Hagel on the Iraq War

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by AmericaFirst

Agree to disagree. I don't believe Saddam was worth thousands of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars, especially when no WMDs were found.

The soundbite and the core strategic issues seldom intersect.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Those who prefer Saddam's regime to the current regime in Iraq either have forgotten or never knew just how destabilizing that regime was in terms of both regional security and US interests. The Baath Party was founded in a totalitarian militarist ideology that is only comparable to Nazism or imperial communism along the lines of Stalin. Minimizing the danger that regime represented over the long term is an exercise in wishful thinking. In addition, the entire concept of collective security was bankrupt unless Saddam was confronted.

I'm sure the Iranians agree with you on this and are happy we got rid of him. He was no more a threat to the US than many other pint sized dictators. Removing him had nothing to do with out strategic interests - though it did for Iran - not to mention the price we paid for this fiasco.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The soundbite and the core strategic issues seldom intersect.

Very true.

One of the biggest strategic issues in the Iraq War has gotten little to no airplay, but IMO, was one of the key factors in our involvement: troops in Saudi Arabia.

The rallying cry for jihadists the world over (and the central tenet of Al Qaeda) for nearly a decade after the first Gulf War was the "Great Satan" having troops in the "Holy Land." It was insulting that foreign troops were needed to protect the Holy Land...and jihadists were focused on two things: 1) destruction of the Saudi regime 2.) attacking America wherever possible.

The only reason the US had troops in Saudi Arabia, specifically, was the Saudi government's request following the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait...and the Saudi's understandable fear and distrust of Saddam.

Removing Saddam from power would allow us to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia and remove the rallying cry for jihadists. Which we did...after Saddam was toppled, most of the American troops were withdrawn and moved to other bases in the region.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Very true.

One of the biggest strategic issues in the Iraq War has gotten little to no airplay, but IMO, was one of the key factors in our involvement: troops in Saudi Arabia.

The rallying cry for jihadists the world over (and the central tenet of Al Qaeda) for nearly a decade after the first Gulf War was the "Great Satan" having troops in the "Holy Land." It was insulting that foreign troops were needed to protect the Holy Land...and jihadists were focused on two things: 1) destruction of the Saudi regime 2.) attacking America wherever possible.

The only reason the US had troops in Saudi Arabia, specifically, was the Saudi government's request following the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait...and the Saudi's understandable fear and distrust of Saddam.

Removing Saddam from power would allow us to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia and remove the rallying cry for jihadists. Which we did...after Saddam was toppled, most of the American troops were withdrawn and moved to other bases in the region.

Perhaps, but Sunni Saudi Arabia is now neighbored by a Shi'ite Iraq which is close to Shi'ite Iran, a sworn enemy. Saddam was a loose cannon, but his threat to us was nil, he was a hedge against growing Iranian power, and there were likely many different scenarios for defanging him or transitioning him out of power that didn't require "shock and awe". He thought he was our guy in the region - he was during the 80's - and called in the US ambassador before invading Kuwait when he thought he was given a green light.

[Lawdog88]

Saddam was our guy when we needed him, and somebody else's guy when we needed to topple him.

There are a lot of "those kind of guys" in the dustbin of our short history.

And so it goes.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

I'm sure the Iranians agree with you on this and are happy we got rid of him. He was no more a threat to the US than many other pint sized dictators. Removing him had nothing to do with out strategic interests - though it did for Iran - not to mention the price we paid for this fiasco.

This is false.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Row6

Perhaps, but Sunni Saudi Arabia is now neighbored by a Shi'ite Iraq which is close to Shi'ite Iran, a sworn enemy. Saddam was a loose cannon, but his threat to us was nil, he was a hedge against growing Iranian power, and there were likely many different scenarios for defanging him or transitioning him out of power that didn't require "shock and awe". He thought he was our guy in the region - he was during the 80's - and called in the US ambassador before invading Kuwait when he thought he was given a green light.

