How history will view the Iraq War

[Mike88]

A resounding success. There is no doubt about at this time. One of the very few things I am pleased with Obama so far is that he has not done something stupid like pull out immediately for code pinko's sake, and create a power vacuum.

The turn around of Iraq into a free country is far ahead of the schedule that either Germany or Japan had after WW II

The libs who shrieked about quagmires and oil empires are going to end up looking even more foolish in the eyes of history than they did at the time it was happening.

The real quagmire looks like it could be Afghanistan.

[TheFallGuy]

I concur.

But don't expect bleeding liberals to admit it for fifty years or so.

[A_K_]

A resounding success. There is no doubt about at this time. One of the very few things I am pleased with Obama so far is that he has not done something stupid like pull out immediately for code pinko's sake, and create a power vacuum.

The turn around of Iraq into a free country is far ahead of the schedule that either Germany or Japan had after WW II

The libs who shrieked about quagmires and oil empires are going to end up looking even more foolish in the eyes of history than they did at the time it was happening.

The real quagmire looks like it could be Afghanistan.

If all our troops are out on schedule and the Iraqis have taken over THAT is the greatest victory the Iraqis could have hoped for.

[Hereintheusa]

I think its a little too early to tell. Iraq will only be a success if the form of democracy they have now flourishes and the country prospers.

However, I have come to the conclusion that too eradicate radical Islam we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I do believe that we Iraq was something of a sideshow and could have waited. But what is done is done.

[FirmHand135]

A resounding success. There is no doubt about at this time. One of the very few things I am pleased with Obama so far is that he has not done something stupid like pull out immediately for code pinko's sake, and create a power vacuum.

The turn around of Iraq into a free country is far ahead of the schedule that either Germany or Japan had after WW II

The libs who shrieked about quagmires and oil empires are going to end up looking even more foolish in the eyes of history than they did at the time it was happening.

The real quagmire looks like it could be Afghanistan.

My argument from day 1 was that Iraq was a mistake and all the time and energy should have been focused on Afghanastan.

Please note, I also think Iraq could have done better had Bush and Rumsfeld done what the Army Chief of Staff recommended...a force of 150,000. Ironicaly, the surge brought us around that troop strength.

[BillyBobUSA]

A resounding success. There is no doubt about at this time. One of the very few things I am pleased with Obama so far is that he has not done something stupid like pull out immediately for code pinko's sake, and create a power vacuum.

The turn around of Iraq into a free country is far ahead of the schedule that either Germany or Japan had after WW II

The libs who shrieked about quagmires and oil empires are going to end up looking even more foolish in the eyes of history than they did at the time it was happening.

The real quagmire looks like it could be Afghanistan.


I think you are jumping the gun.

We have to see what direction the new Iraqi state takes when we leave.

If they end up an Iranian satelite state with open borders to Iranian troop movement, it wont have been a success.

If they remain democratic, peaceful and stable, then yes it was a success, but we wont know this for another 10 - 20 years.

The Iraq War was the biggest needless gamble of the last century.

We should have accomplished our military objects, given them 6 months to form a new government then left them to their own devices.

Nation building is a fools quest whether the fools luck out or not.

[buflineks]

Proper Historical judgement won't be done for at least 100 years.

[Amallek]

Irregardless of the what happens to Iraq, history is going to view very unkindly a decision to invade another country that was based on facts that were untrue. The entire issue is going to be framed as how Bush decided to ignore/ or attempt to change the centuries old "just war" doctrine and the implication of that on future wars.

[Amallek]

Proper Historical judgement won't be done for at least 100 years.

Nice try to avoid the discussion. Historical judgment begins now, and will evolve as the current actors fade away. The near term judgments, will be highly critical. It is likely the long term ones will continue to be so, particularly on the issues of preemptive war, and the arrogance of the Bush adminstration. If, however, this actually results in a major positive change in the Arab world, Bush may get some credit. That seems quite unlikely at this stage.

But trying to defer the judgment for 100 years may ease your pain, but it does not contribute to the scholarship.

[Rorus Raz]

What happens in Iraq is greatly dependent upon what happens with the rest of the region. Iraq could have a functioning democracy and standing military and I wouldn't call the war a success unless other parts of the Middle East have been stabilized.

It's hard to say, really.

[mark23]

I think its a little too early to tell. Iraq will only be a success if the form of democracy they have now flourishes and the country prospers.

However, I have come to the conclusion that too eradicate radical Islam we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I do believe that we Iraq was something of a sideshow and could have waited. But what is done is done.

Iraq is NOT a democracy. The people of Iraq voted for Sharia Law. It is in the Iraqi constitution.
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=468

Islam has no place for democracy and democracy has no place for islam.

