Having been part of the invasion, there wasn't a well defined plan to administer the country and we were flying by the seat of our pants. Additionally, the direct partners of the CPA within the military were lacking in training and doctrine, many comprised of reserve troops that lacked the discipline, vision and fortitude to plan and enact strategic decisions in a complex and fluid environment. Additionally, much of this was centralized and secretive with specific decisions on how to engage the general public at company level lacking in detail and speed resulting security goals out weighing strategic ones. Maneuver warfare was expected to last two to three months with the expectation that land would be taken slowly and a plan would evolve behind the front lines. The failure was due in no small part the the speed of success.
@captainskywalker4965 The invasion was the result of military planning. Post invasion was civilian planning. There is a clear shift in ownership of vision and policy that occurred yet few outside of those that were party to it understand when or how that happened.
no that's a faliure... doing a plan with a certaintude of a disaster is a failure of invasion... it's like you wasted all that money on nothing an actual sucessful invasion would have required a lot more support, and they didn't have that because they lied about the reason for going to Iraq in the first place
Seaparting the two was the major part of the failure. Literally every intelligent person knew the attack would be easy and the occupation difficult, and Rumsfeld waved the concerns away ("It'll be just like Germany 1945"). Cheered on by Fox News and rabidly vengeful US citizens, the smart people were kicked out of the decision-making process. In hindsight, just a milestone on the path to the reign of stupidity that is US democracy.
@@kasha.x maybe you misunderstood the comment. By invasion, the commenter likely means the first few weeks of the operation. The Iraqi national army retreated, left their jobs, surrendered, or were wounded/killed. So those first few weeks were “successful” in terms of forcing the end of another ARMY. Sunnis who felt alienated and at risk of persecution, started what you described as a “valiant” resistance fight. Later.
@@كرارمحمد-ح7ل9ش it is because ot was waste of money and nothing gotten good for them. Even trump said it was a waste and unnecessary. Unless you are a bot....
@@كرارمحمد-ح7ل9ش ياهو ضحك عليك ابني؟ No it’s not, we were killed by a war crime just because the prices of gas were too hight in the us, there was no reason of attack other than personal benefit, we of course rejected saddam but it was our problem to fix our way, not to destroy every single home and kill every single civilian and sign every single paper to give oil and oil sites to the us for free just because they “freed us”
Yeh arab spring after decade imagine they mostly focus on afghanistan let iraq alone then isis and al qaida influence never spread in Iraq there is no isis situations happen syria also saddam will gone Iraqi people in arab spring
It wasn't a blunder, it was the goal. Bush got reelected, and his friends at Boeing, Lockheed, and Haliburton (as well as dozens of other contractors) made billions.
The invasion was against country and those army was defending it so of course they had to disband it to take the full control of the whole country why you think people call it invasion?
Am an iraqi and the joy quickly disintegrated after we experienced how bush and his appointees handled my country..iraq could of have been so much better..stronger and prosperous and true ally of USA ...now my country is being devoured by militants and terrorists for years....no doubt iraq is recovering...but its taking us 20 years ...where it should of have been just few years if its been handled well ...
As a Frenchman, I've never forgotten the wave of French bashing that followed France's opposition to the invasion, even though President Chirac was right.
We iraqis remember that and remember all the arabs who agreed on the invasion the same arabs who sent suc!de b0mbers by vest or cars every day followed by alqeda then isis and the government itself
He never said that... nor did the US choose to retain control over Iraq. It was not absorbed into the US, its citizens weren't claimed, and the US hasn't relied on Iraqi oil. Indeed, look to the countries that have benefited greatly from the Iraqi oil trade since Saddam fell, and you'll find it's often America's real rivals. Saddam Hussein was a bad man. He was a murderer who had used chemical weapons in the past (i.e. against Iran) and despite the narrative often regurgitated in popular culture, his own government's documents reveal he still planned on reviving his previously destroyed nuclear program once crippling sanctions were lifted. The Iraqi people deserved better. The thing is, learning to be a cohesive, tolerant, and secular society is an organic process. Even brutal dictatorships can't force the process in a lasting way (as demonstrated by nationalist attempts at pan-Arabism is Egypt, Syria and Iraq). All dictatorships seem to do be able to manage at best, is to impersonate a cohesive society by way of violence.
literally he never said that and no-one wanted the oil their actually... that's debunked.... you might be on the right side but please educate yourself before you have an argument with a neo con or a zionist..... you'll just embarase yourself
No no you don't get it usa won't apologise because they didn't do anything wrong they are doing what their ancestors do to the native amircans this why they still stand proud of supporting isreal, person is a copy of his friend.
@jax3695 no it is not it is Palestinian ancestors land because they are the real people of isreal not that sons of Japheth that just because they changed their religion it means they changed their race to be the real people of isreal which is the Palestinian
@@jax3695 who tould that lie that they returned when their real ancestors is not even isrealy? Question if a male say that he is woman is that make it a woman by name or woman by biology? Is the people of isreal changed their religion does this mean they are no longer a indigenous people? If sons of Japheth changed their religion to Judaism is that mean they changed their race to become the real people of isreal (which is the Palestinian)? If I tould you that there is no kingdom in that name nether god has promised them of it would you believe me? If I told you that everyone hated and refused Jewish(son of Japheth) refugees except the Muslims in middle east and north Africa would you believe me? 1881 If I told you that it is the same lie that European was saying to themselves to justify what they was doing to the native amircans as well Australia everyone make that fake excuse.
As an Iraqi you're torn between two evils :- the one is a dictator who destroyed the country for 23 years of his reign and the other is a foreign colonial force who want to remove him but with horrorible consequences of misunderstanding the country for the benefits of their global dominance as an Empire, we Iraqis suffered and we still to this day the impact of those two Evils.
The invasion eliminated one problem and theres still one problem in iraq which is the people that dont want their country to be rebuild. Have you seen kurds and how they rebuilded?
@@netalllf2329 Yes, as I said, we as a people love goodness and want to build the country, but the government is loyal, and the Kurds have reached this stage of construction and development because of their loyalty to America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and all of these want to eliminate the Shiite sect (and the discussion is long).
Moral: if you want stability and rule of law in an Arab country, don't invade it and erase the strongman dictator in charge, no matter how much vocal minorities in your own country might dislike his human rights record. He is the _only_ thing keeping the country from breaking into individual sects, groups, and tribes, all warring continuously with each other for decades until another strongman can arise and put some other minor sect in charge. Kinda makes me wonder what Syria is going to look like over the next decade. Well, not really _wonder_ . It's pretty obvious what the result is going to be.
Yep I remember my grandad explaining to me that not everyone knows what to do with democracy sometimes they do better under one strong man. Now that I’m older and gadaffi and sadam are gone look at those places now
Iraq's not too bad now, and Libya wouldn't be either if Russia weren't supporting the unrecognised government. This isn't to say that invading Iraq was worthwhile or legal, though.
A vital consideration is how the nation was created. If it's a colonial construct then of course it's going to fracture into sectarian lines at the first chance it gets. Iraq would never have been a nation organically.
@@alihasanabdullah7586same applies to africa and more nation it does nation created organically or not even Belgium literally form just buffer state between french and germany and having two language group in nation still maintain it peace among community
@alihasanabdullah7586 That's what the Islamists in Turkey and Qatar keep repeating, and it's entirely false, Iraq was established in 1920, it survived 83 years on it own despite its vast differences, all it took for sectarian violence to break out was a war against half of the planet followed by an invasion by 2 global super powers and other puppets, then regional powers fueling sectarian hate between Iraqis who once fought side by side despite their differences. You underestimate the power of propaganda.
