The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[Thecla]

Any nation can start a legitimate war until it is declared illegitimate by the UN Security Council.

This is an extraordinary statement, whatever you mean by it. Apart from self-defense against an armed attack or the imminent threat of such an attack (neither of which apply to Iraq), there are very few legitimate reasons to start a war.

So, while the UN tepidly danced around authorizing the war under UN auspices, they didn't resoundingly denounce it either.

Nonsense. Of course the UN rejected the war. The US (with the UK and Spain) explicitly sought UN approval for military action. They withdrew the draft when it was clear that it wouldn't pass, and invaded anyway.

The short answer to your question is we may not have a full view of the implications of war, and not going to war.

We'll never have any view of alternate histories, at least not unless there are some startling developments in the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics or Jorge Luis Borges turns out to be a non-fiction writer. All we can look at is what actually happened, and the consequences of the Iraq war have been almost universally negative. (Insert obligatory comment about how Hussein was a brutal dictator, maybe the Iraqi people will eventually benefit from his removal, and democracy and freedom will bloom in the desert next to the oil wells blah blah).

I do agree with you that we don't yet have a full view of the implications of the US invasion of Iraq. We might see in 5 or 10 or 20 years how things play out. But, though it's irrelevant to the present case, I'll point out one general principle: good results don't justify bad actions.

Until you can compare them objectively.

Compare objectively what is with what might have been, you mean??

all you are viewing is the hindsight 20/20 position I indicated earlier.

As I keep pointing out, none of this required 20/20 hindsight.

I'm not sure what you mean. Then, all wars are disasters and far more costly than this one.

Ummm...hate to break this to you, but if this is intended as a reductio ad absurdum argument, then it fails badly. Yes all wars are disasters. Small wars might be small disasters. Large wars are invariably large disasters. Sometimes wars cannot be avoided, but that's exactly why no one should especially start a war without very good reasons. It's true that some students of military history might be disappointed by a shortage of wars, but overall I think it would be to humanity's benefit.

As far as costs go, if we talk in financial terms, the Iraq war is already more costly (in adjusted dollars) to the US than any war except World War II (more than World War I, Korea, or Vietnam). Depending on how you account for the long-term financial costs, the cost of the Iraq war may be approaching that of WWII. And it's been financed almost entirely by borrowing.

The toppling of the WTC towers was a disaster too.

Yes, it was. But as terrible and shocking as that disaster was, the costs of the Iraq war have exceeded it in every respect.

Where was Aḥmad Zarqawi in the summer of 2002? What was his relationship to Jund al-Sham and OBL in 1999?

What organization was Zarqawi affiliated with in 2002? When did he swear loyalty to bin Laden?