If the US invasion of Iraq was wrong, why didn't the world stopped it?

Status
Closed

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,768
OK I guess i have to spell it out for you. Because "the World" would have gotten its ass kicked.
It's kind of the problem with being the Lone Superpower.

It was explained to the US what the risks were, how it was about to get things badly wrong. But hey, that could just be dismissed as "old Europe", and ignored.

If you can't help yourself from not making a bad mistake, no one can help you. And then you own it.
 
Jul 2012
200
What are they doing to the US? Isnt that the opposite direction? US is containing them.

US fueling conflict by overtly and "secretly" arming numerous rebel groups who came close to toppling Assad. Russia directly intervenes to prevent Assad collapsing. US gets involved in Eastern Syria because Islamic State is in numerous countries, and US already assisting Iraqi govt and Kurds. US then uses ISIS as a cover to occupy eastern Syria, deny Assad a lot of oil, and make Russian effort complicated, leading to a rather vicious battle where US forces annihilated a Russian mercenary group with deep ties to Putin.

How was Russia going to do something in 2003?
You can flip it either way, point is US objectives (toppling of Assad regime )are being consistently thwarted in Syria. Indirect involvement of Russia or any other country with some heft. They could support Iraqi army indirectly, by supplying them with weapons specifically designed to counter US (Like US did in Afghanistan during soviet invasion) , sending in Islamic foreign fighters like many countries are doing now in Syria. Or they could gift him 5 -10 nukes though I think only Russia and China would be able to withstand international pressure for such an act.
 
Feb 2019
345
California
It's kind of the problem with being the Lone Superpower.

It was explained to the US what the risks were, how it was about to get things badly wrong. But hey, that could just be dismissed as "old Europe", and ignored.

If you can't help yourself from not making a bad mistake, no one can help you. And then you own it.

Fair enough. I was just answering the OP's question, though......
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,257
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Forget the morality or legality. Let's talk results.

How does anyone plan to stop the US?
Well, if I had to come up with a way, it would be to create conditions whereby the political cost is higher than the US is willing to pay. In Iraq;s case, it would be easier because it's a foreign war - I suspect the American public would be less tolerant of American lives being lost there than if direct American interests were involve - as George H.W. Bush found out, successful foreign adventures don't always win you elections, although this is underestimating the impact of 9/11 in the US.

Say the Russians supplied Saddam with advanced anti-aircraft defences (as they are now doing to India), that posed a real danger to American aircraft. The US probably still remembered the horrific scenes in the aftermath of Black Hawk Down, with corpses of US servicemen being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu - that was a single helicopter, but the political cost was too high.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,749
USA
Well, if I had to come up with a way, it would be to create conditions whereby the political cost is higher than the US is willing to pay. In Iraq;s case, it would be easier because it's a foreign war - I suspect the American public would be less tolerant of American lives being lost there than if direct American interests were involve - as George H.W. Bush found out, successful foreign adventures don't always win you elections, although this is underestimating the impact of 9/11 in the US.

Say the Russians supplied Saddam with advanced anti-aircraft defences (as they are now doing to India), that posed a real danger to American aircraft. The US probably still remembered the horrific scenes in the aftermath of Black Hawk Down, with corpses of US servicemen being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu - that was a single helicopter, but the political cost was too high.
The Russians did supply them. And we took them out. Just like we took out ADA in Syria. All those Stealth aircraft, the drones, the cruise missiles, the electroc warfare aircraft, that is what they specialize in.

Our military stinks at fighting insurgents. Besides the USMC, the Army and USAF hate those missions. Know what we're great at? What they're really psyched to equip, train, and prepare for? Fighting Russians and Chinese.

Nobody in uniform is actually afraid of S300/400 because we can defeat them. Turn on your radar and we'll see it like a flashlight in a dark night and we'll target it using means perfected in the 1960s.

They're dangerous in Syria because to defeat them means escalation and risk of a larger war with Russia. But we still bombed Assad's forces numerous times because chemical weapons just to send the message to Russia that we still could and would, despite their protection. And Syria isn't Iraq. We weren't just doing random raids on Iraq for political messages. We invaded them.

