World: Iraq 3+ years later

I went back to the archives and found this item I posted giving my analysis of the impending war in Iraq. ed. note - I had to recompile the post to generate a permalink as it was such an old post. I made some minor edits but no changes in substance.

As a blogger, my past thoughts are "on record" and I felt it was time to re-visit this topic given what is happening in Iraq these days.

Back then I said ...

If Bush wants to get re-elected in 2004, he should drop the war with Iraq and throw all his energy and political clout on turning the economy around. The polls tell him that Americans are concerned about the economy first and foremost. The only way the war will benefit Bush is if it is swift (probable), the WMDs get found (probable), post-war Iraq is rebuilt into a peaceful nation (doubtful before Nov. 2004) and the American people haven’t forgotten by election day (ask Bush41). Feeling lucky GW?

If the Democrats had fielded a better candidate than John Kerry, it is quite possible that Bush would have been defeated in 2004. The war was taking its toll on Bush's support but Kerry was such a weak candidate that Bush squeezed out a very narrow victory.

The initial phase of the war was swift.

The stockpiles WMDs were not found. Instead, we found old left over chemical weapons and indications that Iraq desired to reconstitute the program and had the knowledge and some of the equipment to do so. The experience proved that intelligence estimates are never a sure thing.

The rebuilding of Iraq has clearly proved to be much more difficult than the initial invasion. It is pretty hard to build a country when two (Shia and Sunni) of the three main groups in the nation would rather kill each other than work together for the good of the whole.

In my post 3+ years ago, I made the case that the war was not about oil and gave four reasons. I stand by those four reasons. I want to reiterate reason number four:

(4) If the war is just about oil then why bother with the hassle of dealing with the UN? The world hates us anyway, why waste time working with the UN? Just go in there and start the bombing tomorrow?

I know that sounds crude but isn't it the truth though? Who would stop us? Would the Russians throw nukes at New York city to stop us? If we really wanted the oil, we could just take it.

Even now, if we really want only the oil, we could end the civil war and take the oil. It is really quite simple: send in the B-52s and level towns in the Anbar province and Sadr City in Baghdad and any other locations with forces fueling the civil unrest.

If America truly lived down to the stereotype of being the 21st Century Roman Empire then that is what we would do.

I also said the following back then...

He could have left Iraq alone and concentrated on other matters that could score him more political points. Instead, he believes Hussein poses a danger and has staked his presidency and his standing for history by pursuing an UNPOPULAR war.

In all likelihood, Bush will leave office in 2009 much like LBJ did: with a war being the main chapter of his presidency. Whether one agreed with Bush or not, he made a choice about what he believed to be right. Right now the verdict would be negative but the episode is not complete. At the moment, there doesn't appear to be any light at the end of the tunnel and Iraq seems on a fast track to self-destruction. It almost seems like it isn't about the Americans anymore. It seems more about Sunni-Shia hatred that Hussein bottled up with a totalitarian iron fist much like Tito did in the former Yugoslavia.

Newsweek columnist Zakaria expressed his views in a recent article. Excerpt:

The Shiite ruling coalition and the Sunni insurgency both believe that if only the United States were to get out of the way, they could defeat their enemies outright.
........
While these are not conditions that suggest a political deal is likely, there is nothing to be lost in trying. When President Bush meets with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Jordan this week, he should make clear that Iraq's leaders need to come to an agreement that meets both sides' key demands on such issues as autonomy, oil revenues and amnesty. But he needs to deliver an ultimatum: either the government begins implementing such a deal by January or American troops will begin a drawdown, leaving the core tasks of security to Iraqi forces.

In short, Zakaria is saying, either work it out or we pull out and let you kill each other.

My final thoughts back then were these:

From listening to the UNMOVIC reports, it is probably unlikely that Hussein has nuclear bombs and probably won’t have them anytime soon. It is a pretty complicated technology to master. However, if we allow them to keep working on it, they will eventually get a nuclear capability.

They have a history of using chemicals in battle and competency to make biologicals. The US should provide as much intelligence as possible to UNMOVIC to "find" them and thus ratchet further the pressure on Hussein. Next, the US should set a deadline. Right now, French, Russia, China and others can say, let’s give the inspectors more time and be very hostile to the US in their public statements. But once a proposal is out on the floor with a date certain, they will have to think harder if they want to veto. And in back channel communications, the USA and UK should make it abundantly clear that if Iraq doesn’t come clean, then military action will be taken with (preferable) or without UN support.

Regaring nuclear technology, indeed Iraq was a long way off. The Gulf war set that back hugely.

As for chemical and biologicals, apparently Iraq would have reconstituted the programs once fraying UN sanctions were ended.

I posted my initial analysis on February, 2003. US military forces continued to flow into the region. There would be some last minute activity in the UN but it was becoming clear that no Security Council resolution would be passed as a veto was sure to be exercised by either France, Russia or China. For a rundown of all the events leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom check this item over at GlobalSecurity.org.

Dr. Mark Conversino gave his view of the Iraqi invasion in his analysis of Operation Desert Fox:

Yet when DESERT FOX ended a mere 70 hours after it began, Saddam remained firmly in power - minus some of his infrastructure - and the Iraqi dictator could claim to his people and to the world that once again, he had withstood an onslaught from the most powerful form of America’s and the West’s armed might - airpower. The status of Iraq’s WMD programs would remain a mystery and these programs were now beyond the scrutiny of the UN. Moreover, DESERT FOX lacked clear political goals, an omission for which no amount of firepower could compensate. Despite the militarily effective, if brief, application of airpower, Saddam Hussein not only survived, he succeeded in ending UN inspections and retained both the intent and capability to restart his WMD programs once sanctions either collapsed or were lifted. Only the fall of Baghdad in 2003 to coalition forces ended once and for all the threat from Saddam’s murderous regime and his quest for weapons of mass destruction.

Military operations against Iraq began at around 9:30 PM EST on March 19, 2003.