One-page history of the Iraq War
Alas a blog pointed to this fantastic little piece of history from Joel Pett (via Bors Blog - click on the image for a larger version)
Bookmark to:
15 Responses to “One-page history of the Iraq War”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
This is plain amazing. Right up there with Tom Tomorrow
June 26th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Yes cute, although it could’ve included the Islamists who have caused most of the civilian deaths, it could’ve included Saddam’s long history of ignoring UN Security Council resolutions on inspections after the war he started, it could’ve included the Clinton Administration, the previous Bush administration, going back to supporting Saddam in his war against Iran in the 1980s, to him being bombed rightly by Israel, to his genocidal campaigns, to Iran having an Islamist revolution, to excessive backing of the Shah despite corruption and tyranny.
Sadly it is a long complicated chain of events - Bush hardly was the beginning of those, and Bush’s actions against Saddam predated 9/11, and Saddam as a scapegoat was hardly innocent. Overthrowing dictatorships is moral by definition, the question is whether it is moral to pay the price of doing it and whether the cost you impose in the process is worth what you gain - and that is really the issue.
However, I guess the most important question is what to do now - leave and let Iraq be overwhelmed by Islamist insurgents? Is that what you call peace?
June 26th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
overthrowing dictatorships is moral by definition?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Well, let us all think about it in a logical sense - without Saddam, there would have been no 9/11. Yes, everyone, as amazing as it sounds, here is the logic.
Saddam decided to invade Kuwait back in 1990, and the United States, along with the United Nations went to liberate Kuwait under Desert Storm. To invade Kuwait though, involved American troops to go through Saudi Arabia along with their female drivers. This highly annoyed Osama bin Laden who felt that it was sacriledge for such a thing to occur in Saudi Arabia - this was essentially the spark that started turning him into a terrorist. No Saddam, no invasion of Kuwait, no Desert Storm, no annoyed bin Laden, no Al Qaeda, no 9/11.
Even more interesting, those that advocate a withdrawal, remember what the withdrawal from Somalia did - it gave the terrorists confidence that attack America enough times and they will be cowardly and withdraw. A withdrawal from Iraq will give the terrorists a massive confidence boost and will make the world a much worse place for it.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Bias in pictures. Is this to reach the people that can’t read, or can’t think?
June 27th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Well true in itself, but you’re neglecting the fact that it was the Iranian revolution that forced Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, because he feared that the “Islamic Revolution” would spread amongst the Sunni majority in his own country.
More correctly if the U.S. had not have initiated a coup alongside the British, against the democratic government of Iran in 1953 in order to reprivatise the formerly BP owned oil fields, the chain of events probably wouldn’t have happened.
Don’t forget that in the 1980s Saddam was one of the good guys.
According to a report by the US Army War College’s own Strategic Studies, written shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait, their conclusion was that Saddam’s invasion wasn’t because he thought that the Bush Administration.
would turn a blind eye, nor was it because by nature the Baathists were expansionist, but because they were actually desperate.
“Taking all this into account, it seems obvious that Iraq invaded its neighbors because it was desperate. (Emphasis added.)”
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/epilogue.pdf
June 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
libertyscott said: …it could’ve included Saddam’s long history of ignoring UN Security Council resolutions on inspections after the war he started…
Not like George W Bush, eh, who just instructs his UN ambassador to veto any UN Security Council resolutions that might threaten US global imperialism!
So the resolutions that might make the US accountable don’t happen.
And in any case, there were no weapons of mass destruction, as it turned out, to inspect, and the CIA knew this. But Cheney still lied to Congress to start the war.
Saddam was a tyrant who killed lots of people, and although I don’t support the death penalty, especially when it is meted out by a “show trial”, deserved to be deposed and spend the rest of his life in prison. But has Bush’s and Cheney’s conduct actually been any better than Saddam’s?
June 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
To make this fiendishly complex situation even more complicated, because during the Iran-Iraq War, when Saddam was the friend of the West, the Gulf States (mainly Shiites) feared that Iran (mainly Sunni) would overrun Iraq and threaten their own countries (oil) so they funded his war effort, although after the ceasefire they told him that they considered those “grants” to be mere loans which they expected to be paid back.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Um, Sleepy, think you may have it wrong way round. Iran’s population and governance is mainly Shi’ite.
Iraq also has a majority Shi’ite population, but substantial Kurdish and Sunni minorities, and Saddam’s Ba’ath Party that held power was largely minority Sunni, although it did include some other minorities, including even Christians.
