The take: “The Iraq War was a justified and necessary intervention that removed a brutal dictator and spread democracy.”
Who said it: The neoconservative movement (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol), and the people who still defend the war today despite all evidence (some people just commit to the bit).
Why it is wrong: Where to begin. Okay, let’s try.
The war was based on a lie (WMDs, see part 2 of this series, unless you have been living under a rock). It was sold to the public with false intelligence. It was illegal under international law (the UN Security Council did not authorize it, which is normally a hint).
The results: 200,000+ Iraqi civilians dead. 4,500+ American soldiers dead. Over 30,000 wounded. $2 trillion spent. The country destabilized. ISIS rose from the chaos. Iran gained influence in Iraq. The region has still not recovered. But hey, we “spread democracy” (spoiler: they didn’t).
The “spread democracy” argument: Iraq is not a stable democracy. It is a fragile state with systemic corruption, Iranian influence, and periodic violence. The democratic institutions installed by the US are barely functional. They did not build a democracy. They built a Jenga tower in an earthquake.
The “removed a brutal dictator” argument: Saddam was a monster. He was also a contained monster. The US and its allies had successfully contained him through sanctions and no-fly zones. Removing him without a plan for what came next was not a humanitarian act. It was negligence disguised as intervention (and everyone involved should have gone to The Hague).
Book recommendation: Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. A military correspondent’s account of how the war was planned (badly) and executed (worse). Essential reading for anyone who still thinks the Iraq War was a good idea (though I suspect that demographic cannot read).
Coming soon: “Politicians Are All the Same”