Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link Weider History Group RSS feed Weider Subscriptions Historynet Home page

Can the 2003 invasion of Iraq now be considered "Mission Accomplished"?

Originally published on HistoryNet.com. Published Online: May 03, 2011 
Print Friendly
12 comments FONT +  FONT -

Can the 2003 invasion of Iraq now be considered "Mission Accomplished"?


12 Responses to “Can the 2003 invasion of Iraq now be considered "Mission Accomplished"?”


  1. 1
    Norm Daudelin says:

    Since I believe Iraq was a war that never should have been started, I have to ask, "What mission is that?"

    But will the demise of Osama Bin Laden, I do feel that the Afghanistan war is mission accomplished and we need to bring out troops home…Now!

    • 1.1
      Iowa Gray says:

      I totaly agree with comment #1. The stated mission for the invasion of Iraq was a premeditated lie. The Iraqian army was tageting our aircraft in the no fly zone so a punitive mission was waranted, but the Bush administration should have never entered Bagdad. Blow up their radars and leave. Democracy can not be impossed, it must be wanted by the population.

  2. 2
    Chuck in Montana says:

    Not yet…but will it ever be? Lets face it most of them hate us.

  3. 3
    Mike H. says:

    I couldn't agree more with the above comments. However, I don't believe American justice and credibility will ever be restored unless/until G.W.Bush, Cheney, et.al., are brought up for War Crimes,and Crimes against Humanity, specifically the outright lies used to invade Iraq, the use of torture as an "inhanced interrogation" tool,among many other things. In any other instance, these liars would be already be occupying a special suite in Leavenworth, or some other instution. Iraq's war always seemed rather odd, considering the demonstrated adversion th personal military service of most of the GOP hierarchy involved…I believe the proper term to be used to describe them would be "Chickenhawks": Enthusiastic eagerness to go to war…as long as they themselves didn't have to go…

  4. 4
    John Stum says:

    The 2003 invasion of Iraq was started on March 20th. By the time Saddam was caught just a few months later, the mission was accomplished.

    The goal of the invasion, from a military standpoint only, was to seize the Iraqi government and remove Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party from power. Just as the mission of World War II in the European theater was accomplished with the death of Hitler and the capture of Berlin, so was the mission of the Iraqi conflict accomplished once Saddam was in jail awaiting charges for his crimes against his people.

    As we all know, however, that was not the end of the conflict. A new mission was started. That mission was to create a new government and help provide an interm security for the nation while it struggled to regain a sense of itself. America does not, after all, just go in then leave. We stay behind to help rebuild what we destroyed. Some could see it as hypocrasy or a lie. A quote from the movie "Apacolypse Now" sums up this feeling very well. "We cut them in half with machine gun fire then give them a band aid."

    This is too depressing of a view for me. We stay behind and help rebuild because we are a nation of people who care. We are a nation of justice. Was there justice in how Saddam treated the large portion of his population? No. It would be just as bad, though, for us to cause a power vaccum and leave the women and children to the mercy of the wolves and the next new dictator to seize power. Where is the justice in that?

    So the invasion was accomplished. What followed…well we are close now, and, God willing, it will be accomplished this year.

  5. 5
    BCS says:

    John Stum's post above illustrates the problem with getting your common American to realise what is being done in his name. Without doubt Mr Stum believes what he says here:

    “We stay behind and help rebuild because we are a nation of people who care. We are a nation of justice. Was there justice in how Saddam treated the large portion of his population? No.”

    Unfortunately the earnest belief of the common American, that his country’s conduct echoes his personal conduct, is misplaced.

    Fact is, the people that have replaced Saddam are just as bad if not worse than him. Millions of Iraqis have fled Iraq because of the violence of (US backed) government forces against them, and the ensuing lawlessness that accompanied the invasion. It is also true that America recruited members of the selfsame Mukhabarat (secret service) that kept Saddam in power, in order to combat the growing resistance movements. It is likewise a fact that the radicals (Badrists) that the Americans specifically asked (begged, just about) to form the core of the new Iraqi security forces engaged in torture every bit as brutal as that of Saddam’s goons, while being trained and armed by the US.

    Without dragging out my post, it is very clear to this writer at least that sheer altruism (whatever the belief of the well-meaning American on the street) did not form part of the reason that America “chose to stay” in Iraq.

  6. 6
    Straight Leg says:

    There will never be a "Missioned Accomplished" in that part of the world because of the people and cultures involved. There is so much hatred and centuries old feuds that a lasting peace will never be attained in my life time. Muslims are killing Muslims and all Muslims are killing everyone else. All we can hope to achieve is to place governments in power who are friendly to the US and then bring our troops home.

  7. 7
    kato says:

    the proposed mission has been effectivly acheived and aborted. i believe the two-fold mission was to get rid o fa tyrant and bring some sort of stability to the middle east. but it dosent take a genius to recognize the folly of the latter. anyone with half a brain knows
    the desired implementation was and is highly unlikley, and as a result a waste of our resources.

    i would also like to suggest that our perceptions of personal intelligence in these matters combined with limited feedback could bring us to the conlcusion that on personal levels we may be
    lacking sufficiently in our scope of comprehension to judge with clarity

    its just a thought. i always wonder what we havent been told

  8. 8
    levon says:

    what a joke of a question even if it's not laughable……it'll neva be ova ova! there. just pandering to antiwarseniments for votes.

  9. 9
    Roman Barna says:

    So you really believe that wars are fought because of ideals such as democracy?

    Haven't you elarned anything from history? Wars have and always will be about power and resources… Not ideals.

  10. 10
    Bernie says:

    The \mission\ of overthrowing the Iraqi government and executing its dictator is accomplished. For the rest it reminds me of the movie \Apocalypse Now\ where the NCO in charge of the US military boat (the chief) insists on stopping and searching a farmer's boat. One guy freaks out and shoots everyone with a 50 caliber machine gun. One partially survives and the chief wants to change the mission and take her to the hospital. The Captain, whose mission was supposed to be paramount, then shoots her and says \I told you not to stop\.

    The narrator's comment: It's a way we had over here for living with ourselves. We cut 'em in half with a machine gun and give 'em a Band-Aid. It was a lie. And the more I saw them, the more I hated lies.



Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Related Articles


History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer
HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
STAY CONNECTED WITH US
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
Weider History Group

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer! | StreamHistory.com
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2013 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy