Comments 15

الدروس الخاطئة من حرب العراق

Jul 19, 2016 Anne-Marie Slaughter , Nussaibah Younis

واشنطن العاصمة ــ أخيرا، صدر تقرير تشيلكوت هذا الشهر، بعد مرور سبع سنوات منذ أمرت الحكومة البريطانية بإعداده بهدف "تحديد الدروس" المستفادة من مشاركة المملكة المتحدة في حرب العراق. ولكن في التركيز المحموم على الأخطاء التي ارتكبها رئيس الوزراء الأسبق توني بلير في الحكم على الأمور والنهج الذي سلكه بإدخال المملكة المتحدة في الحرب جنبا إلى جنب مع الولايات المتحدة، نخاطر بإهدار الدروس الحقيقية.

يرى العديد من المنتقدين أن فشل حرب العراق يثبت أن السياسات الخارجية الغربية الداعمة للتدخل غير مجدية وغير أخلاقية. ولكن لا ينبغي لنا أبدا أن نبني تقييمنا للتدخلات على أساس نجاح أو فشل التدخل الأخير. فهذا هو المنطق الذي دفع إدارة بِل كلينتون، في أعقاب فشل تدخل الولايات المتحدة في الصومال عام 1993، إلى التقاعس عن التحرك في العام التالي لمنع الإبادة الجماعية في رواندا، والتي نستطيع أن نقول الآن إن منعها كان في حكم الممكن بقدر محدود للغاية من التدخل.

في حالة حرب العراق، تسبب التدخل في مقتل مئات الآلاف من العراقيين وتفتيت البلاد، هذا فضلا عن إزهاق أرواح الآلاف من الجنود الأميركيين والبريطانيين. ولكن يظل الإرث المأساوي الذي خلفه التدخل في العراق باقيا حتى يومنا هذا لأنه يمثل الآن حكاية تحذيرية ضد كل تدخل.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

Poland’s Dictatorship of Myth

Aug 13, 2018 Sławomir Sierakowski
Why the Bank of England Should Target Growth

Aug 10, 2018 Linda Yueh
Trump’s Victorious Retreats

Aug 9, 2018 Anatole Kaletsky
No to Academic Normalization of Trump

Aug 7, 2018 Dani Rodrik
The Need for a Global Patent Market

Aug 6, 2018 Edmund S. Phelps & Eskil Ullberg

Anne-Marie Slaughter

Writing for PS since 2006
65 Commentaries

Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning in the US State Department (2009-2011), is President and CEO of the think tank New America, Professor Emerita of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, and the author of Unfinished Business: Women Men Work Family.

Nussaibah Younis

Writing for PS since 2016
1 Commentary

Nussaibah Younis is a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where she also directs the Task Force on the Future of Iraq.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 in all 15 Comments on this article

Robert Carter Jul 27, 2016

You've suggested "interventionist Western foreign policies are both futile and immoral" but it isn't that at all Allies like UK & their Commonwealth members participation was an act of partnership agreements signed with USA then forced to comply with USA intervention. That being really USA Empire designed dream for Birth of a New World American Empire Order as their $1 note Masonic promises on it's backside. Well backside ruled their Navy but should not rule other Sovereign Nations. There's this 2500 year past better advice to consider first and always, because USA is a tantrum baby nation:- viz. a) Bottom line by Sun Zhi of Wu (USA Harvard Famed "Art of War & Business agreed Chinese logic:
AS I SO OFTEN REMIND IT IS NOT JUST 3 EX-WAR PRESIDENT (that's in USA alone') But ~ ECONOMICALLY I like to SUGGESTED "In Peace time 'understand your enemy as you know yourself" that was China's ancient General Sun Zhi of Wu who said thousands of years earlier, "fix your own home first, before you start bullying fixes of other homeland independent Nations, concepts" Sun Zhu. But USA wisest leaders tried warning that over the decades, only Obama as an ethnic minority dare not go against the white majorities of the Baby Nation. Examples of wisdom leaders Viz.
b) Final Speech to the Nation by, George Washington..[...]..
On an over-powerful military establishment. “…avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, & which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.”
b.1) earlier he warned us to use that "sectoral Austerity" to repay the Debt earlier caused as a necessary "Sectoral Stimulus of war machinery & readiness" ~ Not leave to next Generation what we owed from ours in necessity" viz.:- GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Charles M. Thruston, Aug. 10, 1794 ~ As a very important source of strength & security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear.

