Flynn: It was huge error. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him.

True, we had no business invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam but that doesn't mean the overthrow of Saddam had to lead to extensive sectarian violence in Iraq and, ultimately, the rise of ISIS. Paul Bremer (top civilian administrator of the former Coalition Provisional Authority) made two huge mistakes: his first two decrees were CPA Order Number 1, which banned the Ba'ath party in all forms and CPA Order Number 2, which dismantled the Iraqi Army. There would have been Sunni insurgents in any case but, in doing this, Bremer created an intense insurgency.

I'm not suggesting that if these two mistakes (and other mistakes) hadn't been made that the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would have all joined hands and sung songs of peace. Far from it. And I completely understand the Shiites wanting to stick it to their former Sunni overlords. But if there had been a "Shiite Nelson Mandela" -- more willing to forgive than punish -- and Bremer (and other U.S. officials) hadn't made huge mistakes, things in Iraq today might look very different.

I'd highly recommend George Packer's 2005 book The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq.

[Packer] concludes having panned the overall job of the administration. "Swaddled in abstract ideas," he writes, "convinced of their own righteousness, incapable of self-criticism, indifferent to accountability, they turned a difficult undertaking into a needlessly deadly one" so that when "things went wrong, they found other people to blame."

It's not even hindsight: This was all obvious at the time. Most of the rest of the world was busy telling the US what a stupid idea it would be to attack Iraq. Just as an example, here is a detailed analysis from 2001 (German, sorry), that points out that the Bush administration had already decided to attack Iraq, and was just looking for the right justification. It concludes in part "this could destabilize the entire region".

The US needlessly caused millions of deaths, and destroyed the lives of tens of millions of people. A little contrition would be nice. Seeing Bush, Cheney, Obama, Clinton, and another 40-50 high officials convicted of war crimes would be even better. That might deter future US administrations from screwing around in other people's back yards.

The last superpower to effectively subdue and pacify large and disparate areas and cultures for centuries at a time was Rome.

They learned how to do this the hard way, and they developed a system and approach that was stunningly successful.

1. Overrun the area with overwhelming military force. Crush any opposition with a ferocity that left no doubt about the willingness and ability of the Empire to impose its writ. No debate about justifications, or dangers, or threats, or right and wrong - the Empire decided that you were going to join them, flee, or die. And then they made it so.

2. Immediately engage the existing local power structures. Identify and bring in the local warlords, kings, priests, sheiks, monks, whatever - and tell them - Romanize, and you get to keep your position and influence. Sign on to the Imperial program, and you can keep your lands, your tribes, your systems of local government, your religions, and anything else that matters to you. As long as you keep the Imperial peace, and pay the Imperial taxes, and comply with the basic Imperial laws, life will go on much as it did before. Beyond some military and Imperial facilities (primarily associated with taxation), there was no 'occupation' as such. Rome did not attempt to impose its culture, religions or systems of government on anybody, in fact, Rome was stunningly-flexible in its accommodation for differing local systems. So long as you submitted to the Empire, you could run your country pretty-much as you always had.

3. Guarantee the Imperial peace. Occupants of Roman lands could be assured that, as long as they were loyal to Rome and did the required minimum to support the Empire, the Empire would protect them with whatever force was required against all comers. 'Civis Romanus sum' (I am a citizen of Rome) was the ultimate state of civic security and safety that anyone could get in those days.

The end result of this approach was that most places which Rome initially took by force ended up becoming peaceful, prosperous and advanced places which enthusiastically adopted Roman ways and culture. The process of Romanizing sometimes took decades, even centuries, but the end result was self-governing, self-policing lands which enthusiastically identified with and supported the Empire that had once been their conqueror.

Times are different now, of course, but the US could have done well to study parts of this approach before going to Iraq, including

1. Overwhelming and pitiless military suppression of all opposition in Iraq and environs. Not the sort of nuanced, handwringing, half-hearted occupation-by-degrees, with endless vacillation about this-or-that group that we should support, or endless entreaties for support from the 'international community' - which is neither. Just a swift and total military domination - submit, flee or die.

