Do you think the War in iraq was a mistake or a bold move and why?

Question

I understand other people asked questions but who cares......and I am not taking a side on this here so don't go accusin me of anything

By the way I'm not gonna choose an answer I most agree with, but the one with the best explanation and reasoning

Answer 1

A big mistake...I thought we went in on a wish and a lie. It made no sense to me and I could not understand why there was barely any backlash then.

Answer 2

I hate the idea of war, but I think in this case it was a necessary evil. I would rather confront the Left wing Muslim mentality on their turf. It could get real messy here in the states as 9:11 has shown. I have talked to two soldiers from the war and they say that our own media isn't showing the true side of the gratitude of the people over there. If we did anything wrong we let it go to far before we stepped in. I don"t think that a plan for peaceful sanctions would have worked because they didn't have anything to start with Saddam Insane had it all. I would go over there and do my duty but I'm a Vietnam left over and to old, DARN.

Answer 3

Thank you! we dont need the answer be chozen. It was neither 'mistake' nor 'bold move'. It was a BLUNDER based on series of lies.Its NOT a war its an AGGRESSION against an independent country of the world. That's Y the world's peace is in more danger than ever before and the reasons are Mr. Bush's policies.

Imagine both blair and bush repeatedly claimed and announced that there were WMD. Now they themself accept that there was nothing. If you justify that war then Y do unjustify 9/11.
Y not to impeach both bush and balir for their aggression and blunder?

Answer 4

Dear friend, Basically Muslims are good people but short tempered in nature. We are raking them by unwanted actions.It is the question of their own problem of Iraq. If any particular community is suffering from their own administration unless they call the help of other countries we should not interfere with their own administration. The reason given by the Bush government for entering in their land proved false. why should we act as a police for the world. Will they agree if other countries dictate USA. Several death took place because of the entrance in to their land. It should have been avoided.We should have saved the life of many American and British soldiers.

Answer 5

Look at Iraq under dictator Saddam before the US invasion and look at it now. There is your answer.

Answer 6

I believe that it could have been somewhat of a good move if it had been executed properly, but there were many things that were done wrong that alienated the US.

First, we went in there pretty much solo. We showed no evidence to almost any of our allies that showed them, "Here is a reason for going into Iraq." All of the searches before for chemical weapons, by UN inspectors had turned up negative. Bush also decided to go in before inspectors were even done one time and gave their report. Any other country would definitely call that suspicious, especially when you won't show them your supposed evidence you have.

In all the ways that the US acted going in Iraq, we acted like an aggressor and not a nation defending freedom. Saddam was under control, his army equipment had pretty much been destroyed by Bush Sr and monitored very closely under Clinton's administration. Also, with Saddam in control the revolutionaries will fight against whoever is in control. Since Saddam was, they would be fighting against him, not us. Bush also made a huge mistake when he started naming off countries on his "Axis of Evil". That draws very close ties to the start of World War II and with us having just taken over one country, starting to take over a second, and starting to make suggestions at taking over a third (Syria). It made the US look like Germany at the start of WWII.

If we were going to go into Iraq we should have gone in with the full support of Europe and other allies, but we didn't.

Even with all of those blunders, the War in Iraq still could have been a success. We quickly took over the country just like we expected to. However maintaining control and establishing a new government was done poorly. The US military understood and was looking in the right direction as far as maintaining control and establishing a new government, however members of the Bush administration had different plans.

If they had followed the example of Alexander the Great and other empires, they would have realized that the best way to keep a new country stable is to keep as much in tact as you can. In Alexander the Great's time, the conquered army would join and become part of his army, making his army stronger. That's what the US military planned to do, however the Bush administration decided to have the Iraqi army disbanded. The Iraqi army was in place and in tact and ready to help, but when you disband them and send them away, now you have unemployed people with nothing to do with military experiance who probably also know how to make and find weapons. So you've just turned people against you by disbanding them that you could have had working for you by employing them and giving them jobs.

Secondly, another brilliant move that Alexander the Great did was he kept the current government officials in place that would follow him. The Bush administration decided to oust the entire Bath party (Saddam's political party). That put thousands upon thousands out of work (even teachers and professors). Do you think the people will help you if you put them out of work. No! It also got rid of most of the people that had experience as far as government and they had to be replaced by people that knew nothing as far as governing. The main reason many people made their political affiliation with the Saddam's political party was because they got paid 3-4 times more. If you were poor and could get paid 3-4 times more for changing party affiliation, wouldn't you change party affiliation? So just because they were part of Saddam's political party didn't mean they held his ideologies.

So now we are struggling to help Iraq establish a new government and a new peace keeping force from scratch where we could have easily had them established from ones that were still mostly in tact after the war. By dismantling the old army and government and putting them all out of work we also turned all of those people into our enemy instead of letting them help us.

Another major blunder we made was that there was only burglary and raiding at the beginning. To stop the burglary and raiding they went in and started mass incarcerating people whether they were innocent or not and decided to figure out if they were innocent months after the fact. They stuck thousands of those in Abu Graib. Many of those people were actually on our side and would have helped us. Then a year or so later they decided that most of them were innocent and turned most of them loose. If you were put in jail, by an occupying country then turned loose wouldn't you be against that country after getting let out even if you might have helped them before?

I think it says a lot when a majority of the generals in Iraq berated the Bush administration's handling of Iraq. That is unheard of, because normally it is general policy that you never berate a president's policy even if you are adamantly against it. To do so is to basically almost put an end to your career as a general.

That is why you see many of the berating comments come from generals that have retired first instead of active generals.