The unintended consequences of Iraq war , and the lesson therein

by smkovalinsky | November 30, 2009 at 01:03 pm

309 views | 50 Recommendations | 15 comments

Many political analysts have pointed out that the Bush invasion of Iraq, far from keeping our country safe from terrorists, made us on the contrary more vulnerable; more globally hated, and more viewed as incendiary.

Clearly, we also threw the region into instability, and allowed Iran to emerge as a greater threat than it was prior to the invasion.

Now, a political blogger reminds us that that lesson, if not recalled, may be re-learned with Iran.

In the aftermath of threats, warnings, scoldings, and sanctions at the hands of US, Great Britain, France, and now Russia and China, Ahmadinejad not only has announced plans for the building of 10 new uranium enrichment sites, but has threatened to "go his own way" by leaving the NPT , which would mean that his activities would no longer be under the surveillance of the United Nations' agency. Is this really what we want? :

In 2008, Peter W. Galbraith wrote a book entitled, Unintended Consequences: How the War in Iraq Has Strengthened America's Enemies, in which he argued--much as we have here--that Bush's Doctrine has actually made us less safe against terrorism by taking the fight to the wrong people and by posturing ourselves with this ridiculously cowboy diplomacy of "yer either with us or agin us".
Well, don't look now, but we're doing it again. If we keep on ignoring our own intelligence and the IAEA to keep insisting that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, pretty soon, they have absolutely no motivation to behave, do they?

A conservative Iranian legislator warned Saturday that his country may pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty after a U.N. resolution censuring Tehran – a move that could seriously undermine world attempts to prevent Iran from developing atomic weapons.

Iran's official news agency quoted a hardline political analyst who made the same point, another indication the idea could be gaining steam.
If Iran withdraws from the treaty, its nuclear program would no longer be subject to oversight by the U.N. nuclear agency. That in turn would be a significant blow to efforts to ensure that no enriched uranium is diverted from use as fuel to warhead development.

The lawmaker's threat came a day after the board of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution demanding Tehran immediately stop building its newly revealed nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom and freeze uranium enrichment.

Speaking of that facility, if Iran pulls out of the NPT, it would be impossible to monitor theten other sites now being planned:

Iran's government has approved plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, according to state media.

The government told the Iranian nuclear agency to begin work on five sites, with five more to be located over the next two months.

It comes days after the UN nuclear watchdog rebuked Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant.

Western powers say Iran is trying to develop nuclear arms. Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful.

BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne says Sunday's announcement is a massive act of defiance likely to bring forward direct confrontation over Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran says the new plants would be of a similar size to its main existing one at Natanz.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

nanute

at 13:33 on November 30th, 2009

Great story smk.Thanks for the post.

smkovalinsky

at 13:41 on November 30th, 2009

Thanks to you both: Yes, and "with what measure you mete out, shall it be meted back unto you"

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 14:06 on November 30th, 2009

So what was 9/11 if it wasn't an expression in hate for the U.S. Seems to me the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan happened after that.

Taken that aside, is the world community just to look on while Iran does what they want.

If you don't scold them, is there any other solution?

After all Iran is the one with the human rights abuses after the election, the one that not only imprisoned journalists and dissidents, but also executed them.

Recently a Canadian Iranian journalist was released, after being imprisoned, beaten, tortured (not enhanced interrogation techniques) and he feared for his life daily with a threatened 4 am execution.

A Canadian journalist was imprisoned for taking a picture even though she had credentials and then killed in prison.

Again what is the world community to do with rogue nation like that?

We need to quit making excuses for Iran.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 14:27 on November 30th, 2009

Clearly, we also threw the region into instability, and allowed Iran to emerge as a greater threat than it was prior to the invasion.

rng the premise of this article is that the US is more globally hated prior to the invasion of Iraq. My contention is that hatred already existed in that part of the region.

There has to be some give and take on both sides regarding Israel, no question about that. A good start would be if many of the nations in that region, especially Iran, recognized the right for Israel to exist as a state.

There are no innocents in this story, all sides have dug in their heels.