2. Immediate engagement and support of the entities and systems in place which did make Iraq work - regardless of our own opinions of them. As JD observes, banning the majority political movement in Iraq is just insane if you want to stabilize the nation - and the only reason that the CPA did it was because of the cultural dislike of its former leader. Same with disbanding the army. The Romans learned that you can't ever stop people from being SOBs simply by overrunning them - the trick is, once you've overrun them, to turn them into SOBs who support you. And you can't do that by taking away their possessions, their power and their culture, and imposing yours.

Some will say, and I would likely agree, that the US did not have the stomach or the resources for the first step. In which case, they should have left well-enough alone.

llater,

llamas

Gee, llamas, you seem to have forgotten the British Empire.

Want an index of successful nations? Count those taken over by the Brits at one time.

-----

As for the rest of these observations, it seems like yet another iteration of public policy since WW2: complain about being too harsh on the enemy or spending too much, get reductions in both to below the point action is effective, then complain because the effort was ineffective after installing the limitations you asked for.

It's just plain stupid. Even ignoring the famous two-facedness of office-holders in the USA, we couldn't even say this aloud: if Iraq was successful in installing a secular government without the dictatorship of Hussein, then a major center of Islam would have been minimized.

Absolutely no one could be permitted to say that publicly, even though it seems an obvious goal to any observer.

"Immediately engage the existing local power structures. Identify and bring in the local warlords, kings, priests, sheiks, monks, whatever - and tell them - Romanize, and you get to keep your position and influence. "

This was our strategy, in both the Middle East and South America, for decades post-WWII. It was widely and viciously criticized by the Left, both in the U.S. and internationally. So we abandoned that and did it the Left's way. The result was Khomeini's rise to power in Iran. Everything that has happened in the Middle East since then has been an inevitable result of that.

Bush's big mistake was thinking that Iraq was educated and Westernized enough that it would embrace Westernism as soon as Hussain and the Baathists were moved out of the way. He failed to realize that the region had taken giant steps backwards since the 1960s, and it probably was never going to be that easy anyway. In hindsight, what we did was never going to work. What might have worked? Full-on, no-apologies colonization. This is essentially what we did in Japan after WWII. We didn't leave its power structure in place. We crushed it and then used its leaders as figureheads. We gave the country a major cultural overhaul and instilled Western values from the ground up. That worked.

As far nothing like ISIS existing before the war: That's just another lie of the international Left, which loves to blame every single thing on the U.S. They seem to have conveniently forgotten about al-Queda, whose actions started that whole ball rolling. And they weren't the only ones: do the names Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, or (going back a bit further) the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine ring a bell? They were all groups that sought worldwide jihad; the only differences were in the resources available to them. Ask anyone in Israel how long terrorism has been going on. It didn't start recently. Anyone remember the 1972 Summer Olympics? I didn't think so.

The more proximate cause was the withdrawal. Not getting a status of forces agreement is entirely Obama's responsibility.

CD - ☑

@ radwaste, who wrote:

'Gee, llamas, you seem to have forgotten the British Empire.

Want an index of successful nations? Count those taken over by the Brits at one time.'

No, of anyone here, I would probably be the last to overlook consideration of the British empire.

But you have to note what I said, which was

'The last superpower to effectively subdue and pacify large and disparate areas and cultures for centuries at a time was Rome.'

Most of the British empire was effectively connected to the UK for less than 200 years. Huge parts of the British Empire (Canada, Australia ASF) were effectively independent nations (albeit with Dominion status) for most of the existence of the Empire. By contrast, large parts of the Roman Empire were effectively connected to Rome for the best part of 800 years.

Your point about successful nations that used to be part of the British Empire is well-taken. However, for every such nation that is a stunning success of peace and prosperity, there is a nation that is a cess-pool of corruption, decay and strife. Having been a part of the British Empire was/is no guarantee of success as an independent nation.

llater,

llamas

...in doing this, Bremer created an intense insurgency. ~ Posted by: JD at November 30, 2015 11:00 PM

Leaving the Sunni Muslims of Iraq feeling disenfranchised is where Bremer made his mistake. Leaving the Baath party involved in politics or the existing military intact would have gone a long way toward appeasing the now-fearful Sunnis.

