Ten years ago this week, the United States led an invasion of Iraq with the explicit purpose of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The preceding months had been filled with vehement protests against the impending war, expressed in editorials, in advertisements, and in rallies so vast that some of them made it into the Guinness Book of World Records. With so many people against the invasion, who supported it?
Well, if you were like the great majority of Americans — you did. In February and March 2003, Newsweek’s polls showed 70 percent of the public in favor of military action against Iraq; Gallup and Pew Research Center surveys showed the same thing. Congress had authorized the invasion a few months earlier with strong bipartisan majorities; among the many Democrats voting for the war were Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden.
Comments
A tragic mistake: countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, thousands of Americans dead, a trillion dollars deeper in debt, and Iran far stronger.
More like $6 trillion when you count the intrest payments on that $1 trillion.
This comment has been removed.
Ahhh, Jeff....drinking the tea again? We entered into the Iraq war on false premises. This statement is nonsense: "ten years ago the invasion of Iraq with the explicit purpose of overthrowing Saddam Hussein". If that statement is anywhere near true, why did the Bush administration tell lies to get us into that military adventure? This is the problem with you right wing nuts, you never ever admit a mistake. Iraq was a mistake. Want to know why we have a huge deficit and want to throw seniors, veterans and the poor under the bus now? Because we didn't have the $$$$ to spend on such a long, expensive and devastating war with regards to the cost in lives. On both sides. We never told the UN we wanted to overthrow Hussein. We told them Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was going to use them. What really transpired is that Bush/Cheney and the rest of the criminals running the country back then wanted to "avenge" and "right" the mistake of Bush the elder. When he failed to take out Hussein the first time. Please stop propagating lies and misinformation. I saw Colin Powell's speach to the U.N. and he never mentioned regime change. You are really reaching on this one. If we had a draft in place, Iraq never would have happened. I bet you never served in the military Jeff. Or you might have a better idea of what it means to send young people to war. It should never be about regime change or policing the world, or imperialism. War should only be entered into when our security has been threatened in a real, substantiated way. Not with lies and deceipt.
Well said! Thanks
well said, but you and Jeff forgot to mention the power vacum that was left as a result of the war, leaving Iran with increased influence and now a power player in the region.
Oh, I forgot: Iraq is a mess now. Just look at the terrorist activity within the past week. Or maybe you missed that fact too. We have left Iraq not too much better off than when we first got there. I wonder what the average Iraqi would think of your ridiculous editorial.
According to www.thereligionofpeace.com, in the past 30 days, Iraq exerienced 42 instances of terror, which killed a total of 300 people and wounded 661 -- this in a face of a Gallup poll taken there in which Iraqis told Gallup they feel SAFER with the Americans gone. Given that Iraq is 1/12 the size of the United States, this is the equivalent of America experiencing 500 attacks, which killed 3600 people and maimed around 8000! Imagine if the Sandy Hook massacre happened, not once, BUT 17 TIMES EVERY SINGLE DAY! THAT is what Iraq is like -- with the Americans gone.
It's way too early to call Iraq a working democracy. Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds have been fighting forever. It's naiive to think that we can go in and reverse what's gone on historically in this area. I'm hopeful for Iraq but realistic too.
This comment has been removed.
So you and Dick Cheney are the only two people in the world who think this way.
Bear in mind that Jacoby may not necessarily believe what he writes. His schtick is to be the resident "conservative" on the Globe. He's probably laughing all the way to the bank. I used to feel the same way about Krauthammer when I bothered to read him. He knew he was slinging BS, but it got the libs fired up and got lots of views and comments. Which was his overriding intention. That and a big fat paycheck.
from column: "And so it might have been, if America’s new commander-in-chief hadn’t been so insistent on pulling the plug.In October 2011, President Obama — overriding his military commanders, who had recommended keeping 18,000 troops on the ground — announced that all remaining US servicemen would be out of Iraq by the end of the year. Politically, it was a popular decision; most Americans were understandably weary of Iraq. But abandoning Iraqis and their frail, fledgling democracy was reckless."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To just address one of the many lie/distortions of this column, take this statement. Bush originally agreed to the pullout of U.S. troops under pressure from Iraqi leaders. Obama actually did want some residual training troops left, but as another writer pointed out further down in this thread, Iraq's PM insisted they be under Iraqi law, a non-starter for U.S. commanders. Facts are Iraq did not want them to stay.
