Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ali Latif

GET UPDATES FROM Ali Latif
 

Was It Worth It? Iraq, Ten Years On

Posted: 07/02/2013 09:48

Ten years ago, Iraq was a country beyond desperation. The previous two decades had witnessed the end of a disastrous war with Iran, the first Gulf War, a decade of crushing sanctions and a brutal regime that showed no sign of disappearing. It was a humanitarian disaster unfolding in slow motion, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives but it was far away from international focus and the world looked on in indifferent silence. Starved, beaten and abandoned, Iraqis were resigned to spending ever more years in muffled anguish.

The US plan for regime change came as a bolt from the blue, it raised the prospect of what was previously unthinkable - a way out of the ongoing nightmare, no pointless airstrikes or punitive sanctions but the prospect of real change. We were under no illusion that this was a war for our salvation but the end of Saddam's regime was certainly in sight. It was only then that the world's 'moral conscience' awoke and protested against the war and by default the end of the regime.

The war was over quickly but the post-war occupation proved disastrous. The coalition didn't have enough troops to establish the country's security, they exacerbated sectarian divisions and reconstruction efforts failed miserably. Poor planning, arrogance or naivety can be blamed for a lot of what happened but the idea that an alternative such as diplomacy or a home-grown revolution would have avoided what we witnessed is frankly absurd.

Decades of war, poverty and tyranny created a host of complex and intractable problems that were only kept in check by the brutality of the regime. One only needs to look at the countries caught up in the Arab Spring to see that the aftermath is never straight-forward. Moreover Iraq would never have been a Tunisia but a larger scale and bloodier Syria, complete with an ethno-sectarian patchwork, murderous regime and unhelpful neighbours.

Academics, journalists and policy makers may continue to debate the war but it is ultimately a question for Iraqis to answer and time and again surveys show the vast majority happy to be rid of that regime. What's more we have moved on as despite the difficult years, we are now in a position to confront our challenges and decide our own future. We only have to look at the past several years to see evidence of this empowerment. Iraqis through mass protests ensured their constitution was written by an elected committee, at each election they have transformed their parliament and local councils, ridding them of those that did not perform, and they have successfully denied the US the bases it was planning to establish in their country.

Despite these successes, the path toward s democracy will not be easy. The current political system remains dysfunctional, corruption is hampering economic progress and social divisions threaten the very fabric of the country. Yet there is a great deal of optimism. Through my work and visits there, I witness the investment pouring in, the standard of living rocketing and people free to debate Iraq's many woes but also plan for their future.

Iraqis have witnessed many dark days and they continue to be frustrated by a country struggling with its past, present and future, but what's different is that they now have a stake in their country. Bystanders no more, they can help to shape their future. It is still too early to tell where Iraq is heading but as the political system continues to mature and democratic institutions slowly establish themselves it looks likely that we will look back at this war as a starting point for Iraq's journey towards stability and prosperity.

 
FOLLOW UK POLITICS
Ten years ago, Iraq was a country beyond desperation. The previous two decades had witnessed the end of a disastrous war with Iran, the first Gulf War, a decade of crushing sanctions and a brutal regi...
Ten years ago, Iraq was a country beyond desperation. The previous two decades had witnessed the end of a disastrous war with Iran, the first Gulf War, a decade of crushing sanctions and a brutal regi...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 13
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
halingei
04:32 PM on 02/12/2013
What would those killed, one way and another, say?
03:00 PM on 02/11/2013
Well there were no weapons of mass destruction there and no violation of the UN weapons inspection agreement.

So it was a mistake and has nothing at all to do with the later invented pretext to get rid of Saddam. The Saddam Hussein regime was abhorrent but that is not how we got there.

The initial error or lies used to do this war have colored everything that has followed and yet to come. Bush and Blair were not good leaders and we have inherited the results from their time.
05:50 PM on 02/10/2013
My read on this is..Iraq...or more to the point Saddam and family were able and at a point could of messed up the region, smart people these Iraq arabs possibly the offending technology wasn't ever there but a suggestion was planted and we fell for it.
Saddam was playing poker and the winner USA called their bluff and Tony Blair went along as UN couldn't make their minds up.
Yes there was no exit plan nor was one formulated, TB missed a turn there but I would love to know what he could of done as he was stuck in the middle and gambled his short term popularity and went to war.
I heard so many time TB is a war criminal..!!!! nobody really can be serious... he didn't personally specifically sink a warship like Thatcher..did he?
Like him or dislike him one thing is for sure TB is a progressive leader on Global scale and compared to the liberalconservative whatever we have here in UK presently.
TB and Labour sorted the mess left by Major and Thatcher and yes there were mistakes but not on the scale of the last 2 years
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ben Wilson
What's the story mourning Tories?
10:31 PM on 02/09/2013
As I watched the invasion live on TV and the American Troops place the American flag over the Saddam statue only to soon after rightly replace it with the Iraqi Flag all those years ago I said to those in the room with me 'That is the symbol of everything to come.' I still stand by that but recently I've changed my interpretation. Before I said it prove narrow American intrest, but now I think it represents that America screws up epically, but it comes good in the end.

That said my humble view is nothing compared to that of Iraqs. Ultimatly the answer can only really be found amoung the views of its citizens.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
seanwhite06
07:27 PM on 02/08/2013
If a person really has a sincere 'liberal' philosophy, then they should be all for and active in "liberating" countries, which repress and abuse their people, bringing to them democracy!

This 'is' without doubt - a success story, the people of Iraq will not thank the West for denigrating their freedom.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ben Wilson
What's the story mourning Tories?
10:41 PM on 02/09/2013
Seriously, it depends. If you are a modernist then 9 times out of 10 the answer is yes. If you are a post modernist you're still wondering if a chair exists if you don't give it name. Their the 'there's no 1 reality, but reality' 'No truth but truths' people. I'm somewhere inbetween personally. I'm all for non interfearance an ethical foriegn policies, but the road to freedom has to be fought by the people. And freedom and democray means nothing to the person with nothing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
seanwhite06
09:32 PM on 02/10/2013
The former Eastern Block regime's which were under the 'fist of communism' - were I believe very much in favour of taking action, because they know and understand the value of democracy... we at times seem to have forgotten! You see, you have the luxury of placing this in academic terms: the people in these countries, certainly in Iraq and Afghanistan had their very basic human rights repressed; the people in one of these countries - were not even allowed to listen to music!!! In Burma for years it was illegal to just tell a joke... in regard non-interference; I doubt you would have had such sentiments in the Second World War to - if you are British the American's coming to support us. Otherwise, we'd have most likely been under the grip of Nazi Germany, and you may not be alive now or have the luxury of this open discussion.  We are in danger of losing our democracy - unless we value and fight for it, and 'allow' others in the world - the same opportunity. The Shia Muslims after the First Gulf War, when they launched a rebellion and we did not came to their aid - resulting in the deaths of 100 000 of people, not to mention afterwards - years of persecution - they did not thank us for our crass indifference!  
12:18 AM on 02/08/2013
1. "... they have successfully denied the US the bases it was planning to establish..."
Which base is this? Currently the largest US military base in the middle east resides in Baghdad.

2. It has been 10 years - ten whole years - and you state that it is still "too early to tell" where Iraq is heading... look at the French revolution 10 years after it succeeded, or even a more recent one from a neighbouring country: Iran overthrew its tyrranical ruler in '79 and by '89 had completed an 8 year crippling war and had established a stable elected government despite the death of its founding leader. 10 years has passed and there is very little to show for it - except the lack of Saddam.
photo
novelist2000
veritas non olet
04:26 AM on 02/08/2013
What you see as a 'base' must be the rather oversize embassy compound. But there is no base outside these fences of diplomatic immunity. For instance like Okinawa or what's in Germany (100,000 soldiers) or South Korea, and especially the payments from these host countries. Japan and South Korea seem to pay 75 % of troop costs, Germany 100 %, Italy I don't know.

I kind of followed that at the time. The Iraqis refused to legislate that US soldiers are immune from criminal prosecutions in Iraq, which is a condition for bases. Iraqis also did not want Blackwater people there, but the US did not want to do without them. Quite understandable, these private companies come and go, you can never get them by the short and curly if there is a problem. The preliminary immunity agreement ended on that 31st Dec, and a new one did not come about, so they left.

Re the artcile, I am astonished to read that establishing bases was one of the goals and reasons for the war. At the time they made us believe it was WMD and Al Qaeda. Elsewhere I have read that Saddam had stitched up a new oil contract with the French (his buddy since 1974 Jacques Chirac). The contract should have started on the first of April 2003, so naturally they needed to come in before that started. This contract was in Euros, but the US like oil business done in USD.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
seanwhite06
07:26 PM on 02/08/2013
You are absolutely wrong: Iraq's GDP has doubled in just "3 years..." there is probably no country in the world, which can boast growth at levels - such as this! And while GDP and money are not everything, this is around "6" higher than around the time, and the period before the Iraq war!!!

Also, environmentally the country is better off, the - wetlands to the South have been to a large extent restored, after Saddam Hussein drained & devastated them in response to the 1991 Muslim Shia uprising, decimating - at the time, an entire people's way of life.

Many people who comment, have no or little idea 'whatsoever' what it would be like to live under tyrannical regime, which brutalised its people. Also the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have contributed to greater demands for freedom 'throughout' the Middle East, and may well - I have little doubt been a factor in the Arab Spring!

I will break it gently to those who opposed the war, who I think do this under the guise of being liberal and well meaning. But if you had a poll 'today' asking the people of Iraq if they wished the war had never happened, and the Americans had not taken action; the "vast" majority would not wish to go back to the days of Saddam Hussein, and would agree that the price of war was well worth it.