Saddam, as you said, was a loose cannon--and that wasn't a threat we took idly. We can argue what we should or shouldn't have known with respect to Iraq's WMDs--but it's safe to say that if the intelligence was right and Iraq had WMDs, then they were a threat to American interests given his unpredictability.

And the larger point about US military presence in Saudi Arabia is still valid/factual. The Saudis needed us there due to the threat Saddam posed to them--which in turn was a threat to us since the Saudi oil fields are such a vital geostrategic part of the world economy. Saddam may not have been a direct threat to us--but he certainly was a threat to the Saudis and their oilfields; and any threat to that does pose a threat to American geostrategic policy.

Our presence in Saudi Arabia was a rallying cry for jihadists and anti-American adversaries in the region (re: Iran). Removing the threat to the Saudi oilfields (Saddam) would allow us to move our bases to other friendly countries and remove that specific rallying point.

America hasn't become vastly popular in the Arab street since...but from a geopolitical viewpoint, the move was successful (probably the most successful angle of approaching it from--all the other angles are mixed at best, if not outright failure). The Saudi government has risen in stature/influence in the region and they are certainly friendly to American interests.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Saddam was our guy when we needed him, and somebody else's guy when we needed to topple him.

There are a lot of "those kind of guys" in the dustbin of our short history.

And so it goes.

In fairness though, that probably has as much (if not more) to do with Saddam's miscalculations as our own.

Up until Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US and Iraq had cordial, mutually beneficial arrangement: the US ignores his human rights record--while Saddam acts as a bulwark against Iranian expansion in the area; and Iraq in the process gets Western military equipment and other forms of aid. Not much different from what we did with Egypt from 1979-2010.

I don't think Saddam particularly liked us and we certainly didn't like him. Saddam's big mistake was overplaying his hand and invading Kuwait, figuring we needed Iraq more than we did the Kuwaitis.

Perhaps so--but the Kuwaitis were chummy with our even bigger allies, the Saudis--and with Saddam making his power move against Kuwait, neither the Saudis or the US trusted Saddam enough to let him get away with it.

The irony goes: Saddam had every right to be pissed at the Kuwaitis. A very large oil field was located on the border between the two countries (with the majority of the oil field being located in Iraq) and the Kuwaitis were taking more then their "fair share" as it were and tying the matter up in international courts without conceding anything to the Iraqis. Had Saddam asked the US to lean on the Kuwaitis to stop taking so much, we probably would have agreed.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

What was gained was essential and well worth the cost.

Absolutely no way, my man. No way at all.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

In fairness though, that probably has as much (if not more) to do with Saddam's miscalculations as our own.

Up until Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US and Iraq had cordial, mutually beneficial arrangement: the US ignores his human rights record--while Saddam acts as a bulwark against Iranian expansion in the area; and Iraq in the process gets Western military equipment and other forms of aid. Not much different from what we did with Egypt from 1979-2010.

I don't think Saddam particularly liked us and we certainly didn't like him. Saddam's big mistake was overplaying his hand and invading Kuwait, figuring we needed Iraq more than we did the Kuwaitis.

Perhaps so--but the Kuwaitis were chummy with our even bigger allies, the Saudis--and with Saddam making his power move against Kuwait, neither the Saudis or the US trusted Saddam enough to let him get away with it.

The irony goes: Saddam had every right to be pissed at the Kuwaitis. A very large oil field was located on the border between the two countries (with the majority of the oil field being located in Iraq) and the Kuwaitis were taking more then their "fair share" as it were and tying the matter up in international courts without conceding anything to the Iraqis. Had Saddam asked the US to lean on the Kuwaitis to stop taking so much, we probably would have agreed.

Can't deny any of that.

Fact is, said cynically, once he was of no further use, he was expendable.

Said politely, once his aims differed from ours, he became a target for termination. Indeed, he played the wrong hand at the wrong time . . .