I recall Dick Cheney saying that a President shouldn't make decisions based on polls. That's probably one of the only things I've ever agreed with him about.
The poll numbers regarding the Iraq invasion 10 years ago are irrelevant to Bush's decision to go to war - they reflect a population that had recently experienced a deadly attack on our own soil, and had been fed a diet of WMD-scare ever since.
Bush was the decider - that's what he called himself. He told us his management style was to delegate and trust those to whom he delegated. He listened to what they had to say, rarely questioned them, and made his decisions quickly and moved on. Of course, when you discourage open discussion and get rid of those who may offer a different view, it's easy to make quick decisions.
Bush's reasons for the war evolved over time. Saddam conspired with the 9-11 terrorists, he had WMD and was planning to attack the US, Saddam was a bad guy who needed to go, it was our duty to spead Democracy. Combine that with all the nonsense about how they'd welcome us and their oil would pay for things, the lack of planning for the takeover, the enormous cost of life, etc, and I don't see how anyone can say the war was worth it.
Bush, in his book, said he regretted not finding any WMDs in Iraq. What a slap in the face to all those who were affected by that war.
I really think Americans would have continued to support the invasion of Iraq had George W. Bush and Dick Cheney handled things differently. The problem with a regime change is what type of government rises from the ashes of war. Plus, the weapons of evil were not present in Iraq and once the dust settled, it was all clear that we "broke" a country that was going to be difficult to "fix" with money--tons of it.
History will not be kind to the decision making process that led us into the war with Iraq.
Actually, history 20 or 30 years from now will recognise the invasion of Iraq as the true beginning of the so called Arab Spring that will eventually lead to wide spread democracy across the Middle East and North Africa. It won't be without it's turmoil and tribulations, democracy never is, but clearly this will be a watershed event in world history.
@stakiinnh, are you being sarcastic? Because if so, that's pretty funny.
Plots of reactions from knee- jerks who read no further than the headline, and I am sure they will continue.
Cause your insight was WICKED helpful. Thanks.
It was not a trillion dollars it was TRILLIONS added to our debt without taxes to pay for it. No wait taxes were cut at the same time. Wait deficits are bad no only when it comes to doing good here at home. Sorry I am confused... Deficits are OK when it comes to fighting unnecessary wars. The money spent on education, unemployment, infrastructure is nothing compared to the vast amounts flushed down the toilet for Iraq and Afganistan or even the Billions just left on pallets in the middle of the desert. Yes it did happen. Fiscally responsible Republican is yet another oxymoron.
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
—Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back, 1976
The reason for the final withdrawal of American troops was Iraq's refusal to agree to immunize American soldiers against criminal accusations for any violence committed. The refusal was a non-starter which made it impossible for America to remain. There is an old Irish saying, be care of what you ask for -- because you just might get it. Well, Iraq asked for it, and now we'll see what they get from it.
This is more complicated than most remember. Don't forget, all American forces were to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, the departure date set in an agreement signed by President George W. Bush and Mr. Maliki in 2008. Even so, President Obama left the door open to keeping troops in Iraq to train Iraqi forces if an agreement could be negotiated. (from “The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama,” by Michael R. Gordon and retired Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor)
A better understanding can be quickly gained from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
My own opinion upon reading, from The Fall of Baghdad (Anderson) to Endgame is the same: Middle East leaders are singularly untrustworthy. Their intentions change with the wind. Negotiating with them is like writing for posterity on a sand beach. Money, aid, (food, medicine, buildings of all sorts, from schools to clinics,) materials and people are mostly wasted. The Middle East is a losing proposition and will tie up American forces indefinitely if the US decides to be the world's policeman. Ancient enmities never die, they just periodically renew, depending on which cleric decides to use his influence. I think President Obama understands this and it is the reason diplomacy is better than domination. ...
Jacoby's selective memory is always good for a hearty laugh. No mention of the Reagan administration selling weapons to the "reason the war was worth spending trillions we don't have"?
For the humor-impaired out there, that was bitter sarcasm as I remember the two people in my life who died over these lies.
Jacoby does have a highly selective memory. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed. Cash sent to the desert disappearing into who knows where,I'm talking millions or more in CASH that no one could find. The most tragic consequence of Iraq may have been it's effect on Afghanistan. Moving resources to Iraq to find weapons still not found and fighting insurgents gave the Talliban chance to resurge in Afghanistan. Those who voted for the war likely did so for the right reasons, and because of the lies they were told. Many of them regret it. Jacoby is stlll toting the GOP banner.