Many blame America for the events that happened to Iraq after Saddam, but Iraq could have become a better country after Saddam, just as Germany and Japan developed after World War II, but this did not happen with Iraq because of the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries surrounding Iraq, who took a hostile position towards the Shiites after the collapse of Saddam's regime and supported extremist Sunni organizations that targeted Iraqi Shiite civilians, leading to a civil war in Iraq. This was reflected in the economy and infrastructure and weakened foreign policy. This conflict is a historical extension of the war between Shiites and Sunnis before the presence of America, and it was more bloody than the American occupation itself. Today, the American people acknowledge and apologize for the mistake of their government's invasion of Iraq, but the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries are still proud of their support for extremism in Iraq and consider what they did insufficient. They justify this by saying that it is necessary to deter Iran, even though Iran did not occupy Iraq with its army like America, and there are no Iranians in the ranks of the extremist Sunni organizations. Basically, America brought Saddam to power and then got rid of him later after he caused the loss of millions of Iraqis in his wars. However, no one talks about Saddam's dark period. Because they consider it heroic because of the genocide he committed against the Shiites of Iraq!!!
I was kind of skeptical when I saw this video at first because, generally, most Western prospectives on this war are very very limited and shallow, this one was an exception, it didn't cover everything but good enough for a 20 min video, good job. My father was one of the ppl who lost their lives in the 2006 sectarian violence, he was kidnapped and never seen again, we found some guy who was kidnapped with him, he was in a horribly state, he said that during torture they said "the guy with the blue shirt (my father) fell" he said thats the last he heard of him, he had diabetes so after we saw the state of the guy who survived, we accepted the fact that my father is long gone, sadly 2 of my relatives had the same fate. One of my cousins was also killed by the US forces, he was a civilian who was ran over by a Humvee, presumably for "sport" as it wasn't a rare occurrence, his brother joined the Mahdi Army although his family was mainly secular, he did lots of operations against US forces and keeps many trophies of tbose days although he rarely shows them to anyone, he left the militia when the fight switched from targeting the coalition to targeting Iraqis from different sects. I honestly appreciate you guys mentioning how the violence of the coalition shifted the attitude towards their existence in Iraq, western narratives usually just skip over that part or completely try to delete it from history.
لاحول ولا قوه إلى بالله الله يرحمهم ويتقبلهم من الشهداء يبدو انه لا احد يهتم للعراقيين حتى عندما أتى رئيس قوي يريد ارعاب المحيطين بالعراق كدفاع عن العراقيين اعتبر العالم هذا ممنوع يجب على العراقيين ان يبقو عبيد للصوص اما بسرقة الارض او تجربة الاسلحه علينا
Many blame America for the events that happened to Iraq after Saddam, but Iraq could have become a better country after Saddam, just as Germany and Japan developed after World War II, but this did not happen with Iraq because of the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries surrounding Iraq, who took a hostile position towards the Shiites after the collapse of Saddam's regime and supported extremist Sunni organizations that targeted Iraqi Shiite civilians, leading to a civil war in Iraq. This was reflected in the economy and infrastructure and weakened foreign policy. This conflict is a historical extension of the war between Shiites and Sunnis before the presence of America, and it was more bloody than the American occupation itself. Today, the American people acknowledge and apologize for the mistake of their government's invasion of Iraq, but the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries are still proud of their support for extremism in Iraq and consider what they did insufficient. They justify this by saying that it is necessary to deter Iran, even though Iran did not occupy Iraq with its army like America, and there are no Iranians in the ranks of the extremist Sunni organizations. Basically, America brought Saddam to power and then got rid of him later after he caused the loss of millions of Iraqis in his wars. However, no one talks about Saddam's dark period. Because they consider it heroic because of the genocide he committed against the Shiites of Iraq!!!
@@علومآلمحمد The circumstances in WW2 were extremely different from the Iraq War, the US had little to no intention on building Iraq as much as they did to West Germany or Japan, you have to understand that the reason why the US felt the need to rebuild these 2 countries was mainly so they don't fall for COMMUNISM, it was during the cold War so very different scenarios. In the case of Iraq, the US needed a destabilized Iraq so it can justify prolonged military existence on Iraqi soil, because the core of the conflict was natural resources and the strategic geography of Iraq, and I agree about the hostile stance that neighboring Muslim countries took towards Iraq, especially the Arabs, but I disagree about Iran's role because just like the Sunnis they played a very critical role in crippling Iraq, an infamous militia called "Badr" took the role of taking revenge on the vulnerable Iraqi pilots scientists generals bankers business owners etc after the regime collapsed, I'm a shiaa myself and my relative who was a pilot had multiple assassination attempts made on him by Iranian proxies, he was imprisoned by the baath party and discharged for not complying with orders to attack civilians during the 1991 intifada, yet they still targeted him because for Iran it's not about sect but rather revenge and they brag about it to this day. Iraq found itself in a very unfortunate position after the invasion, everyone wanted to play the divide and conquer game in Iraq and the varying demographics in Iraq made that game much easier, the US itself relied on it by making sure Iraqis know that they're divided by forming a government that gave senior positions on sectarian bases rather than qualifications, Iraq cannot succeed if it keeps going down the same sectarian route, nationalism is a better concept for Iraq like that was promoted during Abd Al-Kareem Qassim's 1958 revolution, but thats merely my opinion.
@@leoniduvarov6565 you mean it was a "danger" to Israel, right? So... folloeing your logic... if a country is a danger to other ones interests its OK to invade it, right?
@ Yeah Israel is our friend. Is it morally okay… idk. All I know is that personally it’s what I’d do, I protect my friends if it’s reasonable. Also it’s literally what all nations have done throughout history…. So it’s nothing new. But of course I wish violence, war and invasions never happened. Unfortunately there are enemies in the world.
not that it will never work, for reference, I am Lebanese, I hold this belief that the middle east is sociologically at least 500 years behind Europe, meaning, whatever you see in Europe now, you'll see in the middle east after 500 years, 500 years ago Europe was ruled by monarchies, a lot of which (like the Holy Roman Empire for example) could have been considered tribal, the concept of a nation state also did not exist back then in Europe (just as it does not exist today in the Middle East).
@unkouwnfigure2746 The middle east isn't "500 years behind Europe". There is a direct connection between standard of living and acceptance , It is entirely the fault of colonialism and imperialism that the standard of living in global south countries is so low (Global south meaning countries oppressed and abused by colonialists and imperialists) Your wording makes it sound like the Middle east is just naturally behind and tribal in its beliefs and culture by comparison, Which is definitely not the case.
i was a US soldier and I was welcomed. Iraq war gave woman the right to vote for the first time and now they have a democratically elected (Kurdish) president instead of a brutal dictator. This video is pro china/google rhetoric
I know many Chaldean Christians from Iraq who have emigrated and moved to San Diego, California. They said their life was good when Saddam was in power with no State persecution at all-not that they liked him at all. Perhaps his problem was with the Shia and not religious but because the Shia were close to Iran another Shia state.
Christians emigrated from Iraq not because of the Shiites, but because the extremist Sunni Al-Qaeda organization led by the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi blew up the main church for Christians in Baghdad, called the Church of the Resurrection, because the Sunnis felt resentment at the return of freedom for the Shiites to practice their religious rituals, and they wanted to ignite the entire country and transfer the conflict to the rest of the sects. This was one of the incidents that prompted Christians to emigrate from Iraq. As for their relief during the time of Saddam, it was not because he was a good person, but the Shiites did not target Christians during his time or after him because their Shiite religion prevents them from targeting the beliefs and freedoms of others.
I think the main reason they didn't like the Coalition is because you invaded their country... That being said, not having a major Muslim country as an invasion ally really didn't help. And then, everything mentioned in the video just made everything worse.
Frankly, I think the invasion went astoundingly well. Heavier resistance was expected, and the conventional war was over swiftly. It was in the administration of the country, and through a poor understanding of sectarianism in Iraq, that things went ary; allowing various indurgencies to blossom.
"The bomb in my garden" is a fine book by Mahdi Obeidii, that tells another story about how Saddam wasn´t stupid. MAHDI OBEIDI oversaw Saddam's top-secret centrifuge program and later became director-general of Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization. The few remaining components and plans for the uranium-enriching centrifuge that he voluntarily turned over to the United States during the war still represent the largest collection of evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Also available on Google-books. Saddam wasn´t stupid. He had no bomb, but everything close and easy to assemble quickly.