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Saddam was the standard bearer of successful defiance of the US as well as a major instigator of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

You mean, it wasn't necessarily the criminal Israeli-Zionist invasion of Palestinian lands and homes following WW2 that instigated the conflict, it was Saddam Hussein? What a brilliantly preposterous take on the history of that conflict.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

What was gained was essential and well worth the cost.

Really? How many military-age sons did you send to Iraq? If you had, would it still have been worth the cost if they had returned home to you in wheelchairs and flag-draped coffins?

I highly doubt it.

[co_gator89]

Saddam is gone, but now Iraqis just get killed by all the car bombs instead. I highly doubt the families of all the people getting killed every week are singing our praises for "liberating" them. We lost ~1,500 more people in that rathole than we did on 9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and certainly wasn't going to be invading American cities anytime soon.

And all those lives and dollars for what? Well we certainly did Iran a favor.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Can't deny any of that.

Fact is, said cynically, once he was of no further use, he was expendable.

Said politely, once his aims differed from ours, he became a target for termination. Indeed, he played the wrong hand at the wrong time . . .

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that--once he put us in the position of having to choose between two groups of friends (our long-standing allies the Saudis--and to a lesser extent, the Kuwaitis vs our more recent arrangement with the Iraqis), he was going to end up on the losing side of that equation every time.

As it was though, we didn't target him for elimination after the end of the war. George HW Bush let him stay in power (though we could have doubtless pushed onwards to Baghdad and deposed him had we wanted to).

I think a better way of phrasing that is: once our geopolitical/strategic goals weren't allied, there was no reason to continue the keep the arrangement. Neither side could really be considered "friends"--and if Saddam was going to threaten our bread & butter (Saudi/Kuwaiti oilfields), then it was an easy choice for us to make.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

You mean, it wasn't necessarily the criminal Israeli-Zionist invasion of Palestinian lands and homes following WW2 that instigated the conflict, it was Saddam Hussein? What a brilliantly preposterous take on the history of that conflict.

Equally preposterous to suggest the Jews somehow started their presence in Palestine right after WWII when it's pretty clear there was a Jewish claim to the area dating back centuries...and there was already an established Jewish presence in Palestine dating back to before WWII.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Saddam, as you said, was a loose cannon--and that wasn't a threat we took idly. We can argue what we should or shouldn't have known with respect to Iraq's WMDs--but it's safe to say that if the intelligence was right and Iraq had WMDs, then they were a threat to American interests given his unpredictability.

And the larger point about US military presence in Saudi Arabia is still valid/factual. The Saudis needed us there due to the threat Saddam posed to them--which in turn was a threat to us since the Saudi oil fields are such a vital geostrategic part of the world economy. Saddam may not have been a direct threat to us--but he certainly was a threat to the Saudis and their oilfields; and any threat to that does pose a threat to American geostrategic policy.

Our presence in Saudi Arabia was a rallying cry for jihadists and anti-American adversaries in the region (re: Iran). Removing the threat to the Saudi oilfields (Saddam) would allow us to move our bases to other friendly countries and remove that specific rallying point.

America hasn't become vastly popular in the Arab street since...but from a geopolitical viewpoint, the move was successful (probably the most successful angle of approaching it from--all the other angles are mixed at best, if not outright failure). The Saudi government has risen in stature/influence in the region and they are certainly friendly to American interests.

I suggest you read Florida's own Senator Graham's speech prior to the vote authorizing the war. He was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time and had requested information from the CIA Director on the nature of the threat from Saddam. Besides for noting his lack of a delivery system for whatever WMD he might possess, the Director also stated that Saddam was very unlikely to use them unless attacked. One does not have to believe he had no WMDs to come to the same conclusion as Senator Graham: invading Iraq was an exceedingly bad idea. Time has proved him correct.

