Why Removing Saddam Hussein in 2003 Was a Historic Mistake

Summary

Why Removing Saddam Hussein in 2003 Was a Historic Mistake. Saddam Hussein was a dictator. His government tortured opponents, carried out mass killings and...

Full Content

Saddam Hussein was a dictator. His government tortured opponents, carried out mass killings and ruled Iraq through fear. None of that should be forgotten. But there is a difference between saying Saddam was a brutal dictator and saying that removing him through a U.S.-led invasion was a good decision. More than two decades after the invasion, that distinction matters. The United States went into Iraq promising security, democracy and a better future. Instead, the collapse of Saddam's government was followed by an insurgency, sectarian violence, political instability, mass displacement and the eventual rise of ISIS. The invasion removed Saddam, but it did not solve Iraq. The War Washington Thought It Could Control When American forces entered Iraq in March 2003, the military campaign against Saddam's government moved quickly. The difficult part came afterward. Washington had planned extensively for the invasion but failed to adequately prepare for the political vacuum that followed the collapse of the Iraqi state.That vacuum became the defining story of post-Saddam Iraq. The United States had destroyed the old political order and then had to figure out what would replace it. That proved far more difficult than expected. The Weapons Were Never Found One of the central arguments for the invasion was that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and represented a serious threat. Those stockpiles were not found. That failure became one of the most damaging episodes in modern American foreign policy. The intelligence used to justify the invasion proved deeply flawed, and the absence of the expected weapons undermined Washington's credibility around the world. The United States had told the world that Iraq represented an immediate danger. After the invasion, the central evidence for that claim was nowhere to be found. The consequences of that mistake extended far beyond Iraq, affecting American credibility, trust in intelligence agencies and the willingness of governments and populations to believe Washington's claims about future conflicts. Then Washington Started Taking Iraq Apart The invasion did not simply remove Saddam. The occupation began dismantling the institutions through which Iraq had been governed. In April 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority issued an order banning the Ba'ath Party from government and removing senior members from public positions. A separate order soon dissolved the Iraqi army. The reasoning was understandable. Washington did not want Saddam loyalists returning to power. But the decision created another problem: thousands of experienced officials and soldiers suddenly had no place in the new Iraq.Some went home. Others joined the growing insurgency. The United States was left trying to build a new government while fighting people who wanted to destroy the occupation. The Iraqi state had been weakened at exactly the moment it was needed most. The Security Vacuum Once the old system collapsed, armed groups began filling the space. Insurgents attacked American troops, militias expanded their power and sectarian violence spread. Ordinary Iraqis were caught between groups fighting for political control. For families living in Baghdad, Mosul, Fallujah and other cities, the great geopolitical arguments coming out of Washington meant little compared with the immediate question of whether they would make it home safely. Brown University's Costs of War project estimates that at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians were killed by direct war violence during the first decade following the invasion. Exact casualty figures remain disputed, but there is no serious disagreement that the human cost was enormous.The consequences did not stop with those killed. Millions of Iraqis were displaced inside the country or forced to leave Iraq altogether. Iraq Became a Regional Battleground Saddam had been terrible at many things, but his government had maintained a powerful centralized state. Once that state disappeared, Iraq became far more vulnerable to regional competition. Iran gained enormous influence among Iraqi political parties and armed groups. Turkey became increasingly involved in northern Iraq, while Gulf states watched Iran's growing influence with alarm. The United States found itself trying to manage a political system that was becoming increasingly difficult to control.This created one of the great ironies of the Iraq War. Washington invaded partly because it believed Saddam was a threat to regional stability. The removal of Saddam then helped create a new regional balance in which Iran became considerably more influential in Iraq. Then Came Al-Qaeda in Iraq The insurgency created fertile ground for extremist organizations. Al-Qaeda in Iraq became one of the most violent forces in the country. Its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, deliberately targeted civilians and attempted to ignite sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. The organization eventually evolved through several stages into what became ISIS. In 2014, ISIS captured Mosul and large areas of Iraq and Syria. The United States, which had withdrawn most of its combat forces from Iraq in 2011, was suddenly back in the country fighting another major war.The invasion had been intended to create a more secure Iraq. More than a decade later, America was once again fighting there. Iraq's Christians Were Among Those Who Paid the Price The consequences were particularly devastating for Iraq's ancient Christian communities. Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac Christians had lived in Mesopotamia for centuries. They had survived empires, wars and Saddam's dictatorship, but the instability after 2003 created a new wave of insecurity. Churches were attacked. Families were threatened. Communities began leaving. Then ISIS arrived.The extremist group's capture of Mosul and surrounding areas in 2014 triggered one of the largest displacements of Christians in modern Iraqi history. Families fled with little more than what they could carry. Ancient communities that had existed for generations were scattered, and some never returned.It would be wrong to claim that every crime committed against Iraqi Christians after 2003 was directly caused by the American invasion. Iraq's sectarian tensions and political problems had deep roots, and many different actors contributed to the violence. But the collapse of state authority created conditions in which extremist groups could expand. For minorities, that distinction did not make the consequences any less devastating. America Paid Too The Iraq War was not cheap for the United States. Thousands of American service members were killed, and many more returned home wounded physically or psychologically. The financial cost was enormous.Brown University's Costs of War project has estimated that the wars in Iraq and Syria have ultimately cost the United States trillions of dollars when direct spending and long-term obligations are included. That money could have been spent elsewhere: infrastructure, healthcare, education, veterans and domestic programs.The cost was not only measured in dollars. It was measured in lives and years. Could Iraq Have Been Worse Under Saddam? This is the question supporters of the invasion are right to ask. Nobody can know what Iraq would look like today if Saddam had remained in power. Perhaps another war would have occurred. Perhaps Saddam would have launched another regional conflict. Perhaps his sons would have inherited the regime. Perhaps another uprising would have produced even greater bloodshed.History does not give us an alternate Iraq to compare with the one that actually exists. That uncertainty matters. But it does not erase the consequences of the decision that was made. The Mistake Was Thinking That Removing Saddam Was the Same as Fixing Iraq This is where the Iraq War ultimately failed. Removing a dictator is one thing. Replacing the state he controlled is something else entirely.A functioning country needs courts, police, hospitals, schools, electricity, borders, ministries and political institutions. It needs people who believe the government has legitimacy. It needs security and a political system capable of preventing competing groups from turning every disagreement into violence.The United States was prepared to defeat Saddam's military. It was not prepared for the enormous political challenge that came afterward. That may be the most important lesson of Iraq. The World Should Remember the Difference Saddam Hussein's crimes should never be romanticized. Iraqis suffered terribly under his government. But acknowledging those crimes does not require pretending that the 2003 invasion was a success.The invasion changed Iraq forever. It contributed to the collapse of state institutions, unleashed years of violence, altered the regional balance of power and helped create the conditions in which extremist organizations could grow. For Iraq's minorities, the consequences were especially severe.For Americans, the war became one of the longest and most expensive military interventions of the post-9/11 era. For Washington, it became a warning about the limits of military power. The United States proved that it could remove Saddam Hussein. The harder task was building something stable after him.That is the part of the Iraq story that policymakers should remember before deciding that regime change is an easy solution to another country's problems.Because destroying a government can take weeks. Building a functioning country can take generations.

Frequently Asked Questions