False information The iraqi nuclear program and the facility was bombed by israel in the 80’s and no new attempts have even been made since The UN ordered saddam to stop the nuclear program in 1991 and he agreed Iraq had a crippling electricity crisis throughout the 90’s and if the nuclear program actually existed it would’ve been a great source of energy Also multiple US officials straight up admitted that there was no WMD The only thing that existed were chemical weapons which was purchased from Nato countries like Germany and Holland and allegedly the US You know who actually used WMDs? The same coalition that invaded iraq in 2003 Britain and US both used chemical weapons like white phosphorus in falluja and the results were catastrophic
I understand this probably more of a british focused channel and mainly focused on the broad history of a conflict that ocured 20 years ago but a lot of key information is missing. Part of the public preception turning on the war had to do with the fact no WMDs had been found and that was the key lie to sell the conflict to the american and british public. It also fails to mention that american military command had not actually had their original plans for occupation implemented. Secretary of Defense for the US at the time vetoed the military's request of 300k US troops to contribute to the coailition and occupation and instead went with half that number. That was also the same genius that approved the disolution of the baath party and the Iraqi army.
i respect that this chanel has imperial in its name. i come here for the imperialist perspective. thanks for that, hope this helps to jail all imperialists in the future.
This is the most white washed take on this I’ve seen so far aside from official imperial propaganda, please watch something else for your information on this topic
I guess the US led coalition didn’t think to look to history or they could have had a much easier time of it potentially. All they had to do was look to post WWII West Germany for a blueprint. Those Generals realized very quickly that by dismissing ALL government workers who had been members of the Nazi party or been in the Military, they would have had no one to run the party so barred only SS and higher tier workers who were Nazis and these were the worker bees who knew the system. By doing this, civil society was able to get on with the job of running towns, courts, law enforcement fairly quickly. I don’t know why this was not followed by the Coalition in Iraqs case but I suspect it had to do with Islamophobia since it was right after 9/11 and emotions were still high. George W. Bush, KNEW there were NO weapons of mass destruction and ONLY went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein had evaded and embarrassed his father when he was President.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It doesn't leave a good taste in the mouth but you can't simply fire the entire civil service and army because they were working for a dictator. It means that you will have some bad apples left in positions of power, like when German police forces had Nazi officers well after the war - but the alternative is the complete collapse of the country.
Denazification was overstated, so someone with a casual understanding of history would think that Germany was occupied, denazified and democratised. As you say, though, there was in fact a lot of rehabilitation. It was only when the next generation of West Germans reached university age that West Germany came to terms with its past, while in East Germany, there was no such movement.
@@annehersey9895 anything talking about historical stuff on RUclips is often censored, not willingly but because their algorithm for checking comments is way too strict.
I can give two reasons why the Iraqi people's resistance occurred. First and foremost: Christians invaded Muslim lands. Second: Ba'ath Party members had truly unique rights and enjoyed unique privileges in the society which made them devoted to the former social order. Realizing the loss of those rights in a matter of months made them unhappy with the attack.
Not only the Americas, but the Syrians learnt a thing or two in this too. Which is why Syrian regime bureaucrats largely stayed in their jobs and entities were preserved
The incompetence and missteps of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and its administrator Paul Bremer, after the toppling of Saddam, was breathtaking.
Dude it wasn't mistake the usa said it everything was intentionally amd they are proud of it and you here say it was mistake ..you give those criminal favour as they never used to this
@@f4wnz132 Wrong. Shias are 65% to 70% in Iraq if we include Kurds. Also all Kurds are not Sunnis. Most sources say that Shias in Iraq is 70%. Sunni percentage in Iraq is less than that.
It's simple: Listen to your generals. Don't give the generals a job that the military can't do. And the ultimate problem is the lack of political will, in the US and the UK, to actually work diligently, honestly and with open ears until the country is stabilized. Even when it takes 15 years or more. Rebuilding Germany from its Nazi ruins was wildly successful - because the West absolutely had to ensure success. Western Germany was in a sort of competition with the Eastern Bloc countries.
"Our bad but thankfully Iraq is no longer corrupt and all is now well, you're welcome" - average American Or "Iraq? O yea that country we invaded, forgot that place existed" - Average American
Spot on They really just go along whatever their state shoves down their throats, the trend from the Obama administration upwards was to just pretend it didn't happen at all, then they try to shape it as "the middle east keeps making problems" problems that the Americans started 20 years ago because they voted for a warmonger.
I am an Iraqi born in 2006 my father sent me when I was 14 to Afghanistan with the children of my relatives I studied there for 4 years and I knew what America did in my country One day we will take your dearest
It's unfortunate that the coalition didn't learn from history. When Germany surrendered after WW2, the allied coalition quickly realised that in order to keep the country from further disintegration and get it back on the road to recovery, the profound cultural and language barrier had to be overcome. The only logical solution was to restore the civil service and infrastructure control to the Nazis. While this raised a lot of objections, there really was no other way in the short to medium term. They had the know-how. Efforts were made to screen appointees for criminal behaviour. However most Germans had joined the Nazi party for their own personal security, not because of ideology, so they were basically safe hands. The result was that within 15 years of the end of the war, Germany - a country that had been smashed flat - emerged as the leading manufacturer and economy in Europe as well as a stable democracy. In Iraq however, the coalition seemed to have done the opposite, sacking and barring all of those former administrators and disavowing them from future office whilst wholly unable to offer a viable alternative. Not surprisingly, everything fell apart...
Yep. Plus, the frenzy from US and Russian mainstream media supporting the invasion was more or less identical. The only practical difference between Fox News in 2003 and Rossiya1 in 2023 is the language.
Situation very different us invasion of iraq is good us troop get less casualties but problem they topple saddam they suck to rebuild the whole nation literally samble the whole institution ( by removing all govt official in every sector and disband the army ) turn population more tribalism spread chaos among and new extremist come we see isia stuff
Many blame America for the events that happened to Iraq after Saddam, but Iraq could have become a better country after Saddam, just as Germany and Japan developed after World War II, but this did not happen with Iraq because of the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries surrounding Iraq, who took a hostile position towards the Shiites after the collapse of Saddam's regime and supported extremist Sunni organizations that targeted Iraqi Shiite civilians, leading to a civil war in Iraq. This was reflected in the economy and infrastructure and weakened foreign policy. This conflict is a historical extension of the war between Shiites and Sunnis before the presence of America, and it was more bloody than the American occupation itself. Today, the American people acknowledge and apologize for the mistake of their government's invasion of Iraq, but the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries are still proud of their support for extremism in Iraq and consider what they did insufficient. They justify this by saying that it is necessary to deter Iran, even though Iran did not occupy Iraq with its army like America, and there are no Iranians in the ranks of the extremist Sunni organizations. Basically, America brought Saddam to power and then got rid of him later after he caused the loss of millions of Iraqis in his wars. However, no one talks about Saddam's dark period. Because they consider it heroic because of the genocide he committed against the Shiites of Iraq!!!
The mistake was the West getting involved at all, Strong Borders on the the EU Frontier and USA with a non involvement strategy would have been vastly beneficial.
Yep, but you forget that the US/EU citizens interest are not what guides the elites promoting these wars but profit for the mega corporations or the security of Israel.
Saddam was a bad guy, but he knew how to control his country. After he was toppled, Iraq went into chaos, and as a result Iran's position was strengthened as they now have a foothold inside of Iraq with their proxy forces and within the Iraqi government. Saddam during the 1980s was friends with the US. There's a video of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Saddam kept his country in order and he kept Iran in check too. His toppling led to the chaos in the region and the creation of IS/daesh.
I can see George Bush watching this and thinking, “I don’t care about all this fancy-shmancy academic stuff. Saddam was bad, so getting rid of him was good. Nothing else matters.”