The idea of producing highly mixed results for Saudia Arabia does not begin to justify this colossal waste of US blood and treasure, though I know you have not said it does.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Equally preposterous to suggest the Jews somehow started their presence in Palestine right after WWII when it's pretty clear there was a Jewish claim to the area dating back centuries...and there was already an established Jewish presence in Palestine dating back to before WWII.

LOL. So because a relatively small number of Jews lived in Palestine prior to WW2, that alone gave millions of other Jews, mostly from Europe, the right to invade and colonize the area while forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land and homes? Yeah, that makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.

European Jews had about as much claim to Palestine as I have to David Letterman's classic car collection.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

In fairness though, that probably has as much (if not more) to do with Saddam's miscalculations as our own.

Up until Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US and Iraq had cordial, mutually beneficial arrangement: the US ignores his human rights record--while Saddam acts as a bulwark against Iranian expansion in the area; and Iraq in the process gets Western military equipment and other forms of aid. Not much different from what we did with Egypt from 1979-2010.

I don't think Saddam particularly liked us and we certainly didn't like him. Saddam's big mistake was overplaying his hand and invading Kuwait, figuring we needed Iraq more than we did the Kuwaitis.

Perhaps so--but the Kuwaitis were chummy with our even bigger allies, the Saudis--and with Saddam making his power move against Kuwait, neither the Saudis or the US trusted Saddam enough to let him get away with it.

The irony goes: Saddam had every right to be pissed at the Kuwaitis. A very large oil field was located on the border between the two countries (with the majority of the oil field being located in Iraq) and the Kuwaitis were taking more then their "fair share" as it were and tying the matter up in international courts without conceding anything to the Iraqis. Had Saddam asked the US to lean on the Kuwaitis to stop taking so much, we probably would have agreed.

Prior to invading Kuwait Saddam called in April Glaspie who was standing in for our ambassador to Iraq. He described to her his unhappiness with the Kuwaitis and while not clearly stating he would invade he described the situation as intolerable and the necessity of his reacting. Ms Glaspie replied - one assumes after checking with her superiors - that the US had no interest in the matter. The invasion occurred shortly thereafter, one again assumes with Saddam thinking he had a green light from his ally - the US.

Things went south based on that misunderstanding, which does not support the idea that he was some lunatic. Lunatics do not rise to power and survive for decades, calculating realists do. Not only did the man have very few cards as an international power, but he was capable of being manipulated by smart diplomacy, unfortunately a fact ignored by the drum beat war fever ginned up by a US administration deluded by a cowboy mentality.

[co_gator89]

Since we're on the topic, a quick lesson on war propaganda:

Iraq: Part I [Spoiler alert: It wasn't true.]


Iraq: Part II

Neither was that

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Row6

I suggest you read Florida's own Senator Graham's speech prior to the vote authorizing the war. He was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time and had requested information from the CIA Director on the nature of the threat from Saddam. Besides for noting his lack of a delivery system for whatever WMD he might possess, the Director also stated that Saddam was very unlikely to use them unless attacked. One does not have to belief he had none to come to the same conclusion as Senator Graham: invading Iraq was an exceedingly bad idea. Time has proved him correct.

Time has most certainly proven the Senator correct in many ways. He was correct in saying Saddam did not have a delivery system for WMDs--but that wasn't really the worry. A biological or chemical weapon does not need a bomb or rocket to disperse the agents. The fear was a smaller-scale attack that left no traces.

The idea of producing highly mixed results for Saudia Arabia does not begin to justify this colossal waste of US blood and treasure, though I know you have not said it does.

It wasn't just the Saudis we were benefiting, we stood to gain a lot by removing the rallying cry for jihadists--AND also benefit by the Saudis rising in prominence/stature by having them start to combat Iranian/Shi'a influence.

In that sense and that sense only, *some* of the geostrategic goals were successful.

But in many (arguably most) ways, I'm not disagreeing that it was a gigantic waste of lives and money. And I can absolutely understand why many people wouldn't be able to appreciate the big picture given the paltry returns in every other area.