Iraq: Who won the war?

Not the 90,000 Iraqi civilians or the 4,200 US and UK troops killed since 2003. Some big winners are the money men who have made billions. The fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq comes up next Thursday. Who are the winners and who are the losers? Follow the money and politics.

"In early 2003, Mr Rumsfeld mused on what might be the cost of the war to come: $50bn (£25bn) or $60bn, he and White House planners thought. Five years on, the bill is already 10 times that, while here the Commons Defence Committee has just warned of a "surprising" 52 per cent increase in the cost of operations in Iraq to nearly £1.45bn in the current financial year, despite the reductions in troop levels. An unprecedented amount has been funnelled to the private sector. The big winners have been the money men.

"Another army of private security guards escorts convoys, protects infrastructure projects and ferries military equipment around Iraq. These have been followed by business consultants, building project planners and government advisers, many of whom have put their lives at risk in the pursuit of a reconstructed Iraq while their companies earn billions.

"An estimate last October put the number of private contractors working in Iraq at 160,000 from up to 300 separate companies. About 50,000 were private security guards from companies such as Blackwater – whose killing of 17 Iraqi civilians last September in a gun battle shone a spotlight on the US military's reliance on poorly controlled private armies. Each Blackwater guard in Iraq, of whom there have been up to 900, costs the US government $445,000 per year."

"The main winners of the war are not the ones its instigators planned: Iran and al-Qa'ida."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-who-won-the-war...

No votes yet

The US already won the Iraq war. The occupation continues...

Have you ever heard the term Pyhrric victory? Another "won war" like this and we'll all be pedaling bicycles to work.

I can't argue with that Pete. Although I would argue that the subsequent occupation will have created much worse consequences for us than the actual war--not to mention blowback

Just curious. After all, Bubba Clinton promised American troops would ALL be home from Kosovo by Christmas of 1994.

http://www.startribune.com/local/15738527.html

Why is the Minnesota National Guard still in the Balkins after all these years?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

There is no victory in the War On Terror, in which Iraq has now been framed as the center piece of the War On Terror.

 

We were told, Mission Accomplished, a bit prematurely.

 

We were also told that there would be no permanent bases in Iraq, which now is not the case.

 

We have also been told that we can expect a draw down in troops and yet the troops are still there. And then there is a change of minds from week to week about the draw downs.

 

 

There is no victory in the War On Terror, in which Iraq has now been framed as the center piece of the War On Terror.

Agreed. That's why it was ridiculous in the first place to "frame" this farcicle occupation in such a way.

'Bubba' Clinton (that would be President Clinton to you) said this in 1994? Just a year after he took office? When the Kosovo conflict was largely between 1996-1999 and U.S./NATO involvement largely '98-'99?

Here genius, read up and educate yourself on some facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

from your posted article:
The Minnesota unit is now part of about 1,400 U.S. troops stationed in Kosovo to provide stability to the province, which has been under U.N. control since 1999.

My guess is that if only 1,400 U.S. troops were still stationed in Iraq in 2012 (9 years after we invaded) as part of a U.N. peace-keeping force that would be tolerable to most Americans, but of course it's never going to be that limited a number.

Is it Libs?

I don't know LibsCanPlowMe---I thought this thread was about Iraq. Perhaps you can start a different thread on Kosovo.

But back to Iraq---definitely Iran and Al-Qaeda have gained more influence over the region, because of Bush's invasion.

"But back to Iraq---definitely Iran and Al-Qaeda have gained more influence over the region, because of Bush's invasion."

I fail to see how on a long term scale. Sure Al-Qaeda gained some influence short term but now is failing and has significant recruitment issues.

I don't think Iran has gained anything in the long term as well. They were forced to sit down with the US on Iraq and walked away with very little than they had before. If anything I'd say a direct US presence has kept Iran's influence down because while their rhetoric has stepped up they haven't been able to push the US out despite calling on Islamic nations to do so.

MikeyA

MikeyA

The long-term effects remain to be seen. But you can't deny that Iran has more influence currently than when Saddam and the Sunni's were in power. Ahmadinejad just visited Iraq recently (the first Iranian leader to ever do so). Say what you will about the murderous Hussein, but at least he kept Iran in check.

"Ahmadinejad just visited Iraq recently (the first Iranian leader to ever do so)." - Bush visted there too (the first American President ever to do so). So if by visiting is an indication of influence then it's a wash.

Also Pete suggests we've been weakened. I fail to see how.

If anything I'd say we've been strengthened because we've adapted to many problems and it's caused us to restructure. The restructuring will make us better in case if we had to face another enemy.

It's only if we weren't adapting to our mistakes that we'd be truly weakened. The current situation shows that we have learned and adapted.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Falling dollar, loss of influence around the world, loss of moral high ground, etc.

Read these just for starters:
Iraq weakened U.S. influence in world arena, study reports
http://www.topix.net/content/kri/2008/03/iraq-weakened-u-s-influence-in-...

US influence with India weakened, says expert
http://www.dawn.com/2002/05/31/top15.htm

evidence of America’s weakness is clear enough
http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/Open_Think_Tank_Article/Weak_Ame...

I could go on and on.

actually none of those posts reference US influence in Iraq which was the topic.