If the purpose was to leave the country in turmoil then this is how to occupy a country, which I argue was the purpose of it so primarily Israel would benefit from a weakened neighbour, the premise of this analogy is wrong as it implies there was some form of ‘wellbeing’ for the million dead in Iraq.
The U.S. and its allies had over 500,000 soldiers + air and naval power in Viet Nam in the late 60s - early 70s. That was not enough to stop the insurgency in the south or the PAVN in the north. Why would only 170,000 soldiers be enough to defeat Saddam's regime, provide security nation-wide until elections and after, and train new Iraqi recruits?
Starmer has just sent £500 millions to Syria to help regeneration in the wake of Al Assad's departure. Numerous irregular groups are now disputing who shall become the rightful rulers. Talk about throwing petrol on a fire. Thank you Kier, a wonderful act of statesmanship.
Bush repeatedly referenced the successful occupations of Germany and Japan, and then promptly ignored all the lessons (if he and Cheney even really knew what they were.)
It’s already amazes me that nobody brings up Kurds in these kinds of videos?. In Iraqi Kurdistan unlike the rest of Iraq the KDP and PUK peshmerga was never disbanded leading to greater security in the northern regions.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Title could've been, How NOT to administer/rebuild a country after invasion.
Yeah the West has a history of 'screwing the landing' when it comes to the rebuild program. Been that way for a very long time sadly.
Having been part of the invasion, there wasn't a well defined plan to administer the country and we were flying by the seat of our pants. Additionally, the direct partners of the CPA within the military were lacking in training and doctrine, many comprised of reserve troops that lacked the discipline, vision and fortitude to plan and enact strategic decisions in a complex and fluid environment. Additionally, much of this was centralized and secretive with specific decisions on how to engage the general public at company level lacking in detail and speed resulting security goals out weighing strategic ones. Maneuver warfare was expected to last two to three months with the expectation that land would be taken slowly and a plan would evolve behind the front lines. The failure was due in no small part the the speed of success.
It was bad invasion. Nothing become better after invasion. Last resort, reconstruction…
@captainskywalker4965 The invasion was the result of military planning. Post invasion was civilian planning. There is a clear shift in ownership of vision and policy that occurred yet few outside of those that were party to it understand when or how that happened.
Or, "don't expect to impose the 21st century on tribalism."
The invasion itself was pretty successful. The following administration of the country was where the issues arose.
the invasion was a failure the Iraqis were so valint against the crusaders .
no that's a faliure... doing a plan with a certaintude of a disaster is a failure of invasion... it's like you wasted all that money on nothing
an actual sucessful invasion would have required a lot more support, and they didn't have that because they lied about the reason for going to Iraq in the first place
Seaparting the two was the major part of the failure. Literally every intelligent person knew the attack would be easy and the occupation difficult, and Rumsfeld waved the concerns away ("It'll be just like Germany 1945"). Cheered on by Fox News and rabidly vengeful US citizens, the smart people were kicked out of the decision-making process.
In hindsight, just a milestone on the path to the reign of stupidity that is US democracy.
@@kasha.x the US lost more in the occupation afterwards than during the actual invasion
@@kasha.x maybe you misunderstood the comment. By invasion, the commenter likely means the first few weeks of the operation. The Iraqi national army retreated, left their jobs, surrendered, or were wounded/killed. So those first few weeks were “successful” in terms of forcing the end of another ARMY. Sunnis who felt alienated and at risk of persecution, started what you described as a “valiant” resistance fight. Later.
This war was a crime.
لا ليس كذلك الحرية الديمقراطية لا تقدر بثمن 🇮🇶❤️
@@كرارمحمد-ح7ل9ش the us doesn't care about democracy
@@كرارمحمد-ح7ل9ش it is because ot was waste of money and nothing gotten good for them. Even trump said it was a waste and unnecessary.
Unless you are a bot....