c) Lincoln's remarks mean much the same US Uncivil-War :-
America must truly understand China better, and get its own house in order before it's too late!. Abraham Lincoln explained this long ago, "America will never be destroyed from outside. IF WE FALTER & LOSE OUR FREEDOMS, IT WILL BE BECAUSE WE DESTROYED OURSELVES"
d) Even FDR (Roosevelt) in 1932 Said it in a sort of way WW I:-
Enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.The billionaire class considers the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
e) Final Speech to the Nation by, Dwight D.Eisenhower WW II…
1961 Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040."My fellow Americans We must never let the weight of this "combination endanger" our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial& military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods goals, so that security & liberty may prosper together. Akin to, & largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, & costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Notwithstanding be sure JFK, Obama, Clintons & Numerous other USA Superior claiming Presidents have no intention of hearing the wiser old Presidents as they prefer pandering to the Puppet-master Plutocrats contrary to those millennia warnings

robcartervn 24/5/2016 12:30 lunchtime today just quoted to GEI.
Obama has now gone down to Saigon same time with My Mate Hollywood Moviemaker, but before leaving Hanoi, according to our early Morning News VTV 1 and other press reported here that as expected Obama totally removed the USA arms embargo from Vietnam, we too will now boost USA Military Plutocrats as Puppet masters of the USA Oligarchy in USA Government & Politics. Exactly the opposite to General/Presidents Washington-Lincoln-Eisenhower and even FDR warnings against that habit.
rajesh ghosh Jul 26, 2016

Let's us assume that the US gives into your argument for intervention. So Assad is ousted. A hypothetical but a very realistic situation. What happens then?

The assortment of so-called rebels, armed by the 'good-guys' or let's say the US and its middle east allies, will all compete to fill the power vacuum. So who will get the throne?

Democracy certainly isn't going to work immediately for a country that has never seen one, as the authors accept it in their article.

So the various armed rebels will vie for political power. This will set in motion another Libya. Infighting and political gambling will result in a civil war with no institutions of law and order or a significant coercive force like the current Syrian army. So after all the plan to invade doesn't quite stand on firm grounds.

Now to talk of Russia and Iran continuing to commit their resources to fight the ISIS after Assad has been routed is frankly an absurd proposition. Why would they do that? The rebels do not see Russia and Iran as friends or allies. Rather their enemies. Same goes with Russia and Iran. Why would they assist the rebels against ISIS?
Russia and Iran is currently supporting Assad because he is their ally and one of the few friendlies they have in that region. Also because Assad has clearly shown his allegiance to them.
Finally, I don't think any intervention is going to resolve the issue. Rather, constructive engagement with Assad, with Iran and Russia having seats on the high table, is the only way forward. We need a strong central government in Syria first, before which a gradual roll-out of democratic institutions is possible.

Any suggestion to eradicate Assad from the scene is a mis-calculated strategy at the least.
Cary Fraser Jul 26, 2016

Perhaps the authors need to be reminded of the adage - Flogging a dead horse.
markets aurelius Jul 25, 2016

Military intervention in a state lacking any fundamental institutions of self-rule never works. Governments claiming there is a moral imperative for such intervention first have to make the case that the survival of there own state is at risk if they do not intervene. Everything else is nation-building and doomed to failure.