Putting aside the discussion about Obama pulling our troops out, I agree with you 100% that it was the right thing to do for all of rhe reasons you stated. We didn't need a politician in the Oval Office at that moment in time; we needed a leader and statesman, who had the good of his country (and the world for that matter) foremeost in his mind, and George Bush WAS THAT MAN!!! And although I an a progressive, who worships at the altar of MSN, Mathews, Bashir, et all, I think they are all VERY SMALL for not having the guts to stand up and admit Bush did THE RIGHT THING. And I'll tell you something else, even with my liberal progressive leanings, I was damn glad it was George Bush, and not Al Gore, that was standing in that pile of rubble that used to be the Twin Towers, and took that bull horn from that fireman, to let the terrorists know they were going to hear from us REAL SOON!! On this matter, George Bush will be judged by history as a GREAT leader. And I really wish the weasel liberal commentators would shut up about this!!!
Your argument might start moving towards the general direction of credibility if you didn't just contradict yourself in your post. I'll leave it to you to figure out where the contradiction occured.
This is simple. As was George Bush. He was/is a coward and a moron.
Are you kidding me? Worth it ? The public supported the war- based on LIES we were told by the Bush- Cheney administration ... Hubris is being repeated Friday night on MSNBC - you might want to watch it !
Jeff's column was very important. He left out the exacting legal process the President went through to make sure there would never be any doubt about the legitimacy of the liberation. It was approved by congress, it was approved by the UN, and it was justified by Saddam Hussein's failure to live up to his agreements which ended the first Iraq war. But it is still a leap to state that it was worth it. Yes, we liberated an oppressed people. Yes, we now have a Democratic ally in the region. But for all the blood and treasure it cost, I am hard pressed to say it was worth it.
I think the value to the left wing is immeasurable. It gave them the short in the arm they would never get from saving whales or whining about "climate change". It instilled the raw hatred that lurks inside them, and actually led to them rooting against America. It led to our electing a truly unqualified celebrity to be president. While I am sympathetic to the Bush Admin, whom I believe acted in good faith, I do not think this was good for our country as a whole. But it did help the Iraqis, and the hate filled liberals who are now running the country.
This comment has been removed.
Iraq still has brutal leadership and a close allegiance to Iran to boot. Its infrastructure, utilities, health care, and educational system were and to a large extent remain destroyed. Women were booted back to the stone age in terms of their roles in society. Millions were displaced to other countries and more segregated communities evolved into armed camps. No, this disaster has no redeeming outcomes. The ones who were filled with hate were the neo-cons in the executive branch who pushed and lyed their way into attacking Iraq and that shame also falls on those Democrats who went along: John Kerry and Hillary Clinton come to mind. Many of us emailed and called their offices to stop this gigantic mistake or took to the streets by the millions, but the press misplaced their reporting role for a faux patriotism via the likes of Judy Miller and Frank Rich of the Times. Lots of dirty hands but to this day there has been precious little rethinking of what they had done.
Tell it to the 4,000+ Gold Star Mothers, Jacoby. Who were told, like the rest of us, that their sons and daughters were going off to save us from WMD.
Any man or women that is POTUS, and decides NOT to use our military soley because life will be lost, either on our side or the other, should not be President of the United States.
Any POTUS who falsely claims a clear and present danger and sends 4,000+ Americans to their deaths and another 50,000 to their maiming, and 100,000 citizens of a sovereign nation to their deaths, should be burned at the stake. Hanging is too humane for such a person.
Mr. Jacoby get off your partisan horse here for a minute. You're insulting our intelligence. The Iraq war was unequivocally the most onerous geopolitical action taken in our generation; both in cost of lives and money -- which will ultimately be in the neighborhood of 6 trillion dollars and is a significant reason for our nation's debt. It cost thousands of unnecessary deaths of Americans, and left thousands of our soldiers medically disabled and still awaiting benefits that are mired in a backlog of red tape; not to mention the killing of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's that resulted from the violence. It did little more than temporarily stabilize a region that we now see is experiencing sectarian violence on a pre-war level. And it emboldened our enemies even more, creating a proliferation of terrorist organizations and activity leading into Afghanistan, another unnecessary action that has had the same result as the aforementioned. And it was all done under the false pretense of alleged WMDs. How can you say with any veracity that this war has been worth it?
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
I honestly think that George Bush should be tried and convicted as a war criminal. I believe there is a case to be made. Cheney too. They should be treated humanely, but both should eventually swing at the end of a strong rope. I actually don't think Bush ever had anything close to good intentions. This was a colossal mistake and an enormous failure that God-willing, none of us will ever see again in or lifetimes. It is sad to see propaganda like this printed. I feel sorry for all of the Massachusetts families who lost their sons and daughters in this ridiculous endeavor and I pray they have the strength to live on knowing that their lives were lost in vain.
Bush was simply dumb and was led by the nose by Cheney. He should be tried for being stupid.
Not too long ago I would have agreed with the war criminal stuff, and I might still if I had lost a child in Iraq.
But I don't think the country - either one - would heal after that, and I don't think it would help any future presidents make a war-no war decision.
What I think WOULD be healing is for Bush and company to admit to the mistakes that are now so evident, and to apologize to the world for their blinders-wearing push to Iraq.
I'd also like Bush to use this as an example of how NOT to make an important decision, and encourage all future presidents to actively seek different and opposing opinions on serious matters.
Won't happen, but it would be nice.
The pen may not in fact be mightier than the sword but is sure is safer for the bearer.
Wow, horrendous even for this jerk..skips the well documented lies by Bush's neo-cons on WMD. Condi Rice's nuclear cloud she knew was a lie, Colin Powell selling his soul at the UN. And the ascendancy of Iran in the region, how's that working out.. When guys like Jacoby sign their sons up and get towelcome them home in a box I might give credence to their sincerity. This is just an Obama beat on , using the deaths of Americans as his vehicle.. Show a little respect for the folks who fought this was based on a lie. Better hey Ramcoby, Isreal will take you in their military, go hit the front lines butter butt.
We all wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein but this was not the reason we invaded Iraq and there were ways of doing the former without doing the latter. The Big Lie fed to the American Public and an all too compliant American press was that Saddam Hussein had WMD (hint,hint mushroom cloud making material) that was a direct threat to the USA. The Republican War Regime conflated this lie with another lie about Saddam's collaboration with Al Queda thus making a perfect fictional marriage between Terrorism and another 9/11 attack on US soil-this time with nuclear weapons. What a delicious recipe to garner public support for an unjustified war. Not only did the Republicans Regime send us to war on false premises they didn't pay for it and when the false premise of WMDs proved false they pivoted to mission creep on steroids and decided to transform Iraqi society into something it could never be - a multiethnic democracy and coherent nation. This "country" is as divided as it was before only without a dictator. Meanwhile we spend a few trillion and expended thousands of lives for no good reason. Also when Saddam used WMD on the Kurds in Halabja there was no Republican outcry against this mass murderer. In fact Republicans loved this guy as long as he was also killing Iranis. Little wonder that Iran distrusts the friend of their enemy helping to kill their people. It is the Fab Four of Bush, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld who should be brought to justice for their misdeeds.
Jeff, i guess you haven't bothered to fnd time to watch Rachel Maddow's 'Hubris'. It's well more informed an truthful than this piece. Your article reads like it was ghostwrittev by Sununu.
Like Afghanistan, the Iraq war is subject to a lot of distortion and outright lies.
In Afghanistan 75 % of the casualties are directly a result of the Taliban atrocities.
I am sure the 124,000 Iraquis deaths would show the same result.
Some like to conflate the figures to imply that " we " did it. Please stop the lies.
That doesnt count the hundreds of thousands that the Sadaam regime was responsible for prior to the war.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Tolboy Jacoby conveniently left out the fact that 23 Dem senators and 166 dem reps voted against. Since polls justify action jeffas
91% of the public thinks that we need universal background checks but all repugs are against. What say you fatas?
H11, 91% of the public is for universal background checks, but ALL republicans are against it? Is that to say that there are only 9% of the public is republican?
Not very a very bright bulb.
Fact is, the poll you talk about never asked anyone if they were a dem or a repub.
But go ahead and make things up because you think it makes you sound all intelligent.
And History shows again that he either has trouble with reading comprehension or he simply distorts what others say to suit himself.
For instance h11 was *clearly* talking about Republicans in Congress, not in the polls.