Let's talk Iraq in 2003. Russia's military was still very much a joke then. Putin wasn't nearly as all poweful. They were selling weapons, and things like GPS jammers, to Iraq but didn't matter, 21 days later we're driving tanks through Baghdad. Because that's what the US is great at, fighting nation states in conventional wars.

The ONLY way Russia could stop it was to send their own troops to guard Iraq, which would have meant killing Russians to get to Baghdad, which meant escalating into possible war with Russia, which is a nuclear power.

Now let's talk about the world outside of Iraq. Who controls the world economy? Who can include someone or not in G_ economic summits that gain them awesome trade deals? Who can start a currency war? Who can engineer sanctions and embargoes? Who can get most of the rest of world's powers to go along with their economic policies?

Why weren't there Russian or Chinese or other nations MANPADS and ATGM infiltrated into Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely the insurgents wanted them. We know Russia and China both are helping the Taliban. So why not give them better weapons?

Because they're too scared.

Rightfully. Because even a wussy POTUS terrified of aggression could sink their economies, while a tough POTUS could do more, orchestrate a diplomatic nightmare for them with terrifying tensions that in the end they'd have to capitulate or risk all.

Here is the answer to my question. What can the world do? Nothing. There is a reason the US is most powerful nation and jealousy or outrage at that doesn't change it. If someone else wants the title they have to fight for it, either militarily or economically. And if they try and they lose, there are disastrous repercussions.

Bring it. We're weakening but not weak enough anyone can replace us. When they can nobody will be concerned about the US because they'll be getting raped by China or Russia, and likewise completely unable to stop them, and they'll find out the hard way the difference between a benevolent superpower and a malevolent one.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,257
T'Republic of Yorkshire
The Russians did supply them. And we took them out. Just like we took out ADA in Syria. All those Stealth aircraft, the drones, the cruise missiles, the electroc warfare aircraft, that is what they specialize in.

Our military stinks at fighting insurgents. Besides the USMC, the Army and USAF hate those missions. Know what we're great at? What they're really psyched to equip, train, and prepare for? Fighting Russians and Chinese.

Nobody in uniform is actually afraid of S300/400 because we can defeat them. Turn on your radar and we'll see it like a flashlight in a dark night and we'll target it using means perfected in the 1960s.

They're dangerous in Syria because to defeat them means escalation and risk of a larger war with Russia. But we still bombed Assad's forces numerous times because chemical weapons just to send the message to Russia that we still could and would, despite their protection. And Syria isn't Iraq. We weren't just doing random raids on Iraq for political messages. We invaded them.

Let's talk Iraq in 2003. Russia's military was still very much a joke then. Putin wasn't nearly as all poweful. They were selling weapons, and things like GPS jammers, to Iraq but didn't matter, 21 days later we're driving tanks through Baghdad. Because that's what the US is great at, fighting nation states in conventional wars.

The ONLY way Russia could stop it was to send their own troops to guard Iraq, which would have meant killing Russians to get to Baghdad, which meant escalating into possible war with Russia, which is a nuclear power.

Now let's talk about the world outside of Iraq. Who controls the world economy? Who can include someone or not in G_ economic summits that gain them awesome trade deals? Who can start a currency war? Who can engineer sanctions and embargoes? Who can get most of the rest of world's powers to go along with their economic policies?

Why weren't there Russian or Chinese or other nations MANPADS and ATGM infiltrated into Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely the insurgents wanted them. We know Russia and China both are helping the Taliban. So why not give them better weapons?

Because they're too scared.

Rightfully. Because even a wussy POTUS terrified of aggression could sink their economies, while a tough POTUS could do more, orchestrate a diplomatic nightmare for them with terrifying tensions that in the end they'd have to capitulate or risk all.

Here is the answer to my question. What can the world do? Nothing. There is a reason the US is most powerful nation and jealousy or outrage at that doesn't change it. If someone else wants the title they have to fight for it, either militarily or economically. And if they try and they lose, there are disastrous repercussions.