Of course, government officials in states like the UK and US -- where, presumably, elected officials are defending the Constitution (written or not) against all enemies foreign and domestic -- routinely lie to the electorate. This is a fact that was proved in Vietnam, Iraq, and Libya most recently. (One of the perps of the Libya fiasco actually is running for the highest office in the land in the US.)

What the electorate has to assume is it is being lied to any time there is a push by government to intervene anywhere at any time. This is the lesson to take, once again, from the Chilcot report. The assumption has to be there is a select cohort within government doing the bidding of a military-industrial cartel that will be magnificently enriched by the intervention. The electorate will send its sons and daughters into the maw of war to be slaughtered and maimed, sacrifice trillions of its wealth and treasure, and be left with nothing. Only the self-serving organizers of the intervention are enriched. And they will surely look for the next such opportunity for enrichment.
Julek Kedzierski Jul 25, 2016

You seem to forget that the Russians seem fairly committed to supporting Assad, and so any direct attacks on the governement such as you suggest might in fact increase tension levels and non-solutions
John Reid Jul 25, 2016

One of the great failings of the argument presented here is that it assumes that there is no reason why the US shouldn't intervene in other states if it believes it should.

The problem is that international law doesn't agree.
Walter Gingery Jul 20, 2016

"And Syrians across the country will fight ISIS just as fiercely with or without Assad’s air force. Russia and Iran will continue to fight ISIS as well."

to quote Hemingway, "Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?" And we were also told the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. Fool me once. . . .

One factor the author does not address: are the authorities competent to plan, carry out, and conclude such an operation? Today's Washington does not inspire confidence, to say the least.

But putting that aside, let's assume you can sell your plan 'A' to the American people: limited, defined aims; adequate support.

What's your plan 'B'? Or 'C'? What red lines do you set down to call it quits? My fear is that the US will be stuck in the quicksand of Syria for a very long time, indeed.
Azat Irmanov Jul 20, 2016

surprised to see such a primitive way of thinking ...
Odyssios Redux Jul 19, 2016

'But he changed his mind, in part based on former UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s failure to win parliamentary support to act against Assad’s regime.'

That didn't help. But more to the point, there's considerable doubt as to just whose nerve gas was used. In the full military version,the chemicals have a preservative included to ensure stability (and hence reliable use) over long term storage. The samples collect after this attack did not; it was someone's 'homebrew'. Quite whose is not known (to me now; to Obama then). So it provided a very insecure basis for direct US/UK involvement. By any measure, moral or strategic, US policy from Afghanistan in the 80's (creation of Taliban) to present Syria, has been wildly counterproductive and corrosive of peace. There are powerful moral arguments against it too, but now, moral arguments gain zero traction. Simply in the terms of what Kissinger is pleased to term 'realpolitik', the US has failed massively and persistently - across both administrations and parties. As, of course,have also the British. There seems no comprehension that people will push back against this sort of thing. Shocking!
John Brian Shannon Jul 19, 2016

Hi Anne-Marie and Nussaibah,

If only there was one military intervention that could be held up as a success, then we might be able to say; "intervention can still be the right course." But there isn't.

I can't think of one.

Even the Korean War, which started out as a 'police action' against the communists, turned into a full fledged war and a surrender or peace treaty has never been signed. Technically, we are still at war with North Korea. So, even the Korean War doesn't count as a successful intervention.

Viet Nam doesn't count as a successful intervention, although in retrospect, the U.S. military benefited greatly from the experience by moving from a post-WWII military and tactics, to the jet fighter and jet bomber age.

The attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages in 1979 Iran was a disaster.

We can say that the Gulf of Sidra incident was militarily successful, and it was militarily, and to an extent, it did have a dampening effect on Libya's ruler.

Supporting the Afghans in their struggle against the Soviet Army intervention by helping to create an entirely new class of fighters (by funding them and giving them realtime satellite recon) called mujahadeen, facilitated such groups as Al Qaida, the Northern Alliance, the Taliban, and nowadays, ISIS and Boko Haram and other toxic Islamist entities.

