Iraq - A Strategic Blunder?

[Schmedlap]

Much of the talent and much of the attention that could have led to re-evaluation and strategic adjustment was directed elsewhere, which may be one reason why the gradual deterioration in Afghanistan was largely unnoticed. Again, we don't know how Afghanistan would have gone without the Iraq engagement, and the degree of impact is infinitely arguable.

Agreed.

... I've always thought that starting a war that was not related to AQ at a time when we were going to war against AQ was perhaps not an ideal decision. Unless one absolutely must fight two enemies at once, is it not preferable to fight them one at a time?

Yes, but some would argue that it was necessary. When else would Bush have the political capital to launch an invasion of Iraq, if not in early 2003? Support was already slipping fast at that point. See next quote/comment below...

I'm sure that the US Govt were basing their decision to invade on other considerations, and the WMD justification served only as a convenient casus belli. It's hard to judge success when the commander's intent is never stated.
...
If one reads Stratfor, they propose that the Iraq undertaking was to force policy changes onto Saudi Arabia and Iran without directly intervening in their affairs.

It's long been my view that WMD was a distraction and this was an effort to reshape the Mideast. Now if I can only figure out a way to get people to pay hundreds of dollars for access to my website, like Stratfor does. I still remember watching Powell's testimony at the UN in 2002, when I was 2LT. I thought, "that's it?" No way we invaded for WMD. It was a justification given to the masses. You can fool all of the people some of the time.

... having America challenge the very norms she is expected to uphold inevitably causes destabilisation.

Agreed. Big negative.

I suspect that American (and by extension the liberal world) homeland security has benefitted, however indirectly, from the interventions. I just think it's tragic that the policy was not enacted in a better, smarter way...

Agreed. If there was significant blundering, it was the grossly negligent handling by the military at the operational and tactical levels, in my opinion.

You can assume that, but then you need to incorporate the benefits of that spending into the (non-)equation, on the side of peace.
It's easier to keep it simple and stick to the already mobnetarised vaiable including the effect of discounted interest.

Highly unlikely that we would have spent significantly less, given the free-spending ways of our politicians from 2001 to 2009. Also highly unlikely that domestic spending would have yielded benefits - it is mostly high-cost patronage jobs, unneeded projects, and high administrative costs for programs of negligible benefit that are arguably counterproductive.

I do not see many of these being strategic benefits accruing to the Unitd States. Most of these appear to be supposed benefits to the Iraqis themselves, which may be offset by the unknown tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and millions fled.

They help to realign the balance of power, the threats, and the opportunities in the Mideast.

Also, how does Israel come into it? Is the idea that being a dependent of the U.S. is a good thing for the state involved?

No. I've heard elsewhere assertions that Iraq is a failed state because it relies on us for aid. I was merely asserting that, by that rationale, Israel is a failed state.