Bring it. We're weakening but not weak enough anyone can replace us. When they can nobody will be concerned about the US because they'll be getting raped by China or Russia, and likewise completely unable to stop them, and they'll find out the hard way the difference between a benevolent superpower and a malevolent one.
I don't disagree with any of that. My point is that, the US could not have been defeated in battle,. The only way for the invasion to have been stopped would not have been by any external power or pressure, it would have to come from the American public, and a potential way for that to happen is to inflict an unacceptable level of casualties. Saddam could not do that on his own, and yes, I agree that China and Russia were certainly not strong enough to do that in 2003 - well, not without escalating beyond a localised conflict, anyway.

Today, it might be different with a highly polarised US domestic situation, but we are not talking about today.

Anyway, I don't agree that the US is weakening - that's only true in relative terms. It's more that other powers are catching up, but they are not there yet. It's not like either Russia or China would be capable of mounting an overseas expedition like Iraq 2003.
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,485
Japan
Since the early 90s I doubt any countries have the strength or will (to sustain the required casualties) to militarily stop the US.

The US likes global approval but doesn’t need it. It’s still the only superpower.
 
Jul 2012
200
Since the early 90s I doubt any countries have the strength or will (to sustain the required casualties) to militarily stop the US.

The US likes global approval but doesn’t need it. It’s still the only superpower.
Well they can and have done it but only when it involved themselves directly. Russia has taken over Crimea in Conquest style against extreme US opposition, Iran is continually defying US will and is prepared for war (as much as we know), then their is North Korea.
And if you are talking about troops on the ground vs US troops, I doubt Russia will back down even if US intervenes military in Ukraine or China will if US decides to support Taiwanese Independence.
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,485
Japan
Well they can and have done it but only when it involved themselves directly. Russia has taken over Crimea in Conquest style against extreme US opposition, Iran is continually defying US will and is prepared for war (as much as we know), then their is North Korea.
And if you are talking about troops on the ground vs US troops, I doubt Russia will back down even if US intervenes military in Ukraine or China will if US decides to support Taiwanese Independence.
0 us troops deployed to Crimea.
Iran and US have had no direct military confrontation.
North Korea is terrified of the US.

China won’t attack Taiwan as it know it means war with US... if China thought it could win it would have done it already. The fact that it hasn’t shows that it knows it can’t beat the US.

Russia has failed to beat the Ukrainians... how much better do you think it would do if the Ukraine has US military support. Russian military has declined over the last 20 years. It’s good for it’s purpose .... bullying former Soviet states.
 
Jul 2012
200
0 us troops deployed to Crimea.
Iran and US have had no direct military confrontation.
North Korea is terrified of the US.

China won’t attack Taiwan as it know it means war with US... if China thought it could win it would have done it already. The fact that it hasn’t shows that it knows it can’t beat the US.

Russia has failed to beat the Ukrainians... how much better do you think it would do if the Ukraine has US military support. Russian military has declined over the last 20 years. It’s good for it’s purpose .... bullying former Soviet states.
0 us troops deployed to Crimea. - Exactly my point, who is afraid of whom.
Iran and US have had no direct military confrontation. - That is true.
North Korea is terrified of the US. - Doesn't change the fact that they would surrender their nukes or won't fight them. They have already done it it in past (Chinese and Soviet support was not immediate).

China won’t attack Taiwan as it know it means war with US... if China thought it could win it would have done it already. The fact that it hasn’t shows that it knows it can’t beat the US. - I am not for a moment saying any of these countries can beat US (we don't know). The fact is they would fight, in case of China, if Taiwan declares independence.

Russia has failed to beat the Ukrainians... how much better do you think it would do if the Ukraine has US military support. Russian military has declined over the last 20 years. It’s good for it’s purpose .... bullying former Soviet states. - Conquering whole part of a country imperial style is a win in my books. Is the ground situation perfect for Russians; No.

FYI : This is not a moral judgement about US polices.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed