Iraq syndrome?

[Osterreich-Bayern]

Is there Iraq syndrome in western politics and if there is should there be or shouldn't there be?
Iraq sydrome is a reference to Vietnam syndrome in which politicians and the public in the west were scared of starting a war because of the recent failure of the war in Vietnam. Is that the case today with the failure of the war in Iraq? Has it prevented wars in Syria,Iraq,Iran,N Korea,Sudan,Egypt,Libya,Tunisia? Should it is the failure in Iraq an example of why the west should fight harder or not fight at all? Share your opinions
Is this same syndrome happening in the east (Iran russia china N Korea)

[Osterreich-Bayern]

In my opinion the failure in Iraq is harming the intrests of the west and may come back to the bite them in the form of formation of terrorist havens

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

It isn't any supposed "failure" of OIF/OEF that is causing people to be leery, it's the fact that since 1945 there hasn't been a single successful large-scale military engagement that has ended with the world in a better place than before the military engagement.

Continuing to allow the status quo isn't acceptable.

Engaging in bellicose foreign policy via military isn't acceptable.

People are clamoring for a better path.

[Napkiraly]

Yes there is. Overall there is a general opposition to not deploy combat troops overseas. When this will end, who knows.

[Glorious KASSRD]

I would hope so. War is bad.

[Herskerstad]

Probably, mostly, but not exclusively for the good. Should nuclear weapons spread enough or one actually ever be dropped then it would turn into an extraordinary deficit however.

Which is why nations like North Korea should have been treated much more stringently from the start and Iran been dealt much tougher with from the get go. Not necessarily with arms, but certainly with far more covert obs and support for factions that's replace the current insanity that leads both said nations.

[Valaran]

What's that phrase? "Generals always fight the last war" And this naturally applies to national mindsets as well, who in turn feed it into the politicians they elect.

There is a general belief that we were misled into war, and that this meant we gave up some of our values. The reaction to this is that we will not do this again. Its also coupled with a fear of losing any soldiers on needless missions and the like, and (in Europe), a climate of austerity, shrinking military budgets, and cynicism.

is this good? Not really - we can't afford not to engage with the world; shrugging our shoulders is a worse betrayal of our values than might be supposed. Is it expected? Yeah. When will it end? Hard to say, but likely it would have greatly been reduced in the Western mindsets by 2025, and certainly by 2030.

The other thing to take from this is not to have any stupid wars.

[Benuty]

Marco Rubio's interview on Fox News was hilarious because the interviewer kept pestering them to answer "was the Iraq war a mistake?". Rubio couldn't seem to grasp the concept enough to give a clear answer.

[Conservative Values]

Marco Rubio's interview on Fox News was hilarious because the interviewer kept pestering them to answer "was the Iraq war a mistake?". Rubio couldn't seem to grasp the concept enough to give a clear answer.

Rubio was killing it, IMO. He really impressed me. No one on the GOP side should flat out say that invading Iraq was a mistake. Given all the information on the table if the exact same thing happened again all candidates in both parties would do the exact same thing. If everyone would do it, it isn't a mistake. Just because later you get information that contradicted your decision doesn't make that decision a mistake.

I've had health insurance my whole life and never come out ahead, I've always spent more on premiums than I would have on actual health costs. If you ask me "Knowing what we know now, was it a mistake to have health insurance?" The answer is of course not, it is never a good idea to take that risk. It is the same concept, just because you find out later the risk you were responding to wasn't going to come to pass makes NO impact on if the risk assessment was correct at the time. It was. And Rubio communicated it better than anyone else in the GOP field has so far, he definitely did much better than Bush did.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Marco Rubio's interview on Fox News was hilarious because the interviewer kept pestering them to answer "was the Iraq war a mistake?". Rubio couldn't seem to grasp the concept enough to give a clear answer.

Rubio was killing it, IMO. He really impressed me. No one on the GOP side should flat out say that invading Iraq was a mistake. Given all the information on the table if the exact same thing happened again all candidates in both parties would do the exact same thing. If everyone would do it, it isn't a mistake. Just because later you get information that contradicted your decision doesn't make that decision a mistake.

I've had health insurance my whole life and never come out ahead, I've always spent more on premiums than I would have on actual health costs. If you ask me "Knowing what we know now, was it a mistake to have health insurance?" The answer is of course not, it is never a good idea to take that risk. It is the same concept, just because you find out later the risk you were responding to wasn't going to come to pass makes NO impact on if the risk assessment was correct at the time. It was. And Rubio communicated it better than anyone else in the GOP field has so far, he definitely did much better than Bush did.

Yeah, all those US intelligence agencies who were screaming that this was a stupid idea and it should feel stupid weren't shouted down by Haliburton Rumsfeld and Cheney.

[Hawick]

No, there doesn't seem to be, given how eager our governments have been to intervene in Libya and Syria. Which is unfortunate, given the destruction caused by the rebels in Libya and Syria.

[New Werpland]

No, there doesn't seem to be, given how eager our governments have been to intervene in Libya and Syria. Which is unfortunate, given the destruction caused by the rebels in Libya and Syria.

It's a little more complicated than that. Western governments are afraid to look like the ebul neocons who perpetrated Iraq, aiding freedom fighters in the war against totalitarianism is ok though.

