Twenty years on from the US invasion, Iraq is now largely ignored by the international community. And yet it is a country that still faces huge problems. It is divided along religious, ethnic, and political lines. It suffers from weak and corrupt governance and high unemployment. But while it is usual to cast the invasion and occupation as an unmitigated disaster, is this really the case? The answer appears to be a little more complex than it seems. (By the way, do remember that this is not a debate about the legality of the war. The fact that it was illegal is clear. Instead, it focuses on a rather different question: the longer term political and international consequences of the invasion and occupation.)

I was 18 when the Iraq invasion began. At the time, as many Finns, I was very much pro-American and saturated with their culture. I will always remember seeing Colin Powell present his evidence about the Iraq WMDs to the United Nations. I completely believed that Saddam was developing WMDs and backing Al-Qaeda as well. I also believed that given the American power at the time, rebuilding Iraq so it would radiate democracy and freedom all over Middle-East was going to happen. It took me a while to understand that not one word of this was true. At the time I though world leaders in general are highly qualified and do not simply tell lies to the entire world. Suffice to say, it was a formative experience for me in many ways.

Colin Powell during the run up to the war referred to Iraq as a “toothache” for the US and the international community. He wasn’t sure pulling out the tooth was the solution but he went along. There were sanctions on Iraq while oil demand was rising (especially with the growth of China). Saddam would periodically challenge the no fly zone and regularly threatened Israel. So the US pulled out the tooth. Seems like the surgeon hit an artery while also slicing open his arm. Blood everywhere, lots of pain for everyone. Now the doctor and patient have moved on, but with lots of scars.

This is a really well done video for general context. As a Lebanese, Iraq never fails to amaze me. There are so many parallels between us both past and present.

Asking whether it was "worthwhile" to invade Iraq is a very pragmatic, realistic question - as morally it was an inexcusable action. I think it was a bad decision that created major instability in the middle east and forced the US to become more and more entangled in the region's problems, created anti-US sentiment in the issue, greatly increased the problem with extremist islamism and terrorism, and led to several refugee crisis in the region and Europe. I think the reasoning for the invasion relied on a cost/benefit assessment that greatly overestimated the US's capacity to reshape the region after a military invasion, and the costs of that reshaping. Basically, hubris

I see you chose a light topic to return after your short break :' ) Great summary. If you think about it, its quite scary how rarely people ever talk about it. We really do have short memories, unfortunately.

As an Iraqi I can say u did ur research man well done But u missed a lot Well anyway The shia and the kurds didn't get the control they wanted (only a few corrupted family's and religious people and cleric got the power) And al-sadr is the worst politician in the world (he's a living meme here in Iraq between the cultured people of our country) And to be honest with u the simple people of Iraq really wants saddam back to rule not because he's good just because he was shutting all the nonsense that's happening now. And there's more and more but that's enough up here ☝ Thank you anyway for the video man

Former Intel analyst here. Those first few months of the war as the insurgency started completely changed the intelligence process. We added the concept of "OK, but what happens after we do this?" to the game. You'd think that would have been there from the start.. or maybe at least since 'Nam, but nah, apparently it took us a while. I mean, hell, it took us a few years after those first few months, to be honest. But, honestly it was was game changing.

I think it was a disastrous US imperial misadventure. But I wonder if -- from Israel's point of view -- it has yielded fruits: by changing the balance of power in the Middle East, and thereby ultimately facilitating the rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, to the detriment of the Palestinians?

