U.S. grapples with forces unleashed by Iraq invasion 20 years later
Send a link to a friend
[March 16, 2023]
By Arshad Mohammed and Jonathan Landay
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - From an empowered Iran and eroded U.S. influence
to the cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria to combat Islamic
State fighters, the United States still contends with the consequences
of invading Iraq 20 years ago, current and former officials say.
Then-U.S. President George W. Bush's 2003 decision to oust Saddam
Hussein by force, the way limited U.S. troop numbers enabled ethnic
strife and the eventual 2011 U.S. pullout have all greatly complicated
U.S. policy in the Middle East, they said.
The end of Saddam's minority Sunni rule and replacement with a Shi'ite
majority government in Iraq freed Iran to deepen its influence across
the Levant, especially in Syria, where Iranian forces and Shi'ite
militias helped Bashar al-Assad crush a Sunni uprising and stay in
power.
The 2011 withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Iraq left a vacuum that
Islamic State (ISIS) militants filled, seizing roughly a third of Iraq
and Syria and fanning fears among Gulf Arab states that they could not
rely on the United States.
Having withdrawn, former U.S. President Barrack Obama in 2014 sent
troops back to Iraq, where about 2,500 remain, and in 2015 he deployed
to Syria, where about 900 troops are on the ground. U.S. forces in both
countries combat Islamic State militants, who are also active from North
Africa to Afghanistan.
"Our inability, unwillingness, to put the hammer down in terms of
security in the country allowed chaos to ensue, which gave rise to
ISIS," said former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, faulting
the U.S. failure to secure Iraq.
Armitage, who served under Republican Bush when the United States
invaded Iraq, said the U.S. invasion "might be as big a strategic error"
as Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, which helped bring
about Germany's World War Two defeat.
MASSIVE COSTS
The costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq and Syria are massive.
According to estimates published this week by the "Costs of War" project
at Brown University, the U.S. price tag to date for the wars in Iraq and
Syria comes to $1.79 trillion, including Pentagon and State Department
spending, veterans' care and the interest on debt financing the
conflicts. Including projected veterans' care through 2050, this rises
to $2.89 trillion.
The project puts U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Syria over the past 20
years at 4,599 and estimates total deaths, including Iraqi and Syrian
civilians, military, police, opposition fighters, media and others at
550,000 to 584,000. This includes only those killed as a direct result
of war but not estimated indirect deaths from disease, displacement or
starvation.
U.S. credibility also suffered from Bush's decision to invade based on
bogus, exaggerated and ultimately erroneous intelligence about Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
John Bolton, a war advocate who served under Bush, said even though
Washington made mistakes - by failing to deploy enough troops and
administering Iraq instead of quickly handing over to Iraqis - he
believed removing Saddam justified the costs.
[to top of second column]
|
Displaced Iraqis who had fled their
homes wait to move to a safe place, as Iraqi forces battle with
Islamic State militants, in western Mosul, Iraq March 13, 2017.
REUTERS/Suhaib Salem/File Photo
"It was worth it because the decision was not simply: 'Does Saddam
pose a WMD threat in 2003?'" he said. "Another question was: 'Would
he pose a WMD threat five years later?' To which I think the answer
clearly was 'yes.'"
"The worst mistake made after the overthrow of Saddam ... was
withdrawing in 2011," he added, saying he believed Obama wanted to
pull out and used the inability to get guarantees of immunity for
U.S. forces from Iraq's parliament "as an excuse."
'ALARM BELLS RINGING ... IN THE GULF'
Ryan Crocker, who served as U.S. ambassador in Iraq, said the 2003
invasion did not immediately undermine U.S. influence in the Gulf
but the 2011 withdrawal helped push Arab states to start hedging
their bets.
In the latest example of waning U.S. influence, Iran and Saudi
Arabia agreed on Friday to re-establish relations after years of
hostility in a deal brokered by China.
"We just decided we didn't want to do this stuff anymore," Crocker
said, referring to the U.S. unwillingness to keep spending blood and
treasure securing Iraq. "That began ... with President Obama
declaring ... he was going to pull all forces out."
"These were U.S. decisions not forced by a collapsing economy, not
forced by demonstrators in the street," he said. "Our leadership
just decided we didn't want to do it any more. And that started the
alarm bells ringing ... in the Gulf."
Jim Steinberg, a deputy secretary of state under Obama, said the war
raised deep questions about Washington's willingness to act
unilaterally and its steadfastness as a partner.
"The net result ... has been bad for U.S. leverage, bad for U.S.
influence, bad for our ability to partner with countries in the
region," he said.
A debate still rages among former officials over Obama's decision to
withdraw, tracking a timeline laid out by the Bush administration
and reflecting a U.S. inability to secure immunities for U.S. troops
backed by the Iraqi parliament.
Bolton's belief that removing Saddam was worth the eventual cost is
not held by many current and former officials.
Asked the first word that came to mind about the invasion and its
aftermath, Armitage replied "FUBAR," a military acronym which,
politely, stands for "Fouled up beyond all recognition."
"Disaster," said Larry Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin
Powell's chief of staff.
"Unnecessary," said Steinberg.
(Reporting By Arshad Mohammed and Jonathan Landay; Additional
reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by William Maclean)
[© 2023 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|