@@كرارمحمد-ح7ل9ش ياهو ضحك عليك ابني؟
No it’s not, we were killed by a war crime just because the prices of gas were too hight in the us, there was no reason of attack other than personal benefit, we of course rejected saddam but it was our problem to fix our way, not to destroy every single home and kill every single civilian and sign every single paper to give oil and oil sites to the us for free just because they “freed us”
@@كرارمحمد-ح7ل9ش haq lil iraq wa shia’t iraq❤️
How not to lie to invade a country.
Who did 9/11? Oh
@@InfinityHS definitely not the Iraqies.
@@StoicLibertarian Right , the entire Middle East
@@InfinityHSUSA
@@InfinityHSthe country itself did it to their people and blame others as any other country
At least we made Dick Cheney lots of money
Defund Ukraine
@@Coolidge2329 Fund Ukraine
@@transcendentmoose8750 yea I’m convinced this was by design. The longer the occupation went on the more contracts were given to Bushes cronies
@@transcendentmoose8750 Then there is the irony of Dick Cheney calling Trump evil
They should just not have invaded Iraq as France warned, the result is just a huge catastrophe not only for Iraq but for the whole région and upon
Iraq should never have been invaded in the first place. Big blunder by Bush.
@DanH-u3f and based on lies. Bush should be in jail for war crimes, mass fraud and treason.
Yeh arab spring after decade imagine they mostly focus on afghanistan let iraq alone then isis and al qaida influence never spread in Iraq there is no isis situations happen syria also saddam will gone Iraqi people in arab spring
Ah yes the famous “accidental invasion” where a million Iraiqs lost their lived.
Whoopsie, small blunder for Bush
It wasn't a blunder, it was the goal. Bush got reelected, and his friends at Boeing, Lockheed, and Haliburton (as well as dozens of other contractors) made billions.
It's always the funny blunder or mistake. Was Germany's action in WW2 blunders and mistakes too? Millions got game overed big blunder hibbler
There was no need to disband the whole army
The army is the country army.
The invasion is came to kill the country so what they need from who protect it?
The invasion was against country and those army was defending it so of course they had to disband it to take the full control of the whole country why you think people call it invasion?
Am an iraqi and the joy quickly disintegrated after we experienced how bush and his appointees handled my country..iraq could of have been so much better..stronger and prosperous and true ally of USA ...now my country is being devoured by militants and terrorists for years....no doubt iraq is recovering...but its taking us 20 years ...where it should of have been just few years if its been handled well ...
قتلو مليون عراقي و أنتا تبي تصير حليف معهم 😂😂
not even possible... that you believe what we said was possible is a shame.... we didn't even have a fraction of the manpower or resources to do that
تره همه ما حرروك لسواد عيونك همه حرروك من صدام و استعبدوا البلد ويه ايران فلا تتلوك
Why the heck would u wish to become an ally of the US???😂😂😂
الامريكان هم اوصلوا صدام للسلطة ثم تخلصوا منه لاحقا @@Yusuf-Mohammed
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a crime.
The government of Saddam was legitimate?
BTW, how's the weather in Moscow?
@@SK-lt1so pretty good? thanks for asking bro
@@SK-lt1so bad logic, dude.
@@Burhanontheranch
Says every despot and their parrots...
@@SK-lt1so everyone knows you're uneducated now
As a Frenchman, I've never forgotten the wave of French bashing that followed France's opposition to the invasion, even though President Chirac was right.
You should not forget. Unforgivable.
We iraqis remember that and remember all the arabs who agreed on the invasion the same arabs who sent suc!de b0mbers by vest or cars every day followed by alqeda then isis and the government itself
Petty Americans named French fries too Freedom fries lol 😂😭
My desert, my Iraqis, my crude
George W. Bush, 2003
He never said that... nor did the US choose to retain control over Iraq. It was not absorbed into the US, its citizens weren't claimed, and the US hasn't relied on Iraqi oil.
Indeed, look to the countries that have benefited greatly from the Iraqi oil trade since Saddam fell, and you'll find it's often America's real rivals. Saddam Hussein was a bad man.
He was a murderer