As an Iraq war veteran, I would certainly say that the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was NOT worth it. I had served as a U.S. Army solider in Iraq (Camp Anaconda, Balad) from April (Camp Udri, Kuwait) to November in 2003. This $6 trillion war was based on the lies of Saddam having "WMDs", Iraq having "ties to Al Queda/9/11 attacks", or " to bring democracy to Iraq". The only ones of whom benefited from this war were the "Military Industrial Complex" (like Haliburton/KB&R, General Electric, Blackwater, Boeing, etc.), International bankers, and "Big Oil"!!!! While many servicemen and women have been either killed, are missing limbs, have TBI (traumatic brain injuries), PTSD, got exposure to toxic burn pits, etc. Not to mention over a million Iraqis were killed in this senseless war!!! And as famously stated by Marine general Smedley Butler, "WAR IS A RACKET" and that "MILITARY MEN ARE PAWNS FOR FOREIGN POLICY" a quote from former Secretary of State under Nixon Henry Kissinger. One of the real reasons for the U.S. Invasion of Iraq was to protect the "PETRODOLLAR" to remain as the world's reserve currency (to keep Saddam from switching to the Euro in trading/selling Iraqi oil on the world market).

Congratulations on 100K, Prof. Ker-LIndsay. It is great to see great channels with excellent content grow on KZfaq. Cheers!

As always a very educational and high quality video.

Great to see you back James!

You made a separate video about. The Armenian Genocide, but in the case of Iraq, you did not even mention the real numbers of those who died as a result of the invasion of America and its Western allies

Welcome back Prof. Hope you enjoyed your vacation, looks like you got a little sun while away. 👍👍

The same question can be applied for Libya as well

I remember watching one of your videos when you only had less than 5000 subscribers. But i knew your quality content would get noticed by many one day.....

Excellent video once again! I think it’s a shame we went into Iraq and I don’t think it’ll ever fully recover, socially, back to a pre-invasion level. Blair made a tremendous mistake by committing British forces to the invasion and I do think if Britain stayed out Blair would’ve probably been PM until 2010. Sadr announcing his retirement recently has just added more fuel to the fire in Iraq too.

Thanks Prof 👍🏻👍🏻

Welcome back! Hope you had a good vacations! 🏖

Considering kurds aren't being killed or gassed by Saddams dogs and Shia population isn't restricted I would say yes. Don't get me wrong the occupation was handled terribly and the reasons for going into Iraq has done damage to our image around the world.

The question is 'was it worth it?' The multitude of corporations that swooped in to exploit resources and establish franchised services might give you an answer.

Brilliantly summarized in just 12 minutes!

Usually I appreciate the concise nature of your videos but I can't help but feel like this topic deserved a little more time. I'm sure you've considered longer-form videos before, and you did do a Q&A, but I wonder if you might have considered doing longer scripted videos perhaps with more historical context/analysis? Either way the video was highly informative as usual, thank you!

Well said. The mess left behind is for all to see and nobody is willing to help cleaning it up. Usual US foreign policy scenario: destroy something and give no thought to what happens after. Any military event must also include dealing with the fallout. US invasion was relatively well planned, but what happened after looked like policy on the run. Trillions of dollars wasted in single purpose foreign invasions could have been much better spent on more holistic projects, where military action is only one part of the strategy.

Saddam Hussein was a terrible person that, in theory, I would've been happy to see deposed. You simply can't march into a nation without invitation and build a free democratic state at the point of a gun, though. I personally think that military and economic support to groups resisting oppression or threats of invasion by authoritarian states can sometimes be justified - it's ridiculous to say the US is an imperialist because it supports Taiwan, for instance. Entering a territory without the positive consent of its people though, as we did in Iraq, is completely unacceptable, let alone 'worth it'.

It’s my first time listening to your channel. I love your topics.

Thank you! 👍

As an Iranian who obviously lives his day to day life with politics, bad news, financial problems and fear of war, I can understand better than any regular Western citizens (and much better than most Western politicians) why the Middle East is plagued with conflict and distress. We are located at the junction of the world, and we have been here for thousands of years. This creates inevitable conflicts. I don't think this situation will ever be solved, because you can't "solve" the geography and human nature. We are so damn frustrated and tired that we can only hope in vain for peace and prosperity while we know our efforts are ultimately fruitless...

As usual, great work, Professor! I would like to ask you if you think that even if the medium future (up to 50 years) can Iraq have any form of peace and stability?

Excellent discussion

Great video as always

It was wrong and wasn’t worth it, especially if leaders and voters never understand the country as much as the native population.

