Was it a mistake to oust Saddam Hussein?

2015-04-28T08:22:48-04:00

I know we all have thoughts on this, but as a Soldier, of course no one ever asks whether we think we should, or should not go... They just say go!!!!, and we do our duty. I was personally involved with Saddam Hussein, so I am particularly interested in this topic. I will save my opinions for now, so as not to taint the discussion.

BROOKLYN — Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul told a group of Jewish community leaders here Monday he thinks the United States made an error ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 2003.

While insisting he is not an isolationist, Paul said, “I think it was a mistake to topple Hussein. Hussein was the bulwark against Iran.” He told the group assembled here at the headquarters of Torah Umesorah, the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools that now, “Iraq is a vassal state for Iran.”

http://atr.rollcall.com/rand-paul-2016-saddam-hussein-iran-brooklyn/

Rand Paul Says Ousting Hussein a 'Mistake'

The senator had a chance to showcase the Paul foreign policy platform. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo) BROOKLYN — Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul told a group

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Apr 28 at 2015 8:24 AM

2015-04-28T08:24:44-04:00

WOW! very insightful question sir!

First off let's take Rand Paul out of the equation because him speaking about anything is just political white noise. Never heard this dufus raising a fuss when we did it initially so hind sight does not count.

Now, that being accomplished, IMHO, Iraq was not behind GWOT and ousting Saddam was nothing more than political housekeeping - The Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega and all the other "used car salesmen" we once called allies when it met our interests. Saddam was no different. It was time for him to go but was not done correctly because, again MHO, we left an ISLAMIC power vacuum that a republic/democracy could not fill. We tried to put a Judea/Christian diplomatic peg into an Sunni/Shia Islamic hole and that dog still ain't hunting.

Response by PO2 Kevin LaCroix made Apr 28 at 2015 8:29 AM

2015-04-28T08:29:33-04:00

Saddam Hussein both stabilized Iraq, but destabilized the Persian Gulf area generally. The fault was not have the million troops need to police Iraq and eventually Afganistan. By not managing the populations properly, the the sunni and shia militias gained power. Many other mistakes were also made, that could have be avioded.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 28 at 2015 8:39 AM

2015-04-28T08:39:34-04:00

Like Motorcycle accidents.

"Not if but when."

I actually did a paper on this recently, which posited "knowing what we know now, would Gen Schwarzkopf have chosen to oust Saddam in 1991, rather than wait until OIF."

We were in a better position to oust him then, but would have caused great political turmoil because of the era. It would have been easier to rebuild, and we wouldn't have been fighting a 2-front war, however we'd still be in the same relative position overall.

Iraq itself, is a keystone, of relative Middle East stability. Without Iraq being Engaged/Occupied/Busy, we have to deal with the Iran problem. When those two "major fires" are under control, we can focus on the brush fire that is Israel... which can turn into an out of control forest fire.

The problem is that we can't diplomatically focus on all these brush fires at the same time.

Saddam "effectively" provided Regional Stability, which in turn let us handle Global Stability. When we removed him, we knocked out Regional Stability, and we are ill-equipped to handle that.

So..."Was it a mistake?" No. "Was it a mistake, at that particular point in history?" Yes. "When would have been the correct time?" Hell if anyone knows.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 8:43 AM

2015-04-28T08:43:25-04:00

Nope, no mistake. Period.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 8:45 AM

2015-04-28T08:45:44-04:00

This is a great question sir. I will say yes it was. My conflict comes from not having a full story. I mean anything I have seen and know to be fact based on my time serving in that region, and the other hand was my age and maturity level when I went. As time goes on, we receive more insight to what our highest leaders of Government were thinking or what they were told.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Apr 28 at 2015 9:13 AM

2015-04-28T09:13:43-04:00

Sadam had committed years and years worth of atrocities. He needed to go. Unfortunately, his violence and strong arm methods were the only thing holding the country together. Now, I think there are many many petty tyrants instead of just a single one. We got rid of one, many more stepped into his place. There is no winning in this arena unless the US and allies are prepared to go the distance.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 9:14 AM

2015-04-28T09:14:42-04:00

Hindsight is always 20/20. Was he keeping stability in the region? Yes, much like Assad does in Syria. I think that the time for him to go was quickly coming no matter what & I think that the call to preemptively remove him was made. He was getting cocky again & we didn't want a repeat of the 90s where he was committing genocidal acts - the Kurds.

Did we do it correctly? Who knows. As I said, hindsight says "no", but how were we to know what the tribal culture would do there. I'm sure we could've had a good idea the firestorm it was inviting - I'm pretty sure the troops on the ground could've given good insight on that.

Rumsfeld didn't give the strength needed to appropriately do the job, but that has been the downfall of SecDefs since Vietnam: go kick ass, but don't kick too hard.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Apr 28 at 2015 9:22 AM

2015-04-28T09:22:47-04:00

I will start by saying that being a Monday Morning Quarterback is far easier than being there in the thick of it. When Mr. Bush went on TV and told Sadaam Hussein he needed to get out of town, it smacked of a personal vendetta. It sounded less like a US President concerned about the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and more like a person bent on getting him before he gets you. Looking at it now. With the conjecture and circumstantial intelligence that led to the invasion, it seems even more solid that the reason for taking Hussein out in 2003 was personal.

