Mission accomplished somewhat, The Iraq war/invasion was about the US and Allies taking the war on terror to a battlefield, a theatre of war where western civilians were not in harms way, any Muslim nutter who could afford a plane ticket went to Iraq to wage Al-Qa'ida's war, the Allies had em right where they wanted them.
Hi
I was caught up in another discussion.
Yes, I think the highly intensive part of the operation caused a great deal of damage to the fighting capability in the Iraqi military and anti-West sympathisers. But, like taking penicillin with an incomplete eradication of the pathogen, it seemed to have grown back somewhat and become more resistant. Using the lens you have proposed (which I think is entirely reasonable by the way):
1. How do you react to the fact that Iraq is possibly more unstable now than before? In terms of threat to the US, at least according to Chomsky's recount per the video pinned to this thread, it likely increased the likelihood of terror activities targeted at the US (and possibly its allies by extension - not said by Chomsky).
2. Do you believe the radicalisation and creation of even more heinous militants than Al-Qaeda in the form of ISIS was partly the result of the invasion?
3. What score out of 10 would you give the Iraq 2 effort, to the point the US left its soil, only to return to advise on it later...
Here's my response, so it is clear that this is just an open question:
1. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but he was a strongman who managed to coerce some form of stability. It couldn't last forever, but there are other ways to change regimes. This effort at regime change does not appear to be particularly successful and has led to a more fluid internal conflict than before in the East although the Kurds have managed to defend an autonomous region.
The US went in. It's allies also engaged in a show of solidarity with a vital strategic partner despite a real lack of moral conviction or evidence of threat from Iraq. They got the spoils. It would be interesting for someone better informed to post up the energy and construction contracts secured by Halliburton, KBR and the like as a result of the post-war reconstruction and commercialisation of the oil fields.
2. Al Qaeda was already so vicious that moderates turned against them eventually. ISIS was so bad that Al Qaeda complained that they gave Al Qaeda a bad name. I had not heard of ISIS until the latest incursion. Also, war brings much collateral damage. Being collaterally damaged does not lesson one's pain. I suspect there would be increased hatred of the West as a result of Iraq II and increased radicalisation. Others will have much more definitive data.
3. It depends.
a. Seizure of assets and development of economic theft: 9/10
b. Securing stability of the region as liberators of the Iraqi people: 4/10
c. Disposing of WMD: Cannot be determined, there were no WMD to dispose of, so no marks can be awarded as none were on offer.
Equally weighting, for lack of a better concept, 6.5/10. C.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4362496/buch-yale-c-student
I am responding to your post with acknowledgment that this is only tangentially relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, perhaps, purposeful for comparisons, justifications, scenarios and lessons learned only. I believe that these situations may be substituted to some degree for such purposes.