It's sad that long years of occupation were wasted like that. If there was more care going into remodeling the nation the way it was in postwar Japan, Iraq could've looked different now. At least, things look brighter than for Afghanistan

Very articulate. gracias

Just stumbled across this channel, & i'd say it was worth it. Finding the video, less so the invasion

"you break it, you own it" really only applies if the guy breaking it can be made to pay the bill and feel the pinch. From a geopolitical perspective, Iraq could be hell on earth and the US would not be worse off. That's the same for the Vietnam war and the Afghanistan occupation. Neither of these adventures had costs nearly enough for the US to have any serious introspection, Yes people die and money is wasted, but the people back home were not forced to endure shortages or participate in the draft. This lack of introspection, cobbled together with the need to prove oneself in the face of failure by doing the exact same thing (meddling and escalation of geopolitics without proper ramifications) plus the need to portray a strong front against geo political rivals creates a disturbing pattern which sees the US blundering from one geopolitical fracas to another until it sets of the one great conflagration that will engulf the entire world. And there lies the problem, the current US foreign policy won't undergo a significant shift until it has suffered serious consequences, and the only way for a consequence is to be serious enough is something akin to WW3.

99.9k! You’re almost there!

Excellent video and analysis but one thing missing: THE NON- ALIGNMENT MOVEMENT! The war between 2 non alignment movement states and the opportunity that it represented the cooperation before the Iraq -Iran war to other non -alignment movement states to work and develop.

Baghdad was once the Center of the World. Seeing this chaos is so sad. I hope the Iraqi People can find peace.

The people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussain (and one of his sons after him) with torture, genocide, brutality, poverty, war and no chance of change? Who said change was ever going to be easy in that Country. At least now they have a chance that they never would have had under Saddam!

In addition to the suffering that the war caused, the Iraq war drew attention and resources away from Afghanistan which also may be considered a failure.

Merci !

Yay proffsor is back 😁

11:10 This is nothing new. Super powers have always invaded less powerful countries with impunity. Acting like the invasion of Iraq brought a new power paradigm is daft.

Great video as always. Have you looked much into David Keen's analysis of "war systems" and how the US failed completely to take such dynamics into account when it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

Well balanced report! In my opinion the first gulf war had a moral justification. The second one was a catastrophe built on a mountain of lies.

This is a really difficult topic, as much as Afghanistan invasion was. One thing I do agree from the video is this: US after 1991 had the opportunity to shape the world as it wanted it and it wasted that chance. Not only that it showed it does not think carefully about the long term implications of it's interventions (Balkan during the 90's, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine) but it is shown that they do not care about the invaded countries and just leave them in a ruin after intervention is done (pretty much all the countries above with the exception of Ukraine as that is still ongoing conflict). Now their reputation is stained, their debt is biggest in the world and without anything to back it up, their social problems can easily turn into civil war if not managed well and their old rivals are testing their limits more and more due to their inability to wage big wars as they did before. The US is on it's way to become Britain 2.0 - from superpower in the 1920's to a shadow of what it once was in 1997 withdrawal from the Hong Kong. Was the war in Iraq worth it - no it was not. It would only have been if they have stayed and actually set up the country correctly. But instead they have just destabilized the region even more than it was under old regime.

