Iraq War


Sultan of Swat
Staff member
While many people are against the war, I would like to ask a serious question

"Was the Iraq War a doomed failure from the beginning, or did it have potential that was destroyed by mismanagement in Washington?"

To me its hard to determine. Right after Saddam's Fall, the U.S. and coalition forces were pretty popular in IRaq. However, as security, water, and power diminished, the populace became more agitated and angry. If the administration hadn't screwed up in the beginning, would Iraq have had a chance?


For a Free Scotland
I would like to have said that yes, it could have been salvaged, but I have serious doubts as to it.

Firstly, Iraq is a large country in terms of area, and in many cases population (almost 29,000,000- The ability to rebuild infrastructure following the invasion would have been staggering, and it took quite a while for it to even be remotely possible to do so. There would obviously be a large insurgency, as the Sunnis realized that most permutations of the end result would keep them well out of power.

I think that it was simply too difficult to rebuild Iraq in a timeframe that would have kept stability and peace, and thus I think it could not have been salvaged.


Registered Member
I felt it was a doomed to begin with. I felt their was really no just cause for us to go to war just america or specifically Bush wanted to police the world.

I never thought it would however get to point of wasting billions upon billions of dollars a day and this many lives being lost. Poor planning for the Bush administration.

We are there and we cant just leave but they dont want us there.

Say it drags further could we see it as a modern Nam? Hard to say I think in the amount of money spend it surpasses Nam but it hasnt been taken nearly to the scale of the Failure at Nam.


The war was based on a lie. How many times did we hear they had WMDs. Bush has told other lies about the war since then, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on." I'm not sure how he connects Iraq with September 11. We have no reason for being over there at all.


Registered Member
Yeah my sentiments exactly i remember when the war started more than 50% of americans associate the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism.

When they have no real co-relation. But the Bush administration put their own spin on it.
I think that while there was perhaps a valid reason for invading, that was not the reason they invaded. They invaded because of supposed WMDs, when there were none there... essentially they invaded for a lie. It was not a doomed event, but they've done so much wrong, pissed off so many people in doing it, and embroiled themselves so deeply in it that it's really just turned into a farce of what should be happening.


I think that the very premise of the war was flawed. Not only did our leadership lie to us, manipulate information, and change the reasons for war numerous times, but they also refused to exhaust all possible diplomatic or otherwise peaceful resolutions to the problem. This, however, while essentially dooming the actual war to failure -- due to a complete destruction of our credibility in the eyes of the international community --, did not defeat the purpose of the war itself. That was done by the fact that we went to war for the alleged purpose of stopping Iraq's production of weapons of mass destruction.

While our government ranted and raved about the dangers of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme, nations such as Iran and North Korea continued to develop or produce those weapons. At the same time, our ally, Pakistan, dealt in the proliferation of nuclear weapons by selling nuclear secrets and materials to other nations, including, I believe, North Korea. This whole fiasco demonstrated that we would invade those nations which were attempting to procure nuclear weapons, while we would be open to negotiations and diplomatic resolutions with those nations who are near to acquiring those weapons or who already have them. By invading Iraq we have effectively promoted not only nuclear proliferation, but rather a more secretive, dangerous, and environmentally-harmful nuclear proliferation.


Vince Carter said:
While many people are against the war, I would like to ask a serious question

"Was the Iraq War a doomed failure from the beginning, or did it have potential that was destroyed by mismanagement in Washington?"
Vince =>

I thought this topic inquiry important enough to stick my nose back into...

