let us pause, before we forget:
As Americans would soon find out, Bush’s declaration of victory was severely premature. Iraq would soon be in the throes of a violent insurgency and, eventually, a full-blown sectarian civil war.
Actually, if you went back and look at Bush's speech that day, he mentions that the hard work of rebuilding Iraq was just starting. Major combat operations had ended on May 1 as any service member in Iraq at that time knows. This would change as the insurgency grew as well as sectarian violence. But even now, the vast majority of observers do not look at what happened in Iraq as being a full-blown sectarian civil war. The level of fighting and casualties is far to light for that given the size of Iraq's population.
Seven years after that speech, Iraq has made progress, but still struggles with terrorism and deep political discord.
Guess what, there are a lot of countries around the world that struggle with such things. Iraq's problems with this at least in terms of the level of casualties TODAY are actually less than several other countries including MEXICO.
Iraq still endures a level of violence that anywhere else in the world would be considered a crisis.
The number of Iraqi civilians murdered in January of 2010 was 118. The number of US Civilians murdered in January 2010 was nearly 1,400! Even on a per capita basis, more civilians were murdered in the United States than Iraq. Yet this basic fact goes unmentioned by the writers.
But when weighing those possible benefits against the costs of the Iraq intervention, there is simply no conceivable calculus by which Operation Iraqi Freedom can be judged to have been a successful or worthwhile policy. The war was intended to show the extent of America’s power. It succeeded only in showing its limits.
A bunch of tables showing the various costs associated with the Iraq war certainly does not show the limits of America's power, especially when compared to other similar interventions in the past. The fact that Iraq could potentially be on a sustained path of political and economic development without the need for foreign security forces in less than 10 years is in fact a RECORD when it comes to counterinsurgency and nationbuilding operations.
First, it is critical to remember the shifting justifications for the Iraqi invasion. The Iraq war was sold to the American public on Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction and his alleged relationship with Al Qaeda. When both claims turned out to be false, the Bush administration justified the intervention on the idea that a democratic Iraq would be an ally in the “war on terror” and an inspiration for democratic reform in the Middle East. These arguments remain highly questionable.
Saddam's possession of Weapons Of Mass Destruction and his failure to comply with 17 UN Security Council Resolutions and his efforts to rebuff inspecutions and circumvent sanctions and weapons embargo are issues that pre-date the Bush administration. Saddam was considered a threat even by the Clinton administration that admitted that the BEST solution to the Iraq problem was a NEW GOVERNMENT!!!!!
Not finding certain types of WMD after the coalition invasion of Iraq does not change the FACT that the means of containing Saddam through the sanctions and weapons embargo had fallen apart. Without those key means of containment, the only option for dealing with Saddam was regime removal. Containment, even if one consider that to be viable policy in the long run cannot work when Saddam by 2001 could so easily sell oil illegally and import nearly anything he wanted through the complete collapse of UN Sanctions along the Iraq/Syrian border, as well as the collapse of sanctions along Iraq's borders with other countries and the willing and open violation of sanctions against Iraq by permanent UN Security Council countries like CHINA, RUSSIA, and FRANCE! The only chance of being able to live with Saddam was through an exstensive full proof sanctions regime and weapons embargo which unfortunately fell apart.
The need to remove Saddam NEVER rested on what coalition forces would find in terms of WMD weapons after Saddam was removed in 2003. It also involved the viability of the containment regime and Saddam's ability to add to his conventional and non-conventional military strength in the years ahead and the threats and cost that would pose to the region. To advocate waiting until one could confirm that Saddam had amassed more combat capability in these area's before acting would insure a heavier cost in lives for the United States, Iraq, and other countries in the region than what has been experienced to date.
Finally the removal of Saddam's regime meant a new government in Iraq had to be formed. Helping Iraq build a democracy was a far better course of action than simply installing another leader or dictator. The reason for removing Saddam never shifted. The mission did shift once that had been accomplished to building a democracy in Iraq.
Second, the authors would like to make clear that this analysis of the cost of the Iraq war in no way diminishes the sacrifice and honor displayed by the U.S. military in Iraq. Americans troops have served and died, and continue to serve and die, in Iraq at the behest of the American people and two of their commanders-in-chief. This is why it is important to draw the correct lessons from our nation’s invasion of Iraq. In order to do that, its costs must be examined honestly and rigorously.
What the authors don't seem to understand is that the majority of those that have served in Iraq believe that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, unlike them. Support for removing Saddam and the current mission in Iraq is much higher among US military personal than it is among the civilian population in the United States.
Total deaths: Between 110,663 and 119,380
Given the size of Iraq's population and the number of years of conflict, this is from a historic perspective on the low side compared to past conflicts. More French civilians died in the Allied push to liberate the country from Germany in 1944. More civilians in Bosnia died over a three year period in the 1990s even though the country was only 1/7 the size of Iraq. The numbers pale in comparison to the deaths in the Iran/Iraq war, Vietnam war, Korean War, as well as multiple conflicts still in progress in other parts of the world.
Of those, 3,498 were killed in combat. In the United States last major nation building/counter insurgency effort, over 48,000 US troops were killed in combat.
Over 304,000 US service members were wounded in action the United States last major nation building/counter insurgency effort.
Cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom: $748.2 billion
As a percentage of GDP over the past 7 years, this amounts to barely .7% per year making it one of the least costly US wars in terms of financial burden in US history.