I have no doubt that Hussein was a cruel leader who ruled as much through fear as with any other tool. I have no doubt that he was a despot that cared little about the iraqi people. In 1991 when Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, that would have been the time for a regime change. The eyes of the world were on Hussein and his behaviors. The world was mostly united against him. When the Iraqi forces were forced out, that would have been the time to occupy Iraq, force Hussein out, and build up the Iraqi people. Instead the decision was made to leave him in power.

Twelve years later with a war already being fought against a non conventional enemy, the decision was made to change the regime in Iraq. It put the United States as the aggressor nation invading a sovreign nation. The problem with the timing on this was that we didn't have a well thought out post invasion plan.

Unfortunately, the ones who suffer for all of this were and are the boots on the ground. Instead of fighting on one single front against the known enemy that was hidden, we were fighting that enemy still, and the Iraqis as well. Two enemies, two fronts, divided forces, divided command structure, and divided politicians jockeying for position. Leads to those on the front line suffering.

Even now twelve years later we still have not been able to complete the mission. I am certain that is not on the part of the warfighters on the front line. I am certain that the soldiers on the ground are not over there thinking about how wonderful it is to spend more time fighting on foreign soil away from home. The rise of ISIL, the resurgence of the Taliban, US Soldiers being attacked by the very people that they are training to defend their home all leads me to believe that the planning for the tail end was less thought out than the initial action.

On the other hand, Sadaam Hussein was one of the few in the middle east who ran his nation in a non secular way. There was no sharia (SP?) law in Iraq. This meant that while their leader was a despot who may have you killed because you looked at his mistress, the people (specially the women) had more liberties than they would have had in a nation with Sharia law.

I was in high school during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. I had completed my time in the service during Iraqi/Enduring Freedom. I was never deployed in the middle east so all of my opinion are based on second hand information. I respect all those from all branches of the service who fought, bled, and died in these conflicts. I want to clarify that because while my opinion on the invasion of Iraq is negative, that negativity is directed at the politicians not the folks who had to follow through on their orders.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 9:28 AM

2015-04-28T09:28:30-04:00

I think he out lived his usefulness. but it should have been dealt with in a different fashion.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Apr 28 at 2015 9:57 AM

2015-04-28T09:57:11-04:00

Should we allow brutal dictators to exist, if they maintain regional stability? Yes.
While our Judeo-Christian values pull at our hearts to DO something to stop every human tragedy in the world, these are national decisions, not individual ones. And as a nation-state, the US should do what is in its best interests. This requires rational analysis, not heart-strings.
We are beginning to recognize we cannot solve all the worlds problems, especially when there are many powerful forces that are very happy with "the problem". How can the US remain a superpower? Economic growth and engagement with all, entangling conflicts with none. I think it's funny how some people like Paul are portrayed as isolationists, when maybe they are just returning us to Realpolitik.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 10:07 AM

2015-04-28T10:07:36-04:00

I, personally, will NEVER call ousting Hussein a mistake. Not after I spent time with the Kurdish people and them explaining to me what exactly happened when the mustard gas bomb fell and showing me the area that it did. That crater was huge. Also, after speaking with the Iraqi's and how one was so terrified because he accidently ordered the wrong piece that would fix the air-conditioning, and how they gave him one more chance or they would chop of his hand. Or how the Iraqi's born with blue eyes were slaughtered because that is how they could tell a Christian from a Muslim. Christians had blue eyes. Didn't matter if you were one or not. They weren't going to believe you. And that is just a couple of stories that I heard. Not all of them.

Do I think that Saddam knew his people and what it takes to govern and hold them together? Maybe, but only by fear alone. That's not a way to live. Everyone that I spoke to in Iraq was SO happy that he was gone. I didn't speak to one person that thought otherwise.

Senator Rand Paul wasn't there, doesn't have first hand accounts and should just keep his mouth shut. Ousting Hussein was not the problem. The problem exists with this administration and how we did not leave a presence in Iraq. The Iraqi people wanted us there. But staying wasn't an option with Obama because he all ready promised the American people that he would pull us out.

AND Rand is seen as "anti-Semitic." Seriously, I have a lot of problems with Rand Paul.

"He [Ron] expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he [Ron] often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/13836#.VT-Tb5t0zcs

Senator Rand Paul and the Jews - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva

A hard look at the statements made by Senator Paul and their implications. Mark Langfan

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Apr 28 at 2015 10:13 AM

2015-04-28T10:13:45-04:00

I believe it was necessary for him to go, but the manner in which we handled the immediate aftermath led to a lot of the problems we are still dealing with today. The de-Baathification of everything to include the Iraqi military fed the insurgency that was the issue after 2004, as well as the sectarian clashes between the Sunni and Shia branches that led to even bigger problems that continue today.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Apr 28 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-04-28T10:33:44-04:00

Oh, it's a good thing that I am responding before work, as I could write a book on this topic.... Yes, but handled poorly.