What most in this nation fail to understand about the War on Terror, specifically the war in Iraq, is that it is a front in the war on terror. Let's explore that... a front in the war on terror.... What does that mean? Simple. Al Qaeda and the other terrorist elements and cells we are fighting do not have a country we can attack, but instead must be attacked where found. At the begining of the war, at 09/11/01 they were found in New York and Washington sadly, as well as in the Sudan attacking the USS Cole, in north Africa attacking embassies, and in Malaysia attacking public facilities, and elsewhere around the world. After 09/11/01 both Afghanistan and Iraq were identified as areas where terror was given a safe haven and areas where Wahabi Islamic fundamentalism encouraged terrorism. These locations were selected by the Coalition as our fronts in the War on Terror, as oppposed to making our own homeland, attacked on 09/11/01, the front. Anyone familiar with military strategy knows that establishing a front in a war is key to controlling the enemy's threat. The last few years of battling insurgent jihadi terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, while dear to our military losses, has thankfully been removed from our civilian populace and away from our nation. It has, however, been successful in making the enemy - insurgent terrorists - attack us on foreign soil, while back home we securied our infrastructure and safeguarded our nation.

For these reasons, I see our War on Terror as a tremendous success and the Iraq campaign, as well as the Afghanistan campaign, parts of that success. Since 09/11/01, due to the key infrastructure and security enhancements made by the current administration, we have avoided further terror attacks domestically, while attacking Al Qaeda and other elements of the terror infrastructure overseas. In addition to battling them on the ground, we have attacked their financial network, uncovered their cells in other nations, and made former areas that were welcoming to terrorism, i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan, open democracies where such terror is discouraged.

A few words specific to Iraq however. Where there terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion? Yes. I believe that there were elements of Al Qaeda in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and terror training camps, in both nations. After our invasion, terrorists from both Iran and Syria came into Iraq to attack us and we have been battling them for several years in our front on terror. Recent success against Al Zarquawi and his Al Qaeda cell might mean that long-term peace in Iraq could be achieved. Where there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion? Yes. I believe that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians and prior to the U.S. invasion these WMD stocks were secured and buried in the desert.They may never be found. That does not diminish their threat nor negate their presence; the threat that these WMDs might have found their way into Al Qaeda's hands was a valid justification for action immediately after 09/11/01, in my opinion.

I believe that this War on Terror is long term and it will take decades to assess the war and its far reaching consequences. Many citizens simply want to end the war and bring home the soldiers and end our involvement in it, which is an understandable desire as many Americans do not understand the long-term committment needed for peace. Victories have been secured in the War on Terror and our safety here in the American homeland; i.e., no further attacks since 09/11/01 is certaintly one of the gains of our action at our front in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am humbled by the sacrifice and the patriotism of the brave soldiers fighting this war; without their dedication thousands more civilians may have died at the hands of terrorists. Instead these soldiers have brought the war to the enemies' back yard in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than in our backyard. For these reasons I believe that years down the road, our action in both Iraq and Afghanistan will be seen as necessary steps. Further, the fact that we have changed the landscape of both of these nations to open democracies speaks well to our occupation of them. We did not loot these nations but moved in to give their citizens freedom from terrorism in their midst and a taste of democracy.

That, Vince, is why Iraq, and Afghanistan, are not failures but long-term successes. We cannot afford to allow terrorism to exist but must address it where found. We have done that and we have realized success in the endeavor.
Welcome back, InTheNet... there's an easy answer to that, though...
A war on terror will never end, and thus is not a success. Unless we change to a 1984 Big Brother society, there will ALWAYS be terrorists. When (if ever) we bring our troops back, they will have caused so much resentment that any lapse in terrorism that was achieved will be redoubled. I do not view this as a success.

I do view disempowering Saddam as a success, but because of the deceitful manner in which we invaded (claiming to invade over WMDs that did not actually exist) it is somewhat invalidated (in the same manner that any evidence in a court case that was obtained illegally cannot be used).

Edit: I do hope someone else responds to him in more detail... I would myself, but it's 8am and I'm still awake, and I'm tired... maybe I'll get to it later or something.


The Bush administration coined the Iraq war "War on Terror" to make it sound better. They wanted to make it sound like something it is not. The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that he has seen no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam with the al Qaeda network, adding intelligence about Iraq's WMDs was faulty. By attacking Iraq, we have created more terror by turning a lot of people against us. The Sept. 11 commission reported that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. Al Qaeda entered Iraq after we did, and recruitment for Al Qaeda has now gone up.