Iraq - A Strategic Blunder?

[Schmedlap]

One factor that has to be considered, but which is impossible to quantify, is the degree to which the focus on Iraq diverted attention and resources from Afghanistan and from the broader effort against AQ.

As many times as that argument gets repeated, I fail to see any merit at all in it. The real deficit in Afghanistan has not been about dollars and boots. It is a deficit of appropriate knowledge and talent within the framework of an unworkable strategy. Throwing money and Soldiers at the problem won't (and wouldn't have) solve(d) that. The development of our strategy in Afghanistan has occurred in the same manner that building a home would occur if you built a room and then attempted to build the rest of the house around it, ad-libbing the blueprint along the way. As we attempt to stuff the foundation underneath the room and tack the kitchen onto the side of it, we're complaining that everything would have gone fine had we only gotten more nails and 2x4's when the project began.*

In short: USD 100 billion war costs cost more than USD 100 billion. It's likely more close to USD 120 billion because of the additional interest.

Doesn't that assume that we wouldn't have simply spent that money on other stuff? The Bush years weren't exactly a time of frugality on non-defense spending.

[Dayuhan]

Dollars and boots aren't the only issue. 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. It may in fact be negligible, but 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?

[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.

[Dayuhan]

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...

Certainly there was a limited window of opportunity from the political capital perspective, but I don't see how the removal of Saddam was necessary in any event. Justifiable, certainly, but why necessary? What vital American interest was served, beyond gratifying the reflexive post-9/11 urge to whack some Ay-rabs?

It's long been my view that WMD was a distraction and this was an effort to reshape the Mideast... 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.

I don't think there's any doubt about that. WMD were blown into the issue because they were the only casus belli that could be expanded to meet an "imminent threat" standard. Many of those beating the drum for the invasion were quite open about their desire to "drain the swamp in the Middle East", and often expressed the belief that the emergence of a peaceful prosperous democracy in Iraq would generate overwhelming pressure for reform in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. I personally thought this was pretty much a fantasy at the time, and I still think so.

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

The policy/strategy level was horribly managed as well. It was simply assumed that the Iraqis would welcome their liberators with open arms and that the installation of a new government was a minor technical issue akin to changing a light bulb or tire. As a result there was very little planning for management of the immediate post-Saddam environment. The levels of manpower and other resources deployed were sufficient to defeat Saddam's armed forces, but way below what was necessary to provide security in the aftermath. Overall the challenges of managing Iraq after Saddam's defeat were ridiculously underestimated. That was a huge and costly mistake.

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

Agreed. I have infinite faith in the ability of the US Government to spend $100 billion without accomplishing anything. It's what they do best.

[Steve the Planner]

Agreed that it was a startegic blunder.

Why? Somewhere between neo-con revenge, regrets about the limitations in the prior war, and the delusion of oil control or a base for democracy/bulwark against Iraq, etc... Tak any from the menu, it doesn't matter.

Interesting about advance planning, though. Lots of people actually knew lots about it, but what they knew never passed the portal into decision-making, before, during, or after. Amazing how much is known but how little knowledge an organization has.

I was particularly intrigued by the State Department's Crocker study (pre-invasion). They rounded up a bunch of folks to brainstorm Iraq. Trouble is these folks' knowledge and opinions were "political" in nature, and had no real substance as to basics like demographics, organizational structure, infrastructure, etc... It was like an amateur side show.

Again, amazing...

Now, we leave for a while having gained little in the way of structured analysis and understanding, and, after years of occupancy, and all will be shortly forgotten.

Amazing...

Steve

[jkm_101_fso]

This is more personal than the rest. I hope that's OK:

It's hard for me to say that Iraq wasn't worth it. I spent a few years there and lost some good friends. Personally, I wouldn't want to say that it was for nothing.

However, I understand reality. Was Saddam a threat to the United States in March of 2003? Probably not. Was he a threat to neighboring countries? Maybe, but I don't think so. Probably just a toothless tiger at that point in history. Was he a threat to his own people? Certainly; but so are many other unsavory tyrants around the world. It doesn't mean that we overthrow them all. We can’t do that.

So, I get it. We didn't need to invade Iraq. It was a costly war in terms of blood and treasure. It was also costly because of the irreparable damage done to the Army, in terms of individuals killed, wounded and those left the service because of it. They are not easily replaced. Additionally, all of the equipment destroyed and damaged, which can be replaced, but at high cost.

But, Iraq caused the Army to change, for the better, in many ways. We now have COIN doctrine and recent practical application of successful TTPs. We have experienced and knowledgeable counterinsurgents in our ranks. We have more adaptable and flexible leaders. We have fielded some amazing tools to our kit that amplifies our ability to succeed in these types of wars.

I look back and think about if I did more harm than good there. Was I able to help some people improve their quality of life? Yes. That is true across the board for most during this conflict. We all helped some of the people of Iraq. Not all of them, unfortunately. Did many die prematurely because of us? Yes, unfortunately.

I believe that the Civil War that occurred in Iraq during our tenure would have eventually happened (or a similar variant), even if we didn't invade. Saddam would have died at some point and I'm not sure anyone (to include his sons) would have been able to fill the vacuum. Maybe I'm wrong.

I am numb when I think about Iraq. I am glad for the people whose lives have improved. I am sad for the people who died. But I am alive and healthy. It’s a convenient view, I suppose.

Surprisingly, during my darkest days, I was not angry about the invasion of Iraq. I am most upset with HOW we fought that war for the first 3+ years. Many could see what we were doing was absolutely not working, but all I heard commanders, Generals and politicians saying was "it's getting better" and "the situation is improving" when it clearly was not. My rage then (and now) was toward green-suitors and politicians. They could not accept that we were losing and what we were doing was not working.

I am angry we didn't have enough troops. I am angry we didn't anticipate the looting, chaos and subsequent insurgency. I am angry we stupidly dissolved the Iraqi Army without much thought. I am angry we initially denied the violence was an insurgency. I am angry we put entire maneuver brigades on FOBs and asked them to drive around and get blown up. I am angry we asked Soldiers in soft-skin humvees to conduct "route clearance". I am angry that many units did not secure the AOs they were responsible for. I am angry that we prematurely turned battle space over the unready and untrained Iraqi units. I am angry we let so many police forces become death squads. I am angry that we refused to acknowledge it was a civil war. I am angry we let the bloodshed go on FOR SO LONG before we chose to change the way we were doing things. I am angry about so much of it.

It took the removal of the SECDEF and a Mid-Term election to make a change happen. I am glad that it FINALLY happened. Because it appears for now, that it worked.

I will return to Iraq very soon. I am excited to see the security improvement and (mostly) violent-free streets. I am excited to be part of the effort that "turns the light off" for US involvement. I was there at the beginning. I was there in the middle. I will be there at the end. Rather fitting, I guess. But it still doesn’t bring me much closure.

Years from now, I don't know what I will think of it. Probably depends on what ends up happening there. History might remember it as a mistake, or a great victory. I don't know. But I think decades from now, the truth is that I will still be pretty unsure about it all, just like I am today.

Lest we forget.

[Steve the Planner]

jkm:

Interesting, isn't it that, like Viet Nam, some of us have experienced a country that we will all be linked to.

Ditto on the decision-higher ups, and ditto on helping Iraqis.

I did an infrastructure, econ and pop assessment in Jan 2008, and rapidly figured out that, after decades of sanctions and mismanagement, the whole affair could have been pushed over with a few well-placed feathers, but, the pregnant question was always "What happens next?"

That was the question that all of us, and the Iraqis, participated in answering---the hard way. Like Ricks said, the final chapters will be written by the Iraqis, not us, and, despite the appearance of turmoil, I have a sneaking suspicion that, one day, some of us will go as tourists to see the now-restored monuments we saw only as dust-heaps.

My prayers are that the answers for our dead and injured come from that future, which, like a bricklayer for the Empire State Building, will always be "our" building... and even with friends who died building it.

I was very pleased to see that, after all the sturm-unt-drang about the election, it opens with Allawi, the initial winner having the first opportunity to form a new government. Far from over, but small steps for a whole troubled country are, in fact, big steps.

[Chris jM]

Schmedlap, great topic and interesting comments thus far.

What still perplexes me was the fixation on WMD. 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.

One observation I would like to make is that any proactive action by a dominant power is bound to cause negativity. Stability in the world is important to many, especially in the areas of sovereignty and economics. America, being the greatest power within the system, has a lot to benefit by normalising and standardising the 'rules' she plays by. Should another entity challenge the established norms (say, Iraq invading Kuwait) the general global response is to champion a response that upholds those assumed rules of international affairs. Contrariwise, having America challenge the very norms she is expected to uphold inevitably causes destabilisation.

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. If that's the case, then judging relative success/failure will be a very, very subjective affair.

As a parting thought: if during the paranoia that reigned post Sept 11 it was outlined to the US Govt that in order to prevent any further (substantial) terrorist attacks occurring on her territory for the next decade, two foreign wars were required in Iraq and Afghanistan for the cost paid to date, would Bush have accepted the course he did? 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 - thus reducing the human cost that has had to be borne by many different nations, Iraq included.

[Fuchs]

Doesn't that assume that we wouldn't have simply spent that money on other stuff? The Bush years weren't exactly a time of frugality on non-defense spending.

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.

[tequila]

From my naïve standpoint, I see a dictatorship replaced with a democracy, many foreign debts to Iraq forgiven, the likelihood of increased oil production benefiting all Iraqis rather than just the ruling regime, a dramatic improvement in quality of life for the Kurds, removal of sanctions on all of Iraq, a government that has established friendly relations with its neighbors, creation of security forces that are far less abusive or corrupt, and a military unlikely to attack neighbors or its own government. What am I missing? There is no perpetual state of emergency like in Egypt, no Theocracry and ridiculously mismanaged economy like in Iran, no entrenched extended families pillaging the country’s resources like in Saudi Arabia. Even if you want to assert that Iraq will be dependent upon us for years to come, I've got one word for you: Israel.

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.

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? Again, I don't see the strategic benefit to the U.S. Also one could argue from this example that Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf countries are also to one degree or another dependent on the U.S. yet many are negative examples for you.