[Hawick]

No, there doesn't seem to be, given how eager our governments have been to intervene in Libya and Syria. Which is unfortunate, given the destruction caused by the rebels in Libya and Syria.

It's a little more complicated than that. Western governments are afraid to look like the ebul neocons who perpetrated Iraq, aiding freedom fighters in the war against totalitarianism is ok though.

The FSA are certainly not freedom fighters.

[Shamhnan Insir]

There might be a certain level of apprehension but I don't think it qualifies as a "syndrome", and it shouldn't be there.

If anything it's caused by the petty politics that we have at the moment. There is no great movements anymore, no inspiration of the public. All we have are nit-picking politicians that just play a game of points scoring to get favour. It's just a shame that the points scoring happens to be played out on the lives lost in conflict.

[Laerod]

In my opinion the failure in Iraq is harming the intrests of the west and may come back to the bite them in the form of formation of terrorist havens

Yes, but you also think that we need to go to war in Tunisia.

[Dooom35796821595]

A nation should always be cautious about going to war, and it should always be the last option. The reason that Vietnam and now Iraq are turning public opinion against millitary intervention is both the fact that they weren't the last option and the public was deceived about the reality of the situation. The fact they dragged on far too long didn't help either.

[New Skaaneland]

I think the more common expression would be "Stockholm Syndrome", which is pretty much everything which is famous about that northern shithole. Oh.. That and the ship "Wasa", which sunk on its' first trip.

[Geilinor]

I think the more common expression would be "Stockholm Syndrome", which is pretty much everything which is famous about that northern shithole. Oh.. That and the ship "Wasa", which sunk on its' first trip.

Stockholm Syndrome is where kidnapping victims become attached to their kidnappers, I'm not seeing the relation.

[Osterreich-Bayern]

No, there doesn't seem to be, given how eager our governments have been to intervene in Libya and Syria. Which is unfortunate, given the destruction caused by the rebels in Libya and Syria.

One special forces strike in Syria is not a lot considering we have a 3 way war between democracy Islamic theocracy and a crazy totalarian state

[Genivaria]

It isn't any supposed "failure" of OIF/OEF that is causing people to be leery, it's the fact that since 1945 there hasn't been a single successful large-scale military engagement that has ended with the world in a better place than before the military engagement.

Continuing to allow the status quo isn't acceptable.

Engaging in bellicose foreign policy via military isn't acceptable.

People are clamoring for a better path.

That is what I'm seeing as well.
The Cold War policies are outdated and harmful, we need to adapt.

[Lalaki]

People should be reluctant to go to war. Our 2003 invasion of Iraq was a big mistake (perhaps one of the biggest America has ever made). We should have focused all of our resources on Afghanistan and left Hussein alone if only for stability.

[MERIZoC]

Not enough of one, unfortunately.

[Genivaria]

People should be reluctant to go to war. Our 2003 invasion of Iraq was a big mistake (perhaps one of the biggest America has ever made). We should have focused all of our resources on Afghanistan and left Hussein alone if only for stability.

Saddam needed to die. Then we should've given land to the Kurds.

[Nierra]

Yes, and it is incredibly harmful. There are a lot of reasons to be opposed to the iraq war, I'm one of them pre and post invasion. However, sometimes war is necessary and we shouldn't let a past failure hamper our ability to react to shifting geopolitical alignments because the general public still feels annoyed.

People in power need the freedom to use the power they were elected to use in a way that defends the interest of its people and the international community, high approval rating or not.

[Hollorous]

Is there Iraq syndrome in western politics and if there is should there be or shouldn't there be?
Iraq sydrome is a reference to Vietnam syndrome in which politicians and the public in the west were scared of starting a war because of the recent failure of the war in Vietnam. Is that the case today with the failure of the war in Iraq? Has it prevented wars in Syria,Iraq,Iran,N Korea,Sudan,Egypt,Libya,Tunisia? Should it is the failure in Iraq an example of why the west should fight harder or not fight at all? Share your opinions
Is this same syndrome happening in the east (Iran russia china N Korea)

I don't think there's really an "Iraq syndrome" among politicians. The public maybe. In the realm of politics, however, it seems few lessons have been learned. A prevailing attitude is that the war was a noble endeavor, but then the Iraqis botched the peace, i.e. we couldn't civilize the undemocratic savages. Most western politicians would hesitate to call the "Iraq War" a failure (although they'd look stupid if they pushed it as a resounding success) and, if they do, they're more likely to push the blame as far east as possible.

The "Vietnam Syndrome" thing is overrated. Reagan got smart (for lack of a better term) and started using local paramilitary death squads and right-wing dictatorships to fight his anti-communism wars in third world countries, instead of taking the messier option of direction military intervention. That way, the less savory bits (i.e. pretty much all of it) was more easily deniable and the public didn't have the emotional vomit of their friends and relatives returning in body bags. There was no lack of intervention. It just took a different form. Much like today, when spec ops and drones have taken the place of infantry troops. The war machine has been very business, but the public cares much less because they aren't directly effected.

There are wars in Iraq, Syria, etc...and the USA is involved to varying degree. Even if Iraq was a smash, the resources involved to intervene in all these "trouble spots" would be enormous. Probably not feasible in the real world.

Why should there be a war in Tunisia anyway? What did they ever do to anybody?

Wars with Russia and China don't happen because that would be World War III, something any insane leader would want to prevent to say the least.