Iraq War 20 years on: How Ukraine conflict, growing power of Iran and rise of Trump can be traced back to 2003 invasion
At the turn of the century, America had emerged victorious from the Cold War and stood unchallenged.
It had greater power and influence than any other nation in history. It could have wielded that power judiciously to protect the American-led post-war world order and inspire other countries to follow its values of freedom and democracy.
Instead, it squandered that supremacy embarking on a calamitous misadventure in Iraq that was ill-advised and disastrously executed. It would be the beginning of the end of the pax Americana.
A direct line can be drawn between that debacle, which began on 20 March 2003 and others that followed, right up to the perilous state of the world today.
The war in Ukraine, the unchecked ascendancy of China, the growing power of Iran, and even the rise of Trump and the politics of populism all have roots that can be traced back to America’s folly in Iraq.
Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein standing by an Iraqi flag in 2002
George W Bush had the support of Britain’s Tony Blair in his decision to invade Iraq
The falsehoods and delusions that led to war
America went to war led by ideologues who believed they could refashion the Middle East in their own likeness and bring democracy and a more pro-Western outlook to the region.
The failure of that neoconservative project has done lasting damage to Americans’ claims of exceptionalism, and their belief that their form of governance is an example to the rest of the world. And that has by extension done enduring harm to the American-led world order.
The failings of that project in Iraq are well documented. The false premise of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the delusion that invaders would be welcomed as liberators, the absence of any plan for the day after. The damage to America’s standing in the world has been incalculable.
Equally, human rights violations, violations of democratic norms, targeted killings, and the atrocities of Abu Ghraib prison, from where photographs showing abuse of inmates by US soldiers emerged, tarnished America’s image as the standard-bearer of democracy and human rights.
This has weakened Washington’s influence in the world. When India and other countries in the global south sit on the fence in UN resolutions on Ukraine, their ambivalence can in part be traced back to America’s record in Iraq.
Read more on Sky News:
Unfazed by arrest warrant, Putin’s Ukraine trip is all for cameras
Police file terrorism charges against Imran Khan and supporters
US military escort a group of Iraqi soldiers dressed in civilian clothes north of Basra, Iraq, in 2003
An Iraqi man cries in front of a house damaged by a missile in Baghdad in 2003
A lasting impact on US foreign policy
The failure undermined America’s own self-confidence. The spectre of Iraq made Barack Obama reluctant to be drawn into the Syria conflict and punish its leader’s diabolical use of chemical weapons.
That reluctance was seen in Moscow as an American weakness, and arguably emboldened it to defy the West and seize Crimea with relative impunity a few years later. And that in turn encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine in earnest last year.
The distraction of Iraq led to failure in Afghanistan, a protracted two decades of occupation and a disastrous withdrawal.
Iraq sucked up what policymakers in Washington call bandwidth year after year, while in the east a far greater challenge was rising. The West would take years to wake up to the threat posed by China.
Closer to Iraq, Iran was strengthened. Before the invasion, its regional influence was limited to a militia in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah. Today it has clout in capitals from Beirut to Damascus to Baghdad to Yemen.
The war in Iraq has done damage to America’s belief in itself. The conflict cost a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives. It has fuelled opposition to any more military adventures abroad.
And it has undermined Americans’ faith in both government and the political and media elites meant to hold it to account. That only in part helps explain the rise of populism that ultimately brought Trump to the White House.
An explosion rocks Baghdad during air strikes on 21 March 2003
US military escort a group of Iraqi soldiers dressed in civilian clothes north of Basra, Iraq, in 2003
Iraq still recovering from journey to hell and back
In Iraq, people are now no longer living under tyranny. There is reportedly some sense of hope and renewal, but only recently. And the country has literally been to hell and back to get there.
Hundreds of thousands have died in the war and the waves of sectarian violence that followed. The country has been broken, its institutions destroyed and its economy ravaged.
It is only just beginning to recover from all that trauma. But perhaps it can now look forward cautiously to a slightly better future. That is more than might have been said had Saddam Hussein remained in power or any of his impulsive, venal sons.