Hatreds die hard in that part of the world and when the Sunnis felt they had no political power or protection and would be at the mercy of the long-oppressed and revenge-minded Shia, they organized.

Then-president Malawi, a Shia, left unsupervised by Obama and fearing a violent coup (the historical Iraqi method of expressing discontent with the government), gutted the Sunni elements of his government, surrounding himself with people of his own tribe/sect.

The army and the police were then completely in the hands of Shia with no powerful minister left to speak for or protect the Sunni and no US presence to guard against sectarian cleansing by the Shia government (the same type of cleansing visited upon the Shia under Sunni rule). The Sunni were waiting for the ax to fall - on their heads - so they joined the Syria-based Islamic State for protection.

Why do you think the Kurds basically kept to themselves after the fall of Saddam and refused to disband the Peshmurga?

Of course what I wrote earlier assumes that any kind of cooperation between Sunnis and Shia is possible. In the past, it has been done but today's sectarian passions probably make that impossible.

The Middle East is going to be a mess for years to come - and it's not George Bush's fault, nor was it caused by global warming. This conflict has been a long time coming.

Iran (Shia) and Saudi Arabia (Wahabbi Sunni) are maneuvering to be the major players in the region. Their driving orthodoxies are incompatible with each other, so conflict is inevitable. The Iranians harken back to their Persian roots when Xerxes and Darius controlled most of their known world. The Arabs look back to when they conquered the Arab peninsular and drove out the Turks.

ISIS (Sunni) is complicating things for Saudi Arabia since supporting ISIS offers an opportunity to grind down Iran's Shia allies, but ISIS would then supplant the Saudis as the major power in the Middle East (something the Saudis want for themselves). Other Sunni players in the Middle East (e.g., Syria, Jordan) fear ISIS's religious absolutism. The brutal execution of the Jordanian pilot was calculated to instill fear in opponents, but could have been better used to encourage desertion to ISIS by Jordanian soldiers. It may prove to be a miscalculation, kinda like Hitler ordering brutality toward Russian peasants instead of encouraging them to rise up and fight the Soviets and finding his invasion opposed by a very effective partisan force.

Further complicating things are the ethnic rivalries between Persians, Turks, Pashtun, Kurds, and Arabs. They may be united by a common religion, but they're divided by animosities much older.

US foot soldiers cannot invade the Middle East again. The fighting on the ground must be done by natives (who can be supported by Western air and logistics). We need to take a TE Lawrence approach on this one, guiding a native army to victory. Simply sitting back and dropping bombs ("leading from behind") will not do the trick either. The US must take an active role.

+1 CtG, who wrote:

"Then-president Malawi, a Shia, left unsupervised by Obama and fearing a violent coup (the historical Iraqi method of expressing discontent with the government) . . . "

Not merely 'unsupervised by Obama', but actively abandoned by President Obama, whose combination of election promises and complete and utter disregard for the political and cultural realities on the ground in Iraq combined to leave Prime Minister al-Maliki completely unprotected and at the mercy of the consequences of the bone-headed decisions previously made and enforced by the Coalition - not just the US, although the US deserves much of the blame. President Obama apparently believed that the mere fact of his election would somehow magically resolve 2,000-plus years of historical conflict in the area and all of the old adversaries would simply link arms and sing Kumbaya.

For all of the mis-steps of the Bush administration in Iraq and the larger region, I think they had some notion of the issues in play and at least tried to steer towards positive outcomes. It took President Obama to really screw things up completely - a disinterested observer could not help but conclude that, having failed to resolve the issues by the sheer wonderfulness of his healing presence, he simply abandoned the whole issue to others to manage. And of course, only he could appoint a female SoS just when his major foreign-policy issues centered on lands where women are culturally and religiously defined as incapable and incompetent. And then follow up with the patrician incompetent Kerry. truly, the region has suffered tremendously as a result of issues and decisions driven entirely by US domestic politics.

llater,

llamas

Thought experiment: what would the Middle East look like if Saddam was left in power in 2003? account for the Arab Spring.