But the overall scenario you have depicted is correct, Sleepy. The US propped up Saddam’s regime and sponsored his war with Iran, even when Iraqi forces used chemical weapons (as they also did internally against the Kurdish minority), because they perceived Iran to be the greater political threat to their interests of global domination and control of Middle-Eastern oil.
The tables turned when Saddam invaded Kuwait - suddenly he was not the US’s friend, but their enemy. This had nothing to do with the self-determination of the Kuwaiti people - it was simply that Iraq had now become the greater threat to US interests as defined by George Bush Snr.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
“Um, Sleepy, think you may have it wrong way round. Iran’s population and governance is mainly Shi’ite.”
Oh right. Easy mistake.
“This had nothing to do with the self-determination of the Kuwaiti people - it was simply that Iraq had now become the greater threat to US interests as defined by George Bush Snr.”
Actually the interests were earlier defined by Jimmy Carter, the “peacemaker” during the Oil Crisis and the Sovit Union’s invasion of Afghanistan.
“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine
June 27th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
“Well true in itself, but you’re neglecting the fact that it was the Iranian revolution that forced Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, because he feared that the “Islamic Revolutionâ€? would spread amongst the Sunni majority in his own country.
More correctly if the U.S. had not have initiated a coup alongside the British, against the democratic government of Iran in 1953 in order to reprivatise the formerly BP owned oil fields, the chain of events probably wouldn’t have happened. ”
Sleepy, what would have happened had the 1953 coup not occurred in Iran would have been very simple
World War III
Sleepy, you fail to recognise that Iran was going down the gurglar at that point; Mossadeq was making it clear to the world that he was a Communist who was willing to do anything to retain power - he had rigged a poll to the point that he got 98% support (that takes away the “democratic support” idea, he had rigged the election); his nationalisation of Iranian farms (he wasn’t just nationalising oil by the way) had resulted in yields decreasing and inflation was starting to increase; and Mossadeq was starting to show more favour to the Soviet Union with oil transactions than the United States/Great Britain. Had he continued in power, Iran would have almost certainly melted down with one effect -
The Soviet Union would have climbed in and taken over Iran. They would get their warm water ports and their navy would finally no longer be bound by Winter Ice in the Baltic Sea, Vladivostok, and Turkey on the Black Sea. Considering that the ghost of Stalin was still haunting the West at this stage, considering what the Soviet Union had done in Berlin that year, and considering that the Korean War was barely at an end. With a warm water port, the situation would have become frightening, especially with Communists at the fore in French Indo-China as well.
“Not like George W Bush, eh, who just instructs his UN ambassador to veto any UN Security Council resolutions that might threaten US global imperialism!”
I would much rather have US global imperialism than Soviet global imperialism. That would have been the situation had the United States not interfered throughout the Cold War.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I agree John-ston. We spend a lot of time and effort pointing out the faults in America, but spend little thought in considering how the vacuum would be filled if it was isolationist.
It’s healthy to criticise America, but only to a point. We see examples of this imbalance when Amnesty spend more time, effort and resource condemning America for Gitmo than condemning North Korea for, well, North Korea.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
john-ston said: I would much rather have US global imperialism than Soviet global imperialism. That would have been the situation had the United States not interfered throughout the Cold War.
I think the world would have been a better place with no global imperialism at all. Really don’t think the outcome, whether it were US or Soviet, would make much difference for most people around the world consigned to low wages or unemployment due to foreign economic influence.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
“I think the world would have been a better place with no global imperialism at all. Really don’t think the outcome, whether it were US or Soviet, would make much difference for most people around the world consigned to low wages or unemployment due to foreign economic influence.”
I think the world has been a better place with a few dominant superpowers. Look at 19th Century politics, it was a very delicate balancing act which ultimately led to World War One as one great power, Germany, became concerned that the other great powers were surrounding her. World War Two was a similar situation, one great power essentially challenging initially two, and by the end, four great powers.
With one or two superpowers, the risk of World War Three has dropped; there are fewer nations to placate and paranoia has been able to decrease as the situation remains nicely balanced.
Furthermore, there has been foreign economic influence for centuries - there was even before the rise of the superpower; I would even suggest that there has been foreign economic influence since ancient times.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I think the world would have been a better place with no global imperialism at all.
I think the world would have been a better place without the mass murderers. So there you go. But if you are going to advance the theory of one mass murderer being as bad as another, the statement becomes a little silly if the range is from your standard serial killer all the way up to Hitler and Stalin.
Yes Dorothy, there is a difference.