People can say that the military action in Grenada was a success, same with extracting Manuel Noriega from Panama -- but really, those actions, while militarily successful, were last-ditch attempts to save a diplomatically-bungled set of circumstances.

Our "support" of Rwandans failed because we were only 'half-in' at best. With such a tiny force and minuscule support there, the General in charge of the operation (General Romeo Dallaire of 'Shake Hands With the Devil' fame) could barely keep his own base secure (and fed!!!) let alone have enough troops and support (ammo, APC's, and tanks) to police the townships and rural areas of the country.

We would have better served Rwanda by having a force of 100,000 battle hardened soldiers to 'take care of business' as it occurred -- or not be there at all.

Keeping the two sides artificially apart for so long only served to fuel their anger -- so much so, that when they finally did express their rage, hundreds of thousands of people were killed within days.

800,000 Rwandans were killed because we (the West) couldn't decide if we were 'in' or 'out' of the fight.

Mogadishu (BlackHawk Down) nothing more needs to be said there, other than the extreme bravery of our soldiers must be commended as always, no matter the impossibility of the task they are given.

Logic check: What *did* we accomplish in Mogadishu anyway?

When the former Yugoslavia unravelled, the U.S. was in position and highly motivated to do the right thing, but it was prevented by a youngish EU, not yet fully confident and not yet fully competent, an EU that simultaneously couldn't handle the situation themselves, but were too proud to be seen asking for American assistance.

As far as the first Gulf War and the Iraq War/Afghan War are concerned. Are those places better now, compared to pre-intervention?

Even our peaceful intervention in Haiti didn't meet expectations.

And although the so-called 'Arab Spring' was supposed to be a spontaneous uprising against North African strongmen, the West acted as cheerleader, are those nations 'more democratic' now, as opposed to pre-intervention?

In fact, are any of the places I've mentioned above 'better places' now, post-intervention?

South Korea *is* a better place, post-intervention. But technically, the ROK is still at war with the DPRK and war, even nuclear war, could break out there any day. Even the Korean intervention as successful as the South Korean economy and democracy is; the larger situation must be referred to as a qualified success.

To be nice, I didn't mention the West's role in sacking the Prime Minister of Iran and replacing him with the Shah of Iran in 1950, nor did I mention several coups ostensibly staged by the West in South and Central America during the 20th century.

At the end of it all, I think we mean well, but interventions are not our forte. If we had better than one qualified success, I wouldn't be so negative about interventionism.

The "lessons of Iraq" must be, 'Stay out of other countries' unless we are invited in!

Anything else, just doesn't match up with the facts hiding in plain sight.

"The definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result." -- Albert Einstein

Trying to gather support for intervention in Syria with such a track record will only serve to further tarnish the West's reputation and result in maligning the next President of the United States while still early in his or her first term -- thereby poisoning any chances for a second term (but it's not about that, it's about lowering American prestige around the world, which has rebounded in recent years)

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Chancellors, Kings, Emirs, and Rulers, must realize that intervention is "out" because it doesn't work.

What does work every time (but it takes time) is diplomacy. Long term diplomacy, where (not at the last minute for goodness sakes!) strengthening the moderate voices in a society -- even a toxic society, over decades of time, will give the results desired. EVERY TIME.

Where has this worked, exactly?

In our dealings with the former Soviet Union, of all places!

Due to the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) paradigm, it was decided by both sides that nuclear war would be too costly to wage -- and both sides then embarked on a policy of 'brinkmanship' which worked fine, until one side blinked.

Both sides then realized that commonality of purpose (although difficult) was the enlightened path.

Without going to hot war, the Soviet Union and the West engaged in long term and fruitful diplomacy (Oh yes! There were moments of anger, confusion, terror, and probably every other human emotion!) that in the end, worked to resolve the decades-old Cold War conflict between NATO nations and WARSAW PACT nations.

(Not at the 'last minute' -- ever!)