First, He should have been ousted as part of Desert Storm. Yes, I know our mission was to restore the Kuwait border. Our mission was too restricted. Rather than the cease fire/no-fly decade, we should have insisted on victory. Wearing my IO hat, make no mistake, if I am an Iraqi, I count the U.S. failing to overthrow my government to be a huge victory, despite any alleged "objectives" on the part of the U.S. - We fought the Great Satan and are still standing. That's one-nothing. Kicking the can down the road is rarely a good thing.

Second, when we did decide (way late, but still...) to oust Saddam, we should have done that WITHOUT destroying all of the institutions of government and civil society. Wholesaled De-Bathification (yes, I misspelled that, I'm sure) was a bad idea, poorly executed. It not only removed everyone who had knowledge and experience in running a nation or holding civil society together from the positive side of the equation, but deposited them on the negative side. Were there horrid people who needed to be weeded out? Yup. But to toss out everyone who belonged to the party that you needed to belong to to have a shot at a decent life, education, or success was throwing the baby out with the bath water. Reconstruction would have been a lot easier if we hadn't had to recreate everything from scratch for no good reason. Same goes for the military. Would it have had an Iraqi flavor, and not been the state the U.S. would prefer in a perfect world? Yes. But it would have been functional and had more Iraqi buy in. As Lawrence said way back when, if the Arab (or other local national) CAN do it, it is better that they should. (too lazy to get the exact quote this morning.)

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Apr 28 at 2015 12:28 PM

2015-04-28T12:28:12-04:00

The biggest mistake was Paul Bremer and the OCPA in the way things were handled. Also there was not a good Phase IV. They didn't expect everything to disappear. There were people waiting in the wings to help and assist, but these were over looked and shoved aside. I saw what Hussein did to his people, the way they lived and the way Saddam and his crew lived. Yes he needed to go, but we screwed the pooch big time. Things could have been different.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 28 at 2015 1:49 PM

2015-04-28T13:49:41-04:00

Yes we destroyed much that had to be fixed which increased the resources needed. People who hated each other for hundreds of years were given freedom. The government discriminated and was corrupt. The Army was corrupt and inept. This gave ISIS an AO and staging areas in Sunni controlled territory.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 2:21 PM

2015-04-28T14:21:05-04:00

Constitutionally we had no right nor interest to Oust Saddam. He was an evil dictator yes. But, the reasons we went in were made up and false. It has been proven that the majority of Americans Supported this action under false pretenses. Only a direct Attack on the U.S. Warrants a war response. Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11/2001, then we had no right to attack his country and remove him from power. Afghanistan is another story. The Taliban government gave aid, support and Safe Haven for the Al-Qaida terrorist who did directly attack the U.S. We as a nation lost our focus out of fear. Preemption is never the answer.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 4:13 PM

2015-04-28T16:13:33-04:00

I'm not going to sit here and arm chair quarterback. Looking back on the early days of the entire GWOT there were plenty of mistakes made at all levels of the military, the government and society as a whole. I made plenty myself. Saddam was a horrible person and a worse leader who did a lot of damage to Iraq and the middle east as a region. He also helped to keep Iran in check. Let's not mince words though, if we are going to play the game of saying we needed to get rid of Saddam, why have we sat back and let other horrible dictators rule?

Response by PO3 Jonathan Cooper made Apr 29 at 2015 2:04 AM

2015-04-29T02:04:00-04:00

I was in college when the Iraq war started and and have more of an civilian/intellectual standpoint of what happened so my view is skewed, but I don't think if was the ousting that was the issue. It was the planning for a transitional government and the "now what" period where everything went to hell. Everyone who served in Iraq, including my now retired SSG cousin, went in and followed orders. I heard so much of the contractor issues, how disarming and disbanding the military and only protecting certain buildings was deemed critical for the infrastructure became major problems. Ultimately, i just think about the fact that before WW2 was over, FDR, Churchill and Stalin had discussed re-construction of Europe and Germany for 2-3 years prior to the end of hostilities. I'd really like to know if the truth of the White House didn't even meet for a total of 72 hours about post-war planning is dead on. That would tell me something right there.

Allowing evil to continue was and is in no way, shape, or form acceptable. But there needs to be a well thought out plan for something like overthrowing a major player in a powder keg of a region.

Response by Capt Dwayne Conyers made Dec 15 at 2018 4:24 PM

2018-12-15T16:24:14-05:00

Considering we put Saddam in power to start with...

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 15 at 2018 9:38 PM

2018-12-15T21:38:10-05:00

Yes considering we had to resource two wars instead of one.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Dec 15 at 2018 9:58 PM

2018-12-15T21:58:55-05:00

Ron Paul and his Father are both idiots that make their money off scaring older people and fueling conspiracy theorists. Neither should have been allowed to seek elective office, in my opinion. There has been zero value add with either of them in Congress or the Senate for that matter.