Struggling to Understand the Iraq War, 10 Years Later

This from the Houston Chronicle:

This month marks the 10th anniversary of the controversial American-led invasion of Iraq. What has that decision wrought over the last decade? More important, was the decision to invade rightly made?

On the positive side, analysts point to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the creation of an elected government, and an economy growing at nearly 9 percent per year, with oil exports surpassing their prewar level. Some, such as Nadim Shehadi of Chatham House, go further, arguing that, while "the U.S. certainly bit off more than it could chew in Iraq," America's intervention "may have shaken the region out of (a) stagnation that has dominated the lives of at least two generations."

Skeptics reply that it would be wrong to link the Iraq War to the Arab Spring, because events in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011 had their own origins, while President George W. Bush's actions and rhetoric discredited, rather than advanced, the cause of democracy in the region. Removing Saddam was important, but Iraq is now a violent place governed by a sectarian group, with one corruption index ranking it 169th out of 174 countries.

Whatever the benefits of the war, skeptics argue, they are too meager to justify the costs: more than 150,000 Iraqis and 4,488 American service members killed, and an estimated cost of nearly $1 trillion (not including long-term health and disability costs for some 32,000 wounded American soldiers).

Perhaps this balance sheet will look different a decade from now, but at this point most Americans have concluded that the skeptics are right, and that thinking has influenced current U.S. foreign policy. In the next decade, it is highly unlikely that the United States will try another prolonged occupation and transformation of another country. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put it shortly before stepping down, any adviser recommending such action "should have his head examined."

Some call this isolationism, but it might better be called prudence or pragmatism. After all, President Dwight D. Eisenhower refused in 1954 to send U.S. troops to save the French at Dien Bien Phu because he feared that they would be "swallowed up by the divisions" in Vietnam. And Ike was hardly an isolationist.

I guess any thoughts on this have to be predicated on wondering what Iraq would be like if Saddam, and then his Sons, would have maintained controle. Lobbing Scud Missles at Isreal at every chance, murdering his subjects at will, rape rooms, and just being the second coming of Joseph Stalin makes us think the War was worth it.

But, much like how the old Soviet Union sort of kept things under controle in Eastern Europe, Saddam kept radical Muslims at bay.

Like you said, only the future will tell.

If you write "wondering" doesn't that imply that you wrote it? Just another cut and paste from Louise. Of course this writer blames Bush and not the entire government of Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, and Reid who voted FOR the invasion of Iraq which by the way is over.

Louise a job is never complete until you give credit to the writer or it is just plagarism. This writer is Joseph Nye. He is one of the founders of neo-liberalism, a supporter of Clinton and advisor to Obama. Yes, this is a reeeaall good source Louise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nye

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joseph_S._Nye,_Jr.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._on_soft_power

Yep, a real lefty.

YEP, A REAL ASSHOLE.

Bush was innocent! But if so, then why is he a convicted war criminal with a warrant out for his arrest?

An arrest warrant??? Care to explain that bit of insanity? A warrant by a fringe group doesn't count. Still want to try?

What do you expect from a fringe left winger (the author Nye and not Whatzup)

I have heard this repeatedly but some morons like Whatzup but COG you say you're a lawyer, what are the specific charges?

Don't worry, it's not a link to a video.

http://www.uswarcrimes.com/