Another great video professor! This was, as expected, a refreshingly nuanced look, especially on an extremely controversial topic Just want to fill in a some additional details for those who may be unfamiliar In 1991 as a condition for the UN coalition not taking out Saddam Hussein, Iraq agreed to end its WMD programs, relinquish control over the airspace of the north and south, and submit to UN weapons inspections. Throughout the decade, Iraq violated or claimed to violate these UN resolutions, flying into the no-fly zone, ejecting UN inspectors from the country, and eventually earning himself NATO bombing in 1998, the same year America passed a bill that was signed into law by President Clinton unrecognizing the Baath regime and committing America to regime change (assumed at the time to be through covert action) However one of the problems with the latter plan was that almost no intel networks had any real penetration into Iraq, and so there was relatively little knowledge about potential Iraqi opposition, besides the hyperbolic Iraqi defectors promoted by opportunist pro-American Iraqi Shiite Ahmed Chalabi. There was likewise little known about Iraq’s weapons programs following the ejection of UN inspectors, and whether he was reconstituting. It was not a bad assumption that he was, especially considering Saddam regularly bragged about having them, but also far from the certainly it was later presented as. That said, the WMD issue was really only one of a range of issues with Iraq that caused the 1998 regime change act. Then you had 9/11, and America, which was already riding high off the end of the Cold War, the peaceful falling in line of the world behind the US in the 1990s, and the American-led tech revolution, now felt like that peace had been shattered, and the only was to preserve this new era was to win the new global war that had been brought to home shores in the worst of ways. The Taliban regime had been successfully overthrown in Afghanistan and American soldiers were greeted by flowers in Kabul, and it was thought that America would now be the liberators of the Middle East just as in Europe after WWII. That latter argument was especially strong with the neoconservatives (social liberals working for hawkish Democrat Scoop Jackson who then broke with the left over opposing the Vietnam War and found a home in the Republican Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 White Houses, people like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, etc). You then had the other group of advocates, hawkish lifelong conservatives (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, etc who all worked alongside the neocons in those Republican White Houses) who were less into the idea of being liberators or building democracy, where a conservative autocracy would work just fine, but supported regime change. Ultimately it was the inability to reconcile these two visions that doomed the expedition to the long counterinsurgency slog it became. Despite the war’s relative unpopularity, and lack of WMDs discovered, had the country remained stable following the successful overthrow of Saddam, the entire legacy of the conflict would be different. The reasons this didn’t happen are many, but the biggest reason is that the two clashing visions for the post-war Iraq created inconsistency on the ground: * you had the military and defense department wanting to conduct a fast strike to set up a new regime quickly like in Afghanistan, thus deploying a limited number of troops and even decreasing troops upon the fall of Baghdad, preparing (supposedly) for follow up campaigns in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Libya, all of which America had actual connections to the opposition unlike in Iraq, so it seemed like a good jumping off point * But then you had the state department and some parts of the defense department wanting to focus on the rebuilding of Iraq and the creation of a true democratic society there which could inspire the rest of the Middle East to follow suit without needing to recourse to military force, however this plan required an extensive occupation force for multiple years, which the defense department leadership did not provide. So you basically ended up with an enormous power vacuum, a foreign occupation authority with way too few troops to actually enforce the occupation, thus leading to mass looting. There were a few months where the issue could have been corrected but instead the miscommunication and indecision persisted resulting in further blunders which you mentioned, and the emergence of a full fledged insurgency by the following spring. As to your main question, whether it was worth it, well as far as at the time, I’ve long made the point that America had to go to war in Afghanistan as any lesser response to 9/11 would have been viewed as unacceptable by the public, but Iraq is different, it was no doubt a war of choice and at the time there were strong geopolitical arguments both for and against it. The result was kind of a mixed bag, obviously way more casualties than anticipated (I will note however that America, Britain and most allied forces always take much greater caution to avoid civilian casualties or “civcas” than any other militaries in the world), and a total PR debacle (again stemming from a hyperbolic pre-invasion narrative and the lack of a coherent post-invasion narrative especially when things went south), but in the end the Surge and Gen. Patraeus got the country calmed down and even militia leaders like al-Sadr stopped fighting and joined politics. Then the Iraqi state, unlike Afghanistan (strangely enough considering it was going better than Iraq most of the time) in 2021, managed to stand on its own in 2016 and fight off the Islamic State threat, even reimposing its sovereign authority over the Iraqi Kurds. While this latest outbreak of violence is a setback, al-Sadr’s calming reaction shows just how far Iraq has come since 2011, plus al-Sadr’s Iraqi nationalist stance no longer works to oppose America’s presence but instead works to oppose Iranian interests in the country. There are still a ton of problems no doubt, but even if flawed Iraq is undeniably a relatively free society. So was it “worth it”? Well let’s just say it wasn’t was anybody signed up for, but it appears that long-term it the desired outcome, at least in Iraq itself, may have been achieved. Wow that was a lot longer than I thought, thanks for taking the time to read this all if you do, I just find it to be so multi-layered a subject. Once again great video, this really was a nuanced look at a topic many people overlook the subtleties of. Thanks again professor!