Iraq=little IRAN

By Debbie Schlussel (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/)
To those who mindlessly repeat the same FOX News talking points that airheads like Sean Vannity and "The View"'s Elisabeth Hasselbeck constantly tout, I have news for you: things are not working in Iraq.
They're not working, unless you count the virtual elimination of most of the country's Christian population by its Shi'ite rulers a good thing. They're not working, unless you consider Iran finishing the completion of its Shi'ite crescent of a Hezbollah-supporting Islamic empire a good thing. Yes, there's relative "calm," but that means nothing.
I warned that we should not have democratic elections and hand this country over to Iranian-backed Shi'ites, and instead should have turned it over to a pro-U.S. Shah-like dictator. But instead we opted for this "democracy" (the same kind that put HAMAS and Hezbollah in power).
Now, we see the results as Iran gets its hands deeper into and its control stronger over Iraq. Yesterday, former Iranian President Akbar Hashem Rafsanjani--an ally of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and no enemy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs who run Iran--announced he will fund and assist in Iraq's reconstruction (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/iraq/2008805044_iraq03.html). Rafsanjani is one of Iran's most influential and powerful politicians and religious leaders. He's not pledging the help just 'cuz. He's doing it to solidify the latent unity with Iran that Iraq has developed and will continue to embrace more and more openly. Rafsanjani said he visited Iraq to strengthen Iran-Iraq religious, political, and economic ties (http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-02-voa30.cfm). Not a good thing.
**** UPDATE: And as reader "I Am Me" reminds me, I wrote about how Argentina issued a warrant for Rafsanjani's arrest as he was the primary Iranian mastermind and funder of the Hezbollah bombings and mass murder (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/10/hezbollah_argen.html) at the Jewish Community Center and Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in the mid-'90s. ****
Bush helped clear Iraq out for the Iranian Shi'ites and helped put them in power. And now they are openly biding their time until the takeover is complete.
And most of those supposedly in the know are just plain clueless on this. Take FOX News' Neil Cavuto. I remember when he whined to and cajoled me for criticizing Dearbornistan Shi'ites for supporting Hezbollah by saying that these same Shi'ites supported Bush against Saddam Hussein. No kidding, Neil. They're Shi'ites. They want power all over. Not sure how this makes them good people. It just makes them smart and focused people, er . . . barbarians.
Smarter and more focused than us, and certainly more so than the Bush and Iraq amen crowd leaders, such as Cavuto.
With all due respect to our brave and courageous soldiers who went over there (including my own cousin), we did not liberate Iraq. We took it from one inhumane tyrant and gave it to another, both of whom are our enemies. It's like the ending of "Lord of the Flies." And we helped awaken the Shi'ite revolution of which Hezbollah is an important component. The new boss isn't the same as the old boss. He's far worse, with more serious, far-reaching implications.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/03/i_told_you_so_i_1.html

[buflineks]

Nice try to avoid the discussion. Historical judgment begins now, and will evolve as the current actors fade away. The near term judgments, will be highly critical. It is likely the long term ones will continue to be so, particularly on the issues of preemptive war, and the arrogance of the Bush adminstration. If, however, this actually results in a major positive change in the Arab world, Bush may get some credit. That seems quite unlikely at this stage.

But trying to defer the judgment for 100 years may ease your pain, but it does not contribute to the scholarship.


Oh really. Tell me, which school of historiography would you use right now to "judge"the history? Hempel? White? Collingwood? Martin?

If you knew anything about how to correctly write and present history you would know that in the next 100 years there will be several styles that will basically not have any effect on how the decision of history will play out.

Right now, you and others are playing "Fault Historiography" ( which is apparant by your accusations of the Bush Administration) That should last for the next 20-30 years. This isn't history, this is justification for those who live during the time of the event. Not very accurate, very biased, and very, very, infantile.

So, instead of telling me that I'm avoiding the discussion, why don't you impress everyone here and tell us which model of historiography you plan on using and then start citing sources for your accusations.


I personally would like to see your sources on "Bushs arrogance". (please use MLA citation to make it easy to track your sources.) Btw, which model of Historiography are you going to use in this?

[buflineks]

But trying to defer the judgment for 100 years may ease your pain, but it does not contribute to the scholarship.

And if you knew anything about modern historical scholarship and methodology, you would know that the above statement is a load of equine fertilizer.

I suggest you read Edward Hallett Carr, and then try to have a discussion with me.

As of right now, all your doing is following the White model of Narratives.

addum. A question was asked, and as an historian, I answered. I didn't "defer" or "avoid" anything. But then I guess that's what happens when you are a trained historian, you understand proper historical methodology and models.

[MrShotShot]

Irregardless of the what happens to Iraq, history is going to view very unkindly a decision to invade another country that was based on facts that were untrue. The entire issue is going to be framed as how Bush decided to ignore/ or attempt to change the centuries old "just war" doctrine and the implication of that on future wars.

A war based on faulty intelligence that was commonly accepted as accurate is not the same as a war based on untruths - no matter how many times you Dems repeat it.

[buflineks]

Irregardless of the what happens to Iraq, history is going to view very unkindly a decision to invade another country that was based on facts that were untrue. The entire issue is going to be framed as how Bush decided to ignore/ or attempt to change the centuries old "just war" doctrine and the implication of that on future wars.

"Fault Historiography".

this isn't good scholarship.

In addition, you're using a variation of the "Covering Law" model. That has been thoroughly refuted by Collingwood and Martin.
Why don't you try some "Post-Modernism" historiography and see if you can get that to work?

[Democracyforall]

The more controversial issues in my view is not that we went into Iraq, but HOW we went in, what advice and guidance was put aside, etc.

You can stand in front of all the flags you want and declare your love of country and patriotism, but when you don't lead the military with the respect they deserve then there is a problem.