Plus I wouldn't target the falling dollar as an example of or effect from loss of world influence. I'd say it's a reflection of the Federal Reserve's mismanagement and lack of fiscal management on behalf of our government.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Iran has been a huge winner of our invasion and occupation of Iraq. They live there, Mikey, right next door. We won't be there forever and, in the meantime, we have been weakened.

"Suddenly, Iran's growing influence in Iraq is top of the national security agenda again in Britain and America. The influence is real, massive and growing. More than that, following the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the empowerment of Iraq's Shiite majority, it became inevitable."
http://www.spacewar.com/news/iraq-05zzzzd.html

I wonder how Chris and Pete would have felt at the 5 yr mark on Japan's, Germany's, and the rest of Europe's reconstruction?

Must be pretty difficult for the Iraq people to figure out what economy and government changes they need to make after living under a dictator for the last few decades.

Imagine generations of people who never knew what a democracy is and now are in the position to figure how to govern like one.

I wonder how Chris and Pete would have felt at the 5 yr mark on Japan's, Germany's, and the rest of Europe's reconstruction?

Apples and oranges, bm. The Germans and the Japanese worked closely with us on the reconstruction. There was not a single American post-war combat casualty in German or Japan. The Iraqis are killing our troops because they don't want us there. We won the war---we took down Saddam and his army, confirmed there were no WMD's or Al-Qaeda connections. Now end the occupation, and let them start governing their own country.

"Apples and oranges...There was not a single American post-war combat casualty in German or Japan. The Iraqis are killing our troops because they don't want us there."

LOL as if there weren't German Communists who tried to kill US troops.

A few months ago I met a man at the VA in Ann Arbor who was stationed in Germany in the 1950's and was there to track the movements of Russian troops. He told me they weren't scarred of the Russians as much as they were the Germans. The German communists were still bitter of defeat and wanted to open fire to begin a war with hopes to reunite their homeland under a communist banner.

MikeyA

MikeyA

LOL, was I inaccurate? Are you saying that since there were bitter Germans after WWII, that you can compare post-Saddam in Iraq with post-WWII Germany?

"LOL, was I inaccurate? Are you saying that since there were bitter Germans after WWII, that you can compare post-Saddam in Iraq with post-WWII Germany?" - Did my post not demonstrate that? The only difference was the Russians were fearful of the US's use of the nuclear bomb. Iran and Al Qaeda are not. Hence the groups backed by Al Qaeda and Iran promote the use of violence.

I'm saying while the situations are different there is enough similiarities to both. In fact when the Iraqi Parlament finally passes a oil revenue sharing law (hopefully it'll be similar to Kuwait's) then we'll see even more infrastructure improvements made by Iraqis than we currently see. However we are seeing more political support than in previous years because the surge strategy has allowed for it.

MikeyA

MikeyA

it might be pretty difficult for the Iraq people to figure out if they even want a democracy, after the world's strongest democracy largely is responsible for this:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
(btw, this is the conservative estimate)

Brassmonkey is on spot. Ask him (her?) and he (she?) will tell you we still have troops in Germany, Korea and at various spots around the globe. We police the world. Is there anywhere more important to have our military cop than in the Middle East? There's oil there, y'all. Want to send the Chinese army in to replace us? The Russians? Believe me, they'd loved to. It's not about Muslim extremists. It's not about trying to shove democracy down Iraqis' throats. It's about the oil. If we have a military presence there to assure an adequate amount is flowing to us, then I say great. War is hell, yes, but we need to drive and lubricate our machinery. I'll see you at the BP in the morning.

Patience is a great virtue.

We (as in United States) just need to make sure that all future oil tankers sailing out of Iraq are headed to the US. Screw China and India. Let em invade some other country and steal their own. ______________________________________________________________________

- Just the KAT, thinking out loud again. :)
<

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

I read the link to the Independent. It was informative but if you'd like to get a much bigger view of the of the economic principles held by the Neocons, and in turn gain a better understanding of what motivated our going to war I suggest you read "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein. The Neocons didn't bungle their way into a Quagmire, they've realize greater profits by prolonging the fighting.

Did you know that Cheney refused to divest himself of Haliburton stock when he became vice-president? He even refused to put the stock into a blind trust. Before the war his stock was worth $10 million. Three years later it was worth $40 million. Policy makers and advisors such as Rumsfeld, Baker, Perle , Kissinger have all profited form the disaster in Iraq.

It's like what Deep Throat told Bernstein during the Nixon Watergate scandal about trying to follow the trail back to the source, "Follow the money!"

Thanks for the book citation, Chico.

If you want a window into the Iraqis' view of who LOST the war read this.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,541977,00.html

Answer: the Iraqi people are worse off now than under Saddam Hussein.
"Five years after the US invasion, no one misses Saddam, but some Baghdadis are nostalgic for the relative freedom and stability they had before the Americans came."

lol

LOL Pete those are just war stories LOL.

I love how people claim the downtick in violence is only because Al Sadr called for a cease-fire.

It negates the Anbar Awakening totally.

Hiaditha was second deadliest city in Iraq in 2006. Today the Marines from 3/3 returned having not experienced one casualty. And this is in an area where Al Sadr has no influence.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.