Show your work.

The way I see it is that this is bunch of wishful thinking, as I'm pretty sure that things would look pretty much the same, with a slightly different set of players playing. Also, a Saddam led Iraq would not tolerate the Persians getting a nuke. Take that into consideration as well.

For pete's sake - stop blaming Bush!

Saddam financed terrorism, Saddam terrorized/gassed his own people (yea, I know the Kurds weren't his people; but, that argument is a stupid one, they were civilians in his country), Saddam, invaded his neighboring countries a few times, Saddam plotted to kill a former US President.

All of these were/are valid reasons for taking out a head of state who doesn't want to live in peace with the rest of the world.

Bush had a vision (as flawed as it was) for changing the status quo. After 9-11, something else had to be done; we couldn't/shouldn't continue to treat such terrorism as a "crime" instead of the acts of war that they are. And there haven't been more attacks on the same scale as 9-11, have there? So, that does make his change in status quo a bit of a success.

Blaming Bush for ISIS is just ignorant and stupid.

You want to blame a US president for ISIS?

Then, Blame Obama for going to play golf instead of leading. Blame Obama for going on stupid shows like The View instead of working with other countries in fighting Islamic terrorism. Blame Obama for announcing to the world (and that, of course, includes terrorists) what our plans for withdrawing were. Blame Obama for withdrawing from the Middle East without any real plans for what would be the next step (other than his basketball score predictions). Blame Obama for giving speeches about cops killing "innocent" black kids in the US instead of taking action for killing terrorists.

Blame Obama for being a fucking pussy. That's were the real blame belongs.

Bush hasn't been in the White House in a few years; so, stop blaming him for Obama's lack of leadership and intelligence.

I have yet to meet a Kurd who thinks getting rid of Saddam was a bad thing, and I know some who live in South Kurdistan (i.e. the bit that is de facto independent but nominally still part of Iraq). Indeed I have yet to meet a Kurd who does not think it was one of the high points in the bloody history of the Kurds.

I'll never forget the day President Obama invaded Iraq.

After all, Saddam DID want to kill his daddy.

That's OK Gog. Your ignorance is understandable. After all, it's all just Taft's fault.

"US foot soldiers cannot invade the Middle East again. "

I don't agree that they can't, but I do agree that at this point, it might be wise not to. The trouble is, as we've seen in the past, if the Arabs are left to fight it out among themselves, they will not be content to confine the fight to their own battlefields -- they'll want the whole world involved, and they will launch attacks on foreign soil to make that happen. So a perimeter has to be put up around the region. Now, this doesn't mean building a wall around the entire Middle East (although building one to separate them from Israel would be prudent). It does meaning monitoring and taking steps to strictly limit what materiel and finance goes in and out.

Unfortunately, that won't work, and the reason why is the European Union. Western Europe is broadly sympathetic to Arab complaints about Israel, which gives the various Muslim groups a lever to use to pry whatever they want out of the EU. Further, western European companies have shown in the recent past that if there is money to be made by trading with Iran or ISIS or both, they will do so, and damn the geopolitical consequences. I think it might actually be possible to work out a regional accord with Russia (if we had a more assertive President), since they don't like being terror targets any more than we do. But Europe is going to be the pin that keeps popping the balloons.

Ah yes but you forget. Democracy is the only possible good society, and America is so convinced of that that they will go to war and kill people to impose it....all without a trace of irony

Peter,

Representative democracies have some of the most humane records out there. But hey, I understand you want perfection or nothing. So you choose nothing.

Do any of you know about Iraq's nuclear weapons program?

You remember. The one the Israelis bombed?

After all, Saddam DID want to kill his daddy. ~ Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 1, 2015 9:54 PM

Didn't "want to" - hatched a plot to and set the wheels in motion to carry out said plot.

You make light of an attempt by a foreign intelligence service to assassinate a former US president.

As if that assassination attempt was nothing more than a pretext for a white whale vendetta on the part of his eventual successor and not a serious matter of international relations.

You ignore the very real danger Saddam posed to the stability of the then somewhat stable region