decades.
"It soon became clear that little thought had been given about how to run the country after the regime fell." I get that you're diplomatically understated (rightly so), but this is incredibly charitable at best. These guys just believed that the will of their obscene ideology would manifest in a peaceful, America-loving stalwart in the Middle East. But if someone is so certain of the righteousness of their ideology, then why the need to build the case to destroy based on willful ignorance and outright lies? Why the hubris to send a few hundred 20-somethings to follow in the footsteps of George C. Marshall? And to this day there has still been no real political reckoning for this monumental mistake, as the war is so very conveniently forgotten.
Of course it doesn't make sense, if we're talking about Kurdish genocide... Worse things happen with Palestine, it's also genocide and NATO I just prefer not to see, it will be because they don't have oil. That's clear. The Kurds only had one city to the north. THE ENTRY OF THE UNITED STATES MADE THE COUNTRY SPLIT IN TWO. PLUS, the US ALWAYS ENCOURAGED the Kurds, the US sponsored street attacks by Kurds in Turkey. Kurds have always been used by the United States. and in the case of iraq. Also when Saddam died there was a political vacuum, and the Kurds, rather, the US gave them oil wells and took over more cities to the north. and today 2022 they are using the oil without control as if the oil belonged to them, it is something illegal. smuggle oil. while the real Iraqi people survive on the streets. The US invasion makes no sense. stole the oil administration, to give the kurds and thus ensure the oil of iraq at the convenience of nato and the us, it means that nothing was fixed, nothing good is happening... what the hell is this. America just steals. NATO is part of this robbery of the Iraqi people. Enough of so many lies from Zacchaeus, a bunch of hypocrites without natural resources. who prefer to ignore their results .. because they know it is good for them at the cost of their damn dirty money . leave syria and iraq invading rats. nato liars
Taking the simplified long view, US international political and military strategy worked like this: the US (alongside allies) beat the shit out of Germany, Italy, and Japan; in turn, they all became peaceful and prosperous democracies. The US sent their forces into Korea and now the Republic of Korea is a functioning, dependable, and industrious democracy. Even to a degree in Vietnam after they kicked the Americans and Chinese out and put down an absurd Cambodian administration, the US and Vietnam are something of unorthodox partners in checking China. The true influence in convincing US leadership came in the Balkans, in intervening twice against Serbian aggression with Bosnia assembling a fragile, corrupt, but workable arrangement and Kosovo having some, but not all, success in being recognized as their own state. The difference between Germany and South Korea versus the Muslim world is there was no history nor societal framework for democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan.
How could illegally invading a sovereign state with an offensive war be "worth it"? It was a total quagmire for the US military. Not to mention it was sheer arrogance and hubris on America's part to believe that it could force its values and politics onto another country. Especially one in a very culturally different part of the world. And that's without even getting into the many thousands of Iraqis left dead from America's illegal led invasion. The only worth was to all the American politicians, American corporations, and weapons manufacturers that made a fortune from war profiteering. But without a doubt ...it's a massive failure for the US, UK, and NATO. Just as Vietnam was, and just as Afghanistan was.
Sadamm huessien in 2003 had the fourth largest military in the world, complete with tanks, helicopters and jets and within days they where wiped out by the u.s. military might. Just because you have numbers does not gaurentee victory, this goes for china and for Russia who has the second largest military in the world and is now stuck deep in the mud of the Ukraine conflict, so much for all those numbers just to get bogged down by corruption and poor logistics.
@@g1u2y345 there was a war between India and Pakistan even if it's nature is disputed (and of course Pakistani nuclear tests came after it had started).
@@joqqeman If there is a war between two nuclear powers it has to be extremely limited. If total defeat is at all a possibility, nuclear weapons would be used.
If Iraq is divided between ethnic and religious lines, could it break up? If so, would South Kurdistan emerge? if that happens, what will Turkey have planned for it?
Are you aware of the democratic peace theory? If so, do you believe it played any part in the decision making of the Iraq war or perhaps the occupation?
Thanks. But that wasn’t exactly my point. As I said at the end, Iraq and Ukraine are very different and I made a video explaining why ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oK38f6o00D0.html But we nevertheless have to recognise that Putin’s belief that he can violate the sovereignty of Ukraine is in part based on the decisions of the United States to undermine the principle of sovereignty in the case of Iraq. There was a long standing principle against the violation of borders. That changed after the Cold War. It may have been done with the best of intentions, but the but we are now seeing the consequences of those decisions. As one former British ambassador to Moscow said to me back in 2008, Russia used to be an arch-conservative when it came to international law. That changed as it saw the West violating the rules put in place after 1945. As difficult as it is to hear, the West needs to recognise its part in creating the unstable world we see today. That certainly doesn’t mean Russia is in any way justified in Ukraine. Again, I have spoken out against its actions very strongly. But we need to understand the events that shaped Putin’s mindset.
@@JamesKerLindsay I did not hear you say Iraq and Ukraine are different, so I appreciate the clarification. However, I think it a stretch to say "Putin’s belief that he can violate the sovereignty of Ukraine is in part based on the decisions of the United States to undermine the principle of sovereignty in the case of Iraq." Given the history of the USSR and Putin's place within that defunct empire and the naked aggression of the USSR and modern Russia since, I think it problematic to believe Putin needed an excuse to act. Also, given the reality that Iraq was in numerous violations of its treaty commitments and from UN mandates, at the time of the war, its sovereignty was hardly inviolate. You state: "There was a long standing principle against the violation of borders. That changed after the Cold War". This assertion seems demonstrably false. The entire Soviet Union and its empire was based on the violation of the borders, of the entire Eastern bloc. It's invasion of Afghanistan also. China's invasion of Tibet, another example and its attack against Vietnam and Vietnam's attack against Cambodia are two more. Of course, we have the N. Korean invasion of the S. Korea and all the Arab Israeli wars, the Indo Pakistani conflicts, Britain, France and Israel seizing Suez etc... Russia used to be an arch-conservative when it came to international law? What an absurd statement. Is there any international law that Russia or the former Soviet Union ever observed? The assumption that the world was stable prior to Iraq is extremely problematic. The Global War on Terror opened up nations, that either supported directly or indirectly those causes and or were terrorist states in and of themselves, which Iraq, arguably was, given its history of belligerence against its neighbors and internally. I appreciate that you are attempting to be nuanced but I think you are ignoring a great deal of history to do so. Putin does not need justification to act. He is a trained KGB man, with all that entails. All his ops are designed as an Intel man would, to achieve his ends. Putin is a believer in his own destiny/power, his legacy and that of restoring Russia to what he believes is its correct place of dominance on the world stage. Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, Syria and his other interventions, in the Near Abroad are all designed to achieve that end. He did not need the Iraq war as justification.
There is too much to "unpack" with such a "loaded" question. Given that Iraq had invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia the initial US response was brilliantly conceived and carried out. If you had asked anyone "Can Western powers bring together a multi-national coalition including Arab/Islamic states to fight another Middle Eastern nation ?", the answer before the first Iraq War would have been a resounding NO. The single biggest mistake of the first Iraq War was not prosecuting it thoroughly. Had the Bush administration not knuckled under but went through with a regime change...but left Iraqis in charge there would have been no second Iraq War, no ill fated occupation and eventual disaster. There were many voices calling for a fuller prosecution of the first war, but they were ignored in favor of a "better optic". I'd say "Live and Learn" but that would be foolish because America doesn't.
Saddam never threatened Saudi Arabia and that was a lie told my the U.S it was proven by Soviet statelite photos that there was not a single Iraqi troop near the Saudi border it was all a lie to make Iraq seem like it was going to "threaten the world" even tho it's pretty obvious it doesn't have that capacity.
Attack Iraq sooner won't change anything, it would still create power vacuum, unchecked islamists group, hunger, disease, and many more. A puppet government prop up by West would never earn the respect of it's people.
The question in itself is disgusting. One million Iraqis have been killed as a result of this war. The headline should be, " The Iraqi war, a million lives for some oil" just based on the number of human casualties that resulted from it.
Why? If I asked whether it was illegal, then the answer would have been no. If I asked whether it was justified, then again the answer would probably have been no. We know that it was a war of aggression. But what about whether it was worth it? Here the answer isn't quite as straightforward. Often understanding the complexity of the world around us is about framing questions in a very particular way.
@@JamesKerLindsay millions of are Iraqis dead but "we dont know if it was worth it" Ian sorry but just like Ukraine it was war that could have been avoided and didnt need to happen.
Founded on several mistaken presumptions the USA pursued a strategy which, in direct consequence, was entirely inapt. Don't worry, we're reloading and taking better aim.
Maybe you should make a video should George bush and Tony Blair be trialed for war crimes just as you made a video for putin being trialed for war crimes
Thanks. But I think you perhaps read the video too narrowly. I made that video to show how difficult it is to bring any leader of major country to trial. The Ukraine case was the way to do that. Most of my videos use current events to make a wider point. It may focus on one case. But I usually try to show how it relates to more general principles of international relations and international law.
What a bizarre way to formulate the issue!? Not only was it not worth it for any of the parties involved but it was morally and legally wrong; and should never have been considered
Why? The illegality of the issue is widely understood. But what isn't often discussed is the efficacy of the invasion as a foreign policy decision. The two are very different. And this is exactly the question that needed to be asked.
@@JamesKerLindsay The way I see things, if an action is illegal one shouldn't even ask whether or not it was worth it. If the Iraqi people were fed up with Saddam Hussein's dictatorial rule they and only they should have undertaken to overthrow him. As for the 2 wars he waged, they were long over. He was rightfully lucked out of Kuwait. And as for the Iran war, one shouldn't forget Irak received considerable support from western countries. With regards to the Ukraine War, I think better parallels are the breakup of Yugoslavia or the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
@@mouniash That’s all very well. But the question still needed to be asked. Don’t you think it is sometimes worth asking criminals if they felt their actions were worth it? Don’t let absolutism over the legality of an issue stop you from asking other questions about that issue. That’s how we learn.