Another view of Saddam Hussein’s statue being pulled down
Thousands of crosses at a memorial for US troops killed in the Iraq war, in Lafayette, California
Ten years ago, George W Bush said the final verdict on his actions in Iraq would come long after his death.
That may be true, and it may take more time to judge whether the removal of one of the worst tyrants in history in any way justified the enormous cost and pain that then ensued.
Twenty years on, though, we can say the invasion and occupation have had a lasting legacy on the region and the world, and much of that has not been for the better.
Donald Trump has praised the Liberian president’s command of English – the West African country’s official language.
The US president reacted with visible surprise to Joseph Boakai’s English-speaking skills during a White House meeting with leaders from the region on Wednesday.
After the Liberian president finished his brief remarks, Mr Trump told him he speaks “such good English” and asked: “Where did you learn to speak so beautifully?”
Mr Trump seemed surprised when Mr Boakai laughed and responded he learned in Liberia.
The US president said: “It’s beautiful English.
“I have people at this table who can’t speak nearly as well.”
Mr Boakai did not tell Mr Trump that English is the official language of Liberia.
The country was founded in 1822 with the aim of relocating freed African slaves and freeborn black citizens from the US.
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈
Mr Trump promised the leaders of Liberia, Senegal, Gabon, Mauritania and Guinea-Bissau a pivot from aid to trade at the surprise meeting.
He described the countries as “all very vibrant places with very valuable land, great minerals, and great oil deposits, and wonderful people”.
Read more from Sky News:
Gaza permanent ceasefire ‘questionable’, says Israeli official
Four dead and ‘many’ kidnapped after Houthi rebels sink ship
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
Later asked by a reporter if he’ll visit the continent, Mr Trump said, “At some point, I would like to go to Africa.”
But he added that he’d “have to see what the schedule looks like”.
Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden, promised to go to Africa in 2023, but only fulfilled the commitment by visiting Angola in December 2024, just weeks before he left office.
The Israeli government believes the chances of achieving a permanent ceasefire in Gaza are “questionable”.
The pessimistic assessment, in a top-level Israeli government briefing given to Sky News, comes as the Israeli Prime Minister prepares to leave Washington DC after a four-day visit which had begun with the expectation of a ceasefire announcement.
Benjamin Netanyahu will leave the US later today with the prospect of even a temporary 60-day ceasefire looking extremely unlikely this week.
Within “a week, two weeks – not a day” is how it was framed in the background briefing late on Wednesday.
Crucially, though, on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the framing from the briefing was even less optimistic: “We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement. But we achieve it? It’s questionable, but Hamas will not be there.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Netanyahu arrives in US for ceasefire talks
Sky News has spoken to several Israeli officials at the top level of the government. None will be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success.
But I have been given a very clear understanding of Mr Netanyahu’s thinking.
The Israeli position is that a permanent ceasefire (beyond the initial 60 days, which itself is yet to be agreed) is only possible if Hamas lays down its arms. “If they don’t, we’ll proceed [with the war],” said a source.
The major sticking point in the talks between Hamas and Israel is the status of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza during the 60-day ceasefire and beyond, should it last longer.
The latest Israeli proposal, passed to Hamas last week, included a map showing the proposed IDF presence inside Gaza during the ceasefire.
Read more: What is the possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal?
Pic: Reuters
This was rejected by Hamas and by Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who reportedly told the Israelis that the redeployment map “looks like a Smotrich plan”, a reference to the extreme-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich.
My briefing of Mr Netanyahu’s position is that he has not shifted in terms of Israel’s central stated war aims. The return of the hostages and eliminating Hamas are the key objectives.
But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, it was clear from my briefing that no permanent ceasefire is possible in the Israeli government’s view without the complete removal of Hamas as a political and military entity.
Hamas is not likely to negotiate its way to oblivion.
On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, a senior Israeli official told Sky News: “We would want IDF in every square metre of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone.”