It seems that order even if enforced by a military dictator is still more beneficial to the majority of civilians than the chaos that followed

Greetings from Baghdad 😀🤚

The most straightforward solution would obviously be to divide the state along ethnic/religious lines as that is a major source of the instability. Unfortunately the Turkish don't want to see a Kurdish state, the Arab world would perceive a Shiite state in the south to be a threat, and the Sunni state would be in a precarious economic position and be heavily distrusted. It's also troubled by the fact that the international community tends to dislike countries breaking apart even though some absolutely need to such as Ethiopia.

something is very wrong here, if you ask people who lived at that time shia and sunni are not actually against each other. most people even dint know their are sects. it only begun to emerge during the occupation. where one group is favoured than the other. the saddam regime was actually a secular group not like iraqi government today run by religious fanatics. if you doubt my word, just ask your self how did iraq with majority shia fight a war against iran a majority shia. you base your research on western knowledge not how the locals know it.

I am looking at the Helsinki Accord from 1975 and the detente . In your opinion would it be possible to organise something similar today rather than escalation of the conflicts. Sorry to send here the question.

Founded on several mistaken presumptions the USA pursued a strategy which, in direct consequence, was entirely inapt. Don't worry, we're reloading and taking better aim.

Hussain was a symptom of the malady of Iraq, a product of the dominant ideas of the 1960s in the region, aggressive socialist nationalism - be it Nasser, Assad or Hussain. Had Hussain remained, would he have improved with age? Would his passing (whether natural or not) simply have uncorked what the Americans did by smashing the bottle?

As John Mearsheimer said, it was a monumental mistake because the West, led by the USA, believed that it was the "end of history". American policy has been a series of failures since the fall of the Soviet Union. As an American, I feel that we deserve the loss of lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Too much hubris. China was rising while we were distracted with the war on terrorism. Kishore Mabhubani, who was the president of the UN security council, in the lead up of the war, said that China quietly supported the war the most at the UN. Remember that France was adamantly opposed, but as always they have to fold to the Americans.

It was a war for Israel. Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer all have one thing in common. Take a wild guess at what it is.

The invasion was a success, but not the occupation or transition.

I think Iraq could have been secured by the US if it left Afghanistan and vice versa.

A good summary. As said in the video I think it's very important not to forget the legacy of Saddam and the Ba'ath rule of Iraq in evaluating the situation both before and after the US led invasion.

There is no way to make decisions on a scale as large as a nation without screwing over a large number of people. The question is whether the nation as a whole will benefit.

Her bijî. Gelek bisûd bû.

Great video as always Prof., I'm always impressed by how you present the back story of the situation or country in question with such clarity. Personally I was always appalled by the USA's fabrication of WMD's as a pretext for invasion (with Australia and other Western countries seemingly happy to play along). I wonder if Iraq's recent history would be different if it didn't have it's huge oil reserves.

Outstanding! Thanks for covering this very important topic.. My perspective is due to domestic political concerns the neo-cons under Bush refused to face the military realities that unfolded in Iraq. Bottom line is Rumsfeld was misguidingly applying his theoretical model of post-industrial age conflict, and under Bush the United States Never used the required military manpower needed to pacify & win in Iraq. The neo-cons did not have the political will or courage to win. Iraq is a failed state due to poor execution of US foreign policy. Since the American Civil War the way in which the American Army defeats an enemy is with overwhelming manpower & robust logistics. This tenant was not followed in Iraq. A true failure in the accomplishment of a desire political goal. But poor execution of Foreign Policy will always result in a failure, and the people in Iraq have beeen the ones who have sadly have suffered due to tge political failure in Iraq. Thanks again for your great political analysis. Keep up the great work. 👍

It could of been so much better is the Sykes-Picot agreement had taking into consideration cultural and ethnicities of areas

Destroying a Nation will never be Justified 🇮🇶🇮🇶🇮🇶🖤🕊️

Definitely not. Sure Saddam was terrible but he was a strong man with authority and things were more stable .If your gonna replace someone like that you need to do it in a way which the succeeding government has the authority and legitimacy to keep power. Because sure Saddam is gone but now you have tons of other splinter groups and more outside intervention and violence. The U.S stacked hundreds of thousands of military authorities and officials. Some of whom would join splinter groups.That destroyed the core group of people that could not only establish and keep a government running effectively but those in the military to keep order or protect the country. That also increased opportunity for corruption with the rebuilding of the country which wasted much of the money. Also due to the destruction with the military that puts more need for security funding. Due to this things like Iran sponsoring Shia uprisings related more problems. The election resulted in an end of Sunni power in the country but without the authority Sunni’s came from other country’s and started fighting . Rising tensions with Shia groups and then you’ve got a civil war. And yes the surge did quite things down but the power and authority was with the us army not the actual countries government so when they left there goes the key authority. The country is extremely divided and the government is corrupt with no authority resulting in more extremist groups rising up.

I pretty much agree with this presentation. Sadly, the Middle East is a place where peace is not gerally possible without a strong arm government in place. The culture is too tribal and too religious. Both divisive influences. When the US went into Iraq, I was hoping for a better life for Iraqi's but I was naive. I didn't realise Iraq would be flooded with fanatical religous fighters from neigboring states who turned the invasion into a war against the infidels. I didn't understand the Middle Eastern world view where Arab peace is effectivelly an oxymoron (with few exceptions). An opportunity lost.

Our most important problem raised after US invasion is that replacing the power of judiciary system by tribal system Which made getting justice for the minorities is so difficult

Hi, this isn't really related to the topic but I noticed that you may have a slight sore throat or possibly a cold there. You may wan't to take a couple of days off to give your voice a chance to recover. 🙂

Paul Bremer is still adamant that he made the right decision getting rid of all Baath party members. Amazing to see how someone doesn't feel the need to reconsider their actions no matter how obviously disastrous the consequences have been. I suppose this sort of cynical egotism is a requirement for high office in an imperialist system!

Great to see you back Prof James. All US Greater Middle East wars were bad and have only left a corrupt elite who prey on their own people (aka like food aid for the needy etc..). At times it seems worse than it was previously, in the sense that it causes large migration flows as they have no basic amenities. Iraq Syria Libya, Somalia (drone war), Yemen (not direct intervention) etc. Change can only come from within and not via intervention. Democracy needs to naturally arise over time through them. The West has lost influence in that region over the true hearts and minds. Great analysis.

Great.

The US invasion might have been devastating for Iraqis, but it was successful in completing US interests. It sent a message to Saudi Arabia ( who probably had some connection to 9/11) by overthrowing a Sunni leader and establishing a Shiite led government next to Iran. It increased US control in Iraqi oil. And most importantly it stunt the country’s technology advancement, which is important for national security. But usually when people ask if the Iraq invasion was worth it, they are actually asking if it’s moral or not. I don’t think it was morally right to do so.

To any Americans questioning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, please examine first your role in the misery now happening in Iraq and Libya.

This is good stuff James. The problem with Iraq is the same problem we all have in the aftermath of making a mistake. Instead of trying to learn from our mistake, we focus on justifying it. If the west learnt from the experience that would be more important than whether or not it was worth it.