Strategic costs
The foregoing costs could conceivably be justified if the Iraq intervention had improved the United States’ strategic position in the Middle East. But this is clearly not the case. The Iraq war has strengthened anti-U.S. elements and made the position of the United States and its allies more precarious.
LOL, the authors of this article do not understand fundamental US interest in the region and how those interest were threatened by Saddam. The fact that the United States had already had to send half a million troops to the region to deal with Saddam, attempt to maintain and support an extensive inspections, sanctions, and weapons embargo regime against the Saddam's Iraq, as well as deal with his multiple violations never registers.
Empowered Iran in Iraq and region.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is the primary strategic beneficiary of the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. The end of Saddam Hussein’s regime removed Iran’s most-hated enemy (with whom it fought a hugely destructive war in the 1980s) and removed the most significant check on Iran’s regional hegemonic aspirations. Many of Iraq’s key Iraqi Shia Islamist and Kurdish leaders enjoy close ties to Iran, facilitating considerable influence for Iran in the new Iraq. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the primary strategic beneficiary of the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq.
Naturally, an Iraq free of Saddam is going to have better ties with Iran as well as its other neighbors. Thats a good thing. The Iran/Iraq war started by Saddam could have turned into a major international crises. Saddam never served as the check on Iran that many strategist hoped that he would. He was instead a loose cannon, attacking and invading his neighbors at will, regardless of the consequences for the region, Iraq, or even his own regime.
An Iraq free of Saddam has the oportunity to be a far more stable and reliable partner in the security situation in the Persian Gulf, especially when it comes working with other countries throughout the region and the world in detering unwanted Iranian influence or aggression.
Iran naturally has more influence inside Iraq now than it did before Saddam was removed. But this pales in comparison to the level of influence that the United States has built in the country over the past 7 years. The Iraqi armed forces and police force are supplied and equiped by the United States and its allies. This automatically makes the Iraqi government heavily dependent on the United States and its allies. Iran has no comparable influence like this. The level of of money, aid, support, and military equipment that the United States and its allies can offer the new Iraqi government dwarfs anything that Iran can offer. It is the United States that has had over 100,000 troops in Iraq each year for the past 7 years, NOT Iran. Even after the United States withdraws from Iraq, the Iraqi military and and US military will continue to have strong ties, far stronger than even the Soviet Union's military had with Iraq in the 1970s and 1980s.
Created terrorist training ground.
According to the U.K. Maplecroft research group, Iraq is the most vulnerable country in the world to terrorism.The years of U.S. occupation in Iraq created not only a rallying call for violent Islamic extremists but also an environment for them to develop, test, and perfect various tactics and techniques. These tactics and techniques are now shared, both in person and via the Internet, with extremists all over the region and the world, including those fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
You could make these same arguements about Afghanistan. Violence has dramatically decreased in Iraq. The government has taken over nearly all security tasks. The situation in Iraq today is dramatically better than it is in many other developing countries around the world.
Loss of moral authority.
While abuses are perhaps inevitable in any military occupation, the images and stories broadcast from Iraq into the region and around the world have done lasting damage to the United States’ reputation as a supporter of international order and human rights. Gen. David Petraeus acknowledges the damage done to the U.S. reputation by Abu Ghraib is permanent, calling it a “nonbiodegradable” event.
If this were true, the United States would not be able to lead such a large multinational operation today in Afghanistan, as well as successfully continue other missions and maintain hundreds of other relations with various groups and countries throughout the world.
Diverted resources and attention from Afghanistan.
Rather than stay and finish the job in Afghanistan as promised, the Bush administration turned its focus to Iraq in 2002. Special Forces specializing in regional languages were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, and Predator drones were sent to support the war in Iraq instead of the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan Rather than stay and finish the job in Afghanistan as promised, the Bush administration turned its focus to Iraq in 2002. Special Forces specializing in regional languages were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, and Predator drones were sent to support the war in Iraq instead of the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
99% of the coalition forces used to invade Iraq were not being used in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was conducted primarily by heavy armored divisions from the United States and Britain. Even to this day, the vast majority of troops deployed in Afghanistan consist of light infantry, not heavy armor.
More importantly, the United States does not have the luxury of dealing with each of its threats one at a time. The United States needed to deal with both threats. No specialist trained in speaking Pashtun, Farci or other South Asian languages were diverted from Afghanistan to ARAB Iraq.
Stifled democracy reform.
A recent RAND study concluded that, rather than becoming a beacon of democracy, the Iraq war has hobbled the cause of political reform in the Middle East. The report stated that “Iraq’s instability has become a convenient scarecrow neighboring regimes can use to delay political reform by asserting that democratization inevitably leads to insecurity.”
Way too early to be making any conclusions on that. Plus, I'd love to hear the arguement of how keeping Saddam in power in Iraq would be better for democracy in the middle east. LOL
Rising sectarianism in region.
The invasion of Iraq replaced a prominent Sunni Arab State with one largely controlled by Iraq’s Arab Shia majority.
Current election results in Iraq show that the multi-ethnic but strongly supported Sunni Party of Alawi has won. Even Maliki's party that came in second is consider to be multi-ethnic compared to what it was years ago. The mainly Shia parties did not fair well in the election.
this shift has exacerbated regional tensions between Shia and Sunni, including in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, and Bahrain (where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based.)
These tensions already existed and there is little evidence that they have been exacerbated by events in Iraq.