But by building long term relationships with the people we see as moderates in any country, especially in the troubled nations, we can avoid losing trillions of dollars in wars that don't accomplish our goals and end on an uncertain note, we can avoid losing our prestige in the world, we can avoid losing thousands of our best, brightest, and most patriotic young people in battle, and we can avoid killing hundreds of thousands (or millions) of foreigners who've never done us any harm and merely live under a government that we can't tolerate and we allowed to flourish (via our neglect of our long term diplomatic goals)

There is more than enough loot in this world for everyone -- ten times over.

Fighting over it, only costs more than the loot is worth in the end.

We must begin acting like true civilized people and use applied human psychology (diplomacy) to get the results we want -- even if what we want is evermore loot (the world is not enough) instead of something a little more enlightened.

"Diplomacy is the fine art of getting what you want and making the other party think it was their idea, all along."

Our generation are merely standing on the shoulders of giants. The challenges of the former times, were so much more than today's 'mopping-up' of humanities excesses. Those are the people that we must heed, if we are to aspire to a better civilization.

Tony Benn said it best: "All war is a failure of diplomacy."

Ike Eisenhower (one of the most successful military commanders of all time and one of the most successful U.S. presidents of all time) who *was there* in places most haven't ever been nor ever will be, had this to say about war:

“I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.” -- former President Dwight D. (Ike) Eisenhower

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." -- former Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Thank you for posting your wonderful essay at ProSyn, but I respectfully decline to agree with your conclusion.

As always, very best regards, JBS

https://timeinmotionstudy.blogspot.ca/2016/07/my-comment-wrong-lessons-of-iraq-war.html
Curtis Carpenter Jul 19, 2016

May one express a mild form of relief that Ms. Slaughter is no longer the "director of policy planning" for the State Department?
Petey Bee Jul 19, 2016

Not just the lesson of Iraq, but the lessons, plural, of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and -yes- Syria (where GCC nations have supplied and bankrolled the anti-Assad forces with effects effects to what the US achieved in Libya and Iraq).

Preventing violence and promoting democracy are laudable and proper goals. Nobody is saying it is bad to try to do those things. Instead the criticism is that: preventing violence and promoting democracy requires a certain amount of *ability*. If 4 out of the last 4 attempts at forceful intervention have resulted in worsening the problem (result = more violence, less democracy), then the *ability* to prevent violence and promote democracy is simply not sufficient at the present time. Thus the reasonable thing to do is to try something other than forceful intervention.

The alternative to forceful intervention is (1) to refrain from supporting "unsavory" regimes and regional players in the first place, and (2) reduce the flow of weapons into the region -- this would have to be done in the form of an agreement with rival powers so that the weapons flow is reduced from all directions. This is not going to be easy, but as we have discovered, making forceful intervention work is not easy either, in fact it has proven impossible in the last 15 years, given our present level of *ability*.

What the advocates of forceful intervention have accomplished are (1) feed ISIS, AQ, and future groups of the same kind, and (2) to utterly destroy the reputation of western policymaking.
Steve Hurst Jul 19, 2016

'The stated goal of intervention in Syria should be to stop Assad'

So who is supporting Assad?
stephan Edwards Jul 19, 2016

If someone wants to volunteer for Syria feel free. The only thing the US has gotten out of it's interventions is filled body bags and unending commitments. Exactly nations have we successfully built since 1960? I believe the answer is zero. People have to solve their own problems or we end up with commitments like Afghanistan a collection of corrupt strong men being propped up by the US or Iraq were the population hates each other with an awe inspiring passion and whose government is utterly and totally dysfunctional. When is enough enough the only people who do well out of these disasters aren't the locals who just keep killing each other. It surely isn't the US taxpayer. Maybe the Defense and Private military contractors getting no bid contracts? Haven't we left enough dead bodies in military cemetaries without and more for the benefit of stock holders and Strong men?
Steve Hurst Jul 19, 2016

Syria is a proxy war