Imo, no. Whilst ridding the world of Saddam Hussain was good for the Kurds (And Iran who’s influence has significantly grown in Iraq since the war) and it’s neighbours like Kuwait no longer have to worry about being invaded, the damage that was done as a result of the war vastly eclipses any benefits that were gained from it. Saddam killed around 250,000 people during his 24 year rule, it is estimated that from 2003 to 2017 around 600,000 people died in Iraq as a result of the Iraq War, the Iraqi Civil War, disease, starvation, the ISIL insurgency and other terrorist attacks, over double Saddam’s estimated death toll in less time than he was in charge and people still continue to die to this day as evidenced by the 600 people killed over the last few years during the protests. Beyond Iraq itself, it massively destabilised Western Asia as Iraq became a terrorist hub for many terrorist organisations that used it to conduct terrorist attacks in various countries throughout the region and when the Syrian Civil War kicked off, Al Qaeda and other terrorists organisations sent fighters into the conflict who then went on to radicalise the opposition movement to Assad and made any hope of a more democratic and free Syria all but destroyed, it also radicalised a small minority of Muslims around the world and inspired them to commit terrorist attacks in their respective countries (The 7/7 Bombers cited Iraq and Afghanistan as a justification for their actions) Speaking at the wider geopolitical level beyond Iraq and Western Asia; the US (And more broadly the West as a whole) had their reputations throughly and utterly ruined by this invasion, especially amongst countries not traditionally within the West’s orbit, thus driving those countries that could have been our allies into the hands of Russia and China and as you said in the video, the war has given Russia (And its supporters both within and outside the west) to at the very least provide an excuse to justify Russia actions in Ukraine by portraying the US and the West as massive hypocrites uncaring of those outside their orbit and thus it has been incredibly difficult to get other countries not in the West’s orbit to sanction Russia and put more pressure on Putin to end his war in Ukraine. The Iraq War was the biggest foreign policy disaster of the US since the Vietnam War and much like the Vietnam War will go down in history as one of the biggest geo political blunders the US has ever made. Whatever few benefits where gained from removing Saddam from power were obliterated both in the short term and long term by all of the problems that came after the invasion. It was never worth it unless you were an Iraqi Kurd or the Iranian Government. One last thing I also wanted to say; you say that the invasion was forgotten. I think it’s more accurate to say that the West washed their hands of the disaster that they caused and went out of their way to make their populations forget about it in order to avoid the sense of embarrassment that they must feel for the sheer disaster they caused. Much in the same way the US swept the Korean War under the rug in the minds of the American public because of them failing to defeat North Korea and deal a bloody nose to both Communist China and the Soviet Union in the opening stages of the 1st Cold War.

Professor, while you make outstanding analysis in your videos and I am always grateful for it and informed by them, I believe that this time your short video did not live up to the subject and the standard. Iraq was a mess, very violent and a highly divided society before the invasion. It was still so afterwards. Why would it be any other way? We liberated the Iraqis, and they used that freedom as THEY saw fit. How? turning on each other. They were very happy and grateful about it at the time, but then they moved on and we should have too, but didn't. I should know, I was in the First and Second Iraq War, dealing with the Iraqis. This subject is something we could all discuss for hours, but to just ask if it was worth it without going into what the criteria would be used to decide, turns the video into a string of opinions instead of informative analysis. Of course, as I said, you do great work, almost always, thank you.

What astounds me is how western media and public discourse doesn't (or refuses) to see how Iraq, along with many other post-1991 conflicts/geo-political mistakes (Afghanistan, NATO expansion, bombing Serbia/Libya etc.) that seemed good at the time- may have been *very* influential in creating the situation we have today with a paranoid reactionary and perhaps even revanchist Russia.

So they protected the Kurds of Iraq. Who will protect the Kurds of Turkey? This seems to be completely ignored internationally. I guess being a nato member allows you to commit ethnic cleansing, "Turkification"

"It soon became clear that little thought had been given about how to run the country after the regime fell." I get that you're diplomatically understated (rightly so), but this is incredibly charitable at best. These guys just believed that the will of their obscene ideology would manifest in a peaceful, America-loving stalwart in the Middle East. But if someone is so certain of the righteousness of their ideology, then why the need to build the case to destroy based on willful ignorance and outright lies? Why the hubris to send a few hundred 20-somethings to follow in the footsteps of George C. Marshall? And to this day there has still been no real political reckoning for this monumental mistake, as the war is so very conveniently forgotten.

Thank you for this video.....I honestly think that Iraq will never get back to it's feet

Sadamm huessien in 2003 had the fourth largest military in the world, complete with tanks, helicopters and jets and within days they where wiped out by the u.s. military might. Just because you have numbers does not gaurentee victory, this goes for china and for Russia who has the second largest military in the world and is now stuck deep in the mud of the Ukraine conflict, so much for all those numbers just to get bogged down by corruption and poor logistics.

ايران دمرتنا. السياسيين العراقيين الفسدة يهربون اموال النفط العراقية الى إيران و النتيجة؟ ايران التفت على العقوبات و العراق يعيش بدون كهرباء في الوقت اللي فيه برميل النفط وصل الى مية دولار

I think it accomplished the unspoken goals of raiding all Iraqi banks and robbing them. Sadam Hussein was said to have had the largest amount of privately held gold in the world. Upwards of 30 billion in bullion. That was confiscated and never seen again. Where did it go?

They can't even prevent things in their own country from unfolding! 🤔

I don't think the original aim was to make Iraq any better. It was just to make sure there is no powerful army in the region. And that was successful. And will be like that for the coming decades.

The invasion was based on a false premise of weapons of mass destruction which the US knew was false, not about bringing "democracy" to Iraq. The idea of bringing democracy to iraq was an afterthought attempt to move the goal post and a post-fact justification after it became clear there were never any weapons of mass distruction in Iraq. The US is completely responsible and must pay reparations to the Iraqi people.

First iam iraqi I love usa and folk and iam inspired by American culture all my heroes are America's in childhood I immigrant from Iraq since long time because the effect of the war just I want to say thanks bush for democracy I still sefering with ptsd with horrible memories doesn't deserve this sacrifice at all

What a bizarre way to formulate the issue!? Not only was it not worth it for any of the parties involved but it was morally and legally wrong; and should never have been considered

Was it worth it? It depends on who you're asking. If you ask the U.S. elites that sponsored the destruction of the Iraqi government, then absolutely. The war accomplished the immediate goal of inflicting fear on the rest of the international community by sending the message that if you step out of line (a.k.a. pursue your own sovereign agenda), you're going to get crushed. But if you were to ask any normal U.S. citizen, or any citizen of the world for that matter, that answer is an overwhelming no. It was an unprovoked, illegal, and unjustified invasion. It plunged Iraq into a hole nearly impossible to climb out from. And if the U.S. was so concerned about Hussein's human rights abuses, the Reagan administration wouldn't have removed Hussein from the official U.S. terrorist list when he became their convenient ally in the 80s. And they certainly wouldn't have ignored his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, so the flimsy human rights claim is out. The Iraq War will go down in history as state-sanctioned terrorism. It was never worth it from inception.

Kuwait was a part of Iraq during thr Ottoman Rule. It was always a part of iraq. But the british seperated kuwait from iraq, seperated brothers and sisters. Im not saying saddam's invasion of kuwait was justified, but you should have told this historical fact.

Yes.

No the easy answer that any rational person could have come to this knowledgeable answer before we ever invaded.

How could illegally invading a sovereign state with an offensive war be "worth it"? It was a total quagmire for the US military. Not to mention it was sheer arrogance and hubris on America's part to believe that it could force its values and politics onto another country. Especially one in a very culturally different part of the world. And that's without even getting into the many thousands of Iraqis left dead from America's illegal led invasion. The only worth was to all the American politicians, American corporations, and weapons manufacturers that made a fortune from war profiteering. But without a doubt ...it's a massive failure for the US, UK, and NATO. Just as Vietnam was, and just as Afghanistan was.

You can’t blame Ukraine on the invasion of Iraq.

It's a very simple answer to the question the answer is no .it is worse then before

Iraq was gonna be a basketcase no matter if saddam stayed or not. The problem was the US being naive and ignorant in their assessments that they could "fix" the country when they couldn't and only the Iraqi people can.

Come on now Saddam tried to build nukular weapons in Iraq and even heaven! Fool me once, shame on you. fool me ...you can't get fooled again