CelticRover

Yes, I remember those days.

amideislas

The conclusion that the US was going into Iraq no matter what is technically not all that far off the mark, however, the implication that is was all precipitated by a pack of deliberate Bush & Cheney lies for dubious intent is just a gross oversimplification that's what most of us can accept (or want to).

It's oft forgotten that at the time, Iraq was a fortress of secrecy, Saddam was a wacked out dictator, drunk with power, who repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to engage not only atrocities against his own people, but threatened every single neighbor in the region with the same.

Now, it just so happens that at that time, every neighbour in the region happened to supply most of the world's oil, which leads to the "war for oil" theory - although that entire premise has long been debunked. But it's not entirely false. It's just that the premise is not what most would like to believe.

Considering that as others have mentioned, whether Saddam actually had WMD or not, simply couldn't be known for sure. And even Saddam's PR and Intelligence "operators" went to great lengths to make sure everyone believed that he could easily and atrociously obliterate anyone who attacked him. Add to that his open claims (and exhibiting his intent on many occasions) to "take over the middle east", and it all starts to look pretty ominous.

History shows that the notion of going into Iraq in a full scale invasion was very unpopular - particularly in the US. It was actually Iraq's neighbours who were justifiably terrified, and incessantly begged the US to take the bastard out.

After all, they also couldn't know "for sure" if he could actually launch an assault of anthrax- or VX-laden missles in to Ryadh, Kuwait city, Mecca, Amman, or even Tehran, for that matter (and the Iranians were at least equally fearful). In fact, in post-mortem, it's pretty well known that the Gulf states and the Saudis had a lot to do with the Bush administration's enthusiasm for the invasion - hence support for the notion that it was the "war for oil".

Still, it was unlikely that Bush and Cheney could get congress approval to invade Iraq. But not surprisingly, the Saudis - and others fearful of Saddam - provided much of that "evidence" to justify it. This was just what Bush and Cheney needed to go to congress with. And the rest is history.

But for the sake of balance, let's consider a theoretical alter-reality; That the US had never invaded, and that Saddam actually did have those WMD capabilities (which couldn't be known for sure).

Let's say Iraq launched a massive chemical and biological assault on major cities in Saudi, the gulf states, Tel Aviv, and even Tehran, plunging the entire middle east into massive chaos. What then, would be the ripple effect around the rest of the world?

Well, considering the fragility of the middle east, the most obvious likely result would be an immediate escalation into massive, very nasty, bloody war between all sorts of divergent entities of differing interests and fears, and lots of weapons.

That would include most of the Arabian states, along with Iran, possibly Turkey, Syria, naturally the yanks, the UK, French and all of Nato involved, and a very aggressive, very defensive Israel in-between - It would likely have been another world war, and could well have evolved into the use of thermonuclear weapons.

But that's not all - subsequently the price of oil would have gone straight through the roof. Probably as much as €1000 per barrel - or more. And that would have caused far more damage to the world economy than anything in living memory. Talk about a worldwide depression.

In post-morten analysis, other than the fear of (and presumed prevention of) a Mideast in chaos, the US demonstrably had nothing to gain from it and only to lose. You can argue whether the invasion was wise or not (I don't believe it was - but hindsight is always 20-20).

I suppose you could say it was the "war for oil", but I'd tend to characterise it as the "war of fear", and I think the real lesson was "be careful what you know for sure".

At the end of the day, I for one, am rather relieved Saddam wasn't nearly as dangerous as he wanted us all to believe. It could've been done differently. Yes, of course. But again, hindsight is always 20-20.

robin1234

I also remember the "cakewalk" theme, from chicken hawk types. Most ordinary folks, especially Those who remember Vietnam and the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan, knew it wouldn't be a cakewalk. But things went from bad to worse, Arab Spring and its fallout, Caliphate, Syria, home grown terrorists, GWOT. What a pity we didn't live with the tame dictator we'd groomed all those years...

Giantaxe

The inability to plan for the consequences of invasion was almost as bad as the lies used to justify the invasion in the first place.

Imo, there were reasonable arguments that could be made in favour of overthrowing Saddam. But those arguments were never made and instead we got fed palpable lies about Saddam trying to buy yellowcake from Niger and his mobile biological weapons labs etc. One of the more shameful episodes of US (and British, thankyou Blair...) history. Glad my family got on the streets and protested that war.

CelticRover

Perhaps another history refresher might be in order:

https://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq-co...ss-regime.html

Sally Redux

Has there suddenly been an outbreak of sense on BE?

scrubbedexpat099

I posted a link to an article that sort of covered this.

A couple of things that are relevant is the number of senior officers relieved of command compared to say WW2 and I forget who he was now but a senior Army General who provided cost estimations and numbers required on the ground which were not acceptable to the politicos and suffered accordingly. His numbers have been shown to be underestimated.

Esy to get into wars, difficult to get out.

robin1234

Don't worry, it'll soon wear off!

amideislas

More ominous evidence of covert US military coverups:

Bases on Mars - What They Don't Want You To Know

Time Travel and Mars Base

Basiago and Eisenhower reveal "Marsgate" and make case for "Alternative 4" - Seattle exopolitics | Examiner.com

Secret Alien Base on Mars: US Marine 'spent 17 years on Red Planet protecting human colonies from Martians' - Mirror Online

Jim Nichols UFO Art

Sally Redux

We had fun while it lasted.

amideislas

ask and you shall receive.

robin1234

With my 20/20 hindsight, I now know why Rumsfeld didn't send enough troops to hold Iraq - so many of the boys (thank you for your service) were on Mars..

Hiro11

So you're asking for counter examples to the idea that the US is not a wholely despicable evil empire rapaciously bestriding the globe crushing innocents? And by not providing these counter examples, I'm being "precious"?

Sally Redux

Watch those double negatives.

CelticRover

This actually popped up on the BE screen moments ago.

-Leading To War-