Pic: Reuters
It was clear to me that Mr Netanyahu wants his stated position to be that his government has no territorial ambition for Gaza.
One quote to come from my briefing, which I am only able to attribute to a senior Israeli official, says: “[We] don’t want to govern Gaza… don’t want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas.”
Another clear indication of Mr Netanyahu’s position – a quote from the briefing, attributable only to a senior Israeli official: “You cannot have victory if you don’t clear out all the fighting forces.
“You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life.”
On the future of Gaza, it’s clear from my briefings that Mr Netanyahu continues to rule out the possibility of a two-state solution “for the foreseeable future”.
The Israeli government assessment is that the Palestinians are not going to have a state “as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state”.
Read more:
UN Special Rapporteur criticises Israel
Why Netanyahu only wants a 60-day ceasefire
Trump applying ‘heavy pressure’ on Netanyahu
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict – the movement of the population – the briefing revealed that Mr Netanyahu’s view is that 60% of Palestinians would “choose to leave” but that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated.
“It’s not forcible eviction, it’s not permanent eviction,” a senior Israeli official said.
Critics of Israel’s war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being “voluntary”, is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened.
Reacting to Israeli Defence Minister Katz’s recent statement revealing a plan to move Palestinians into a “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza, and not let them out of that area, the official wouldn’t be drawn, except to say: “As a permanent arrangement? Of course not.”
A senior Israeli official has issued a less-than-optimistic assessment of the permanency of any ceasefire in Gaza.
Speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, the senior official said that a 60-day ceasefire “might” be possible within “a week, two weeks – not a day”.
But on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the official said: “We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement.
“But we achieve it? It’s questionable, but Hamas will not be there.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to conclude a four-day visit to Washington later today.
There had been hope that a ceasefire could be announced during the trip. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that it’s close.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Netanyahu arrives in US for ceasefire talks
Speaking at a briefing for a number of reporters, the Israeli official would not be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success.
The major sticking point in the talks between Hamas and Israel is the status of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza during the 60-day ceasefire and beyond, should it last longer.
The latest Israeli proposal, passed to Hamas last week, included a map showing the proposed IDF presence inside Gaza during the ceasefire.
Read more: What is the possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal?
Pic: Reuters
This was rejected by Hamas and by Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who reportedly told the Israelis that the redeployment map “looks like a Smotrich plan”, a reference to the extreme-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich.
The official repeated Israel’s central stated war aims of getting the hostages back and eliminating Hamas. But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, the official was clear that no permanent ceasefire would be possible without the complete removal of Hamas.
“We will offer them a permanent ceasefire,” he told Sky News. “If they agree. Fine. It’s over.
“They lay down their arms, and we proceed [with the ceasefire]. If they don’t, we’ll proceed [with the war].”
On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, the official said: “We would want IDF in every square meter of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone…”
He added: “[We] don’t want to govern Gaza… don’t want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas…”
Pic: Reuters
The official said the Israeli government had “no territorial designs for Gaza”.
“But [we] don’t want Hamas there,” he continued. “You have to finish the job… victory over Hamas. You cannot have victory if you don’t clear out all the fighting forces.
“You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life.”
On the future of Gaza, the official ruled out the possibility of a two-state solution “for the foreseeable future”.
“They are not going to have a state in the foreseeable future as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state. It doesn’t make a difference if they are the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, it’s just a difference of tactics.”
Read more:
UN Special Rapporteur criticises Israel
Why Netanyahu only wants a 60-day ceasefire
Trump applying ‘heavy pressure’ on Netanyahu
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict – the movement of the population – the official predicted that 60% of Palestinians would “choose to leave”.
But he claimed that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated, adding: “It’s not forcible eviction, it’s not permanent eviction.”
Critics of Israel’s war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being “voluntary,” is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened.
Reacting to Israeli Defence Minister Katz’s recent statement revealing a plan to move Palestinians into a “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza, and not let them out of that area, the official wouldn’t be drawn, except to say: “As a permanent arrangement? Of course not.”
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike