Can anybody say quagmire?
Yes, the United States was very involved with Iraq ever since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait back in August of 1990. Indeed, I am old enough to remember that first Persian Gulf war. And once it was over, my assumption was that we were done with Iraq.
There were 13 years of severe economic sanctions. Very severe. It was estimated that over half a million Iraqi children died as a result of these sanctions. Infamously, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright basically confirmed that she believed this was indeed a fair price when she was asked about it by Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes back in 1996. Here was the exchange, specifically:
“We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima,” asked Stahl, “And, you know, is the price worth it?”
“I think that is a very hard choice,” Albright answered, “but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
Then, we went to war once again with Iraq, and against the world's wishes. It was not long after the September 11th attacks, and then President George W. Bush and his administration aggressively pined for war against Saddam Hussein. They continually mentioned him and Iraq in the same breath, and sometimes in the same sentence, as mushroom clouds and 9/11, even though there was absolutely no evidence which existed that Saddam Hussein or Iraq played any role whatsoever in the September 11th attacks. Moreover, the other justification used for the invasion was the claim that Saddam had built a huge arsenal of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD's), which were never found. Pretty much all of the claims that the Bush administration used to justify the Iraq invasion/war.
Yet another thing that we Americans got wrong, and which the Bush administration helped to push Americans to believe, was that we would get a quick and decisive victory, and then be out just as quickly. Infamously, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld predicted that the war would be very quick, that it would likely be over in days or weeks:
"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III."
Later, Rumsfeld amended this just a little bit:
“It could last…six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
The war wound up lasting the better part of two decades.
Americans seem to get outraged a little too easily with things these days. Many Americans get angry over issues of gender and bathrooms usage, or when Trump tells them - without offering a shred of real proof - that he only lost the election because of some vague "massive voter fraud." They get angry over many things, and they did back then, as well. Many felt that opposing the invasion of Iraq was itself an affront, tantamount to sympathizing with the terrorists. France stood opposed, and there was an ugly era of "French bashing" that was all the rage, particularly on the late night comedy television circuit at the time, expressing outrage that France should dare to criticize the proposed invasion of Iraq.
But were Americans outraged by all of these lies that led to a horribly costly war, that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and saw America's military involvement stretch to well over a decade and a half? Were they outraged by all of the casualties from the war, as well as all of those who were injured?
Not so much. The Bush administration won another term in office. Many people claimed to miss him almost immediately after he left office. His popularity has been rising quite steadily since he left the White House, even though he could rightly be viewed as a war criminal.
And Americans are still often surprised when much of the world views them with distrust, or even when some people - perhaps particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan - hate them? Really?
Rumsfeld also had another infamous quote in trying to justify the invasion of Iraq. Here, he gives specifics of where the suspected WMD's in Saddam's Iraq are:
"It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
You got that? We were supposed to simply accept that the weapons are "around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Here, he is frankly insulting the intelligence of Americans. Was there any real outrage? Yes, some. But not nearly enough. In fact, most Americans continued to support the invasion, and the Bush administration. Again, all of these things happened during the first Bush term, and they won a second term in office, and this time, relatively convincingly. So even though this last statement could easily have been interpreted as an insult to the intelligence of Americans, we collectively justified this insult. We gave them exactly what they wanted, and we paid the price, too. After all, far from demonstrating America's overwhelming military might and capabilities, Iraq instead showed the limits of America's capabilities. Both Iraq and Afghanistan did that. Chaos ran supreme in both countries. Eventually, the Islamic State took over much of Iraq, and the Taliban eventually took over Afghanistan.
Not exactly "mission accomplished," eh?
It seems pretty evident that the Iraq invasion was a disaster. Indeed, it may have actually been the biggest foreign policy disaster for the United States since Vietnam. When you take into consideration the loss of trust and status for what was the world's leading superpower based on the lies used to justify the invasion, to Abu Ghraib and other abuses by American troops, to the obvious overconfidence of those pursuing the war finally being exposed when the war turned into a quagmire, to the lack of ay exit strategy, to the war lasting more than a decade and a half and proving far more costly than most people could have imagined, and in every sense of that word, you can see why it probably does indeed rank as one of the greatest foreign policy decisions in the history of the United States.
What is the legacy of the US-led invasion in Iraq? | The Stream
Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War BY JOHN ESTERBROOK NOVEMBER 15, 2002 / 1:5
Let’s remember Madeleine Albright for who she really was by Ahmed Twaij Freelance journalist and filmmaker, Published on 25 Mar 2022:
The former US Secretary of State, who once publicly admitted that she thinks the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were ‘worth it’, was no force for ‘democracy and human rights’. Ahmed Twaij Ahmed Twaij Freelance journalist and filmmaker Published On 25 Mar 2022 25 Mar 2022:
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/25/lets-remember-madeleine-albright-as-who-she-really-was
Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War BY JOHN ESTERBROOK NOVEMBER 15, 2002 / 1:5
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rumsfeld-it-would-be-a-short-war/
This particular Mother Jones article actually provides a quite extensive history of all of the lies that ultimately led to the Iraq invasion of 2003. If you want the full history of how the American people were deceived (although I still believe that most of them deceived themselves by showing absolutely no willingness to scrutinize), this article really digs in deep:
Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq by Jonathan Stein and Tim Dickinson, POLITICS SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 ISSUE:
Mushroom clouds, duct tape, Judy Miller, Curveball. Recalling how Americans were sold a bogus case for invasion.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/
Rumsfeld’s Revisionist History: ‘We Know Where The WMD Suspect Sites Are’ FAIZ SHAKIR , AARON RUPAR MAY 26, 2006
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/rumsfelds-revisionist-history-we-know-where-the-wmd-suspect-sites-are-72ccf0f2d8a0/
Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War BY JOHN ESTERBROOK NOVEMBER 15, 2002 / 1:5
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rumsfeld-it-would-be-a-short-war/
Rumsfeld’s Revisionist History: ‘We Know Where The WMD Suspect Sites Are’ FAIZ SHAKIR , AARON RUPAR MAY 26, 2006
Rumsfeld’s Revisionist History: ‘We Know Where The WMD Suspect Sites Are’ FAIZ SHAKIR , AARON RUPAR MAY 26, 2006
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/rumsfelds-revisionist-history-we-know-where-the-wmd-suspect-sites-are-72ccf0f2d8a0/
No comments:
Post a Comment