If I was surrounded by enemies, in all likelihood I would hang on to any advantage to keep them at bay as well.

We have tried peacekeepinng forces there, just to be told to get out, when it no longer suited the adversaries and that goes for both sides.

There is no simple solution here.

YankeeJim

at 06:42 on December 1st, 2009

Eventually, the rotting fruit falls from the vine and decomposes into oblivion.

Roy C

at 14:36 on November 30th, 2009

Iraq came up for one very good reason. The US troops, the "Crusaders" as binLaded referred to them, that guarded Mecca, were one of the reasons given for the 9/11 attack.

Personally, I knew that was a great, big mistake,leaving American troops to guard Mecca. That is where your average WASP mentality just breaks down.

Remedying that, moving those troops to Qatr, for example, where they are now, meant exposing all of Saudi Arabia to aggression by Sadaam Hussein.

Since Hussein had also tried to kill Pres G HW Bush when he was in Kuwait being honored by the Kuwaitis for saving them, Hussein had qualified himself as a terrorist.

So, we needed to overthrow Hussein.

Roy C

at 14:33 on November 30th, 2009

In Italy, when Reagan was president, the anti-Americanism was very, very high. His administration pushed through the mini-nukes to stop the Warsaw Pact from becoming hands-down the more powerful force in Europe.

Anti-Americanism was "in", and still is "in". The older Italians still appreciated the US for WWII, and the younger ones for the music and pop culture, but in between, the "mid-lifers", they had problems.

Even the young has learned a lot of stuff that was pseudo-history. In fact, they knew all about everything but the role of Italy in WWII, of course. Too painful to know about their failures.

batvette

at 16:53 on December 1st, 2009

Tell me about it, I was in the Navy from '79-'83 and the ports in Italy were the only ones in the world where you were not allowed in uniform off the ship. Liberty only allowed in civilian attire.

Both for reaons stated of random violence and the rate insignias on your uniform identified you as targets of interest should a conflict break out with the Soviets- I was an avionics tech with a secret clearance as I had knowledge of IFF codes and radar operating frequencies, they figured you'd be snatched right out of a nightclub or restaraunt in the first few hours before you could get back to the ship. Intelligence indicated they had coached operatives on the street which rates to look for.

I think we got the same in France as well, everyone who is old enough to remember the "big one" had gratitude.

Now the situation seems to be that we stood up to the "evil empire" of the Soviets but now assumed that title ourselves.

Reagan's policy was always to provoke the Soviets into a mistake and use world opinion over it against them, he finally succeeded when they shot down KAL007, an event we indirectly caused. We did a lot of operations in the North Pacific on the USS Coral Sea, playing with their Bear nuclear bombers, dangerous stuff but as we see in hindsight the Soviets wanted war no more than we did.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 14:51 on November 30th, 2009

I think sometimes anti-Americanism in Europe is overstated. What is disliked in Europe is the arrogance perceived by Europeans. This is also the case in Canada. I guess that happens when you live next door to an elephant. I wouldn't classify that hate.

Roy C

at 14:55 on November 30th, 2009

Well, I don't think it is overstated. I was there. I don't make any of this up. And, I have that long book for you to read about the four hundred years of exaggerated negative and positive nonsense about us.

I got a lot of anti-Americanism from some of my immigrant relatives, as well.

You forget that Italy had the world's largest communist party outside of Russia and China. They were all knee-jerk anti-Americans on some level.

QueensHart

at 19:24 on November 30th, 2009

Great reading here from everyone.

Punsons Flora (not verified)

at 19:46 on November 30th, 2009

political blogger reminds us that that lesson, if not recalled. www.getbestflowers.com www.getbestflowers.blogspot.com www.punsonsflora.blogspot.com

The_Cynic

at 21:55 on November 30th, 2009

Why do you think that Europe is interested in the US? Europe has an interest of the US because of the financial clout that it expounded - 'The USA sneezes and the world catches a cold' - that is diminishing within Europe, with the UK outside of that because of this adherence to the belief, from more the UK side rather than the US, of the "special relationship" between the two countries - Europe is, if you should read the news from Europe, backing more and more away from the US with each advancing year.

And, to be 100% honest with you, I hope that the UK catches up.

US foreign policy - even today - is based on the US' military might. Yet, again, we see that Iran snoops its nose at the US because it can, and will again with the next round of pointless sanctions. The question is 'When will the US realise that sanctions do not, and will never, work?'

That is why Europeans see the US as a lightweight on the international stage. We looked on as Reagan did his domestic illusion with low taxes are great and strapped the US with enormous debt in beating the USSR in the cold war - yet today the US is borrowing money from the Russia and China to sustain their over-blown military and domestic skits.

Iranian government cares not for what the US calls for - learn about the difference between Arab and Persian philosophy - then you may have a way forward.

Hugh Askew

at 03:50 on December 1st, 2009

Looking at the region, through the lens of of post 9/11 2002, one saw things a little differently.

Whether or not Saddam had a nuke mattered little (altho i do think that leadership here and elsewhere felt that if he didn't then have one, he soon would. different subject).

The mere threat of his having one put fear in the hearts of the other Arab states, and threatened Israel. Not easy for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to forget the earlier invasion of Kuwait, nor the fact that Saddam was viewed as a full blown threat in the region.

Saddam made full use of the uncertainty about Iraq's capacity. His bluster and braggadocio surely enforced the thinking that he was hiding something.

Remembering that not only the US, but the rest of the world, is absolutely, totally, dependent on the free passage of oil from the region for our economic survival, one doesn't have to look for more reason - at the time - for toppling Saddam. Add in Bush's swagger, the general instability - or threat of instability - in the region due to Al Qaeda, and it becomes fairly clear why the invasion took place.

Whether it was a strategically stupid move remains to be seen. Whether it was worth the cost - long term - also remains to be seen.

The greater problem - six years on, is that we are faced with another would be Hitler, or Saddam, or Mohamed. How much is bluff, how much is swagger, how much is true?

Iran holds a lot more cards than Iraq did. We have learned some hard lessons. Hopefully we won't forget those, nor what has happened in the past when tyrannies were allowed free passage.

If we were to pull all troops out of the area, in a dream world where both Iraq and Afghanistan were fully functioning free nations, would the area be more stable than it is now?

How many think that, allowed free reign and the absence of Western power in the region, Iran would remain peaceable towards it's neighbors for long?

batvette

at 16:24 on December 1st, 2009

Something that is often overlooked is that Saddam seemed to be testing how far he could test us and if we would follow through on threats and ultimatums.

Since the end of the first gulf war 11 resolutions had been passed through the UN, all containing stipulations Saddam end his support and sponsorship of terrorist activities- which saw him, in April 2002, in response to our launching a "war on terrorism", go on Al Jazeera with advertisements increasing his bounties for suicide bombers against Israel.

I cannot fathom how one would go into the middle east and tell anyone else to stop their terrorist support and threaten them with force yet still allow Saddam to do that.

Thus in April 2002 I actively began supporting military action against Saddam and never looked back. I feel it was "fight that war or a dozen others in the next few decades".

The message was diluted by partisans seeking political capital against Bush, telling the people of the middle east the war was based upon lies.

What a crock of ****. This does leave the author of this article partially correct, the war has harmed our status, but he's all wrong about the reasons why. Most of it was because of the PR campaign by the left to undermine its legitimacy, which the rest of the world ate up as it was what they wanted to hear.

Invading Iraq caused incredible financial loss to France, Russia, China, and the EU in general. Saddam was poised to not only let those three countries exploit the world's largest petroleum reserves, most of which in high pressure wells, but also open a PetroEuro market in Paris which would have been followed by the Iranians and Venezuelans ending dollar hegemony over OPEC petroleum sales. Remember Saddam had already switched to the Euro and through oil for food established the necessary goods for revenues pipeline from Baghdad to Paris necessary for a (relative) overnight selloff. The Euro would soar, the Dollar plummet.

Americans pointing now at the situation saying "the world is mad"? Yeah? So what? I don't blame them but it's hardly an argument of being a mistake in American policy. What's good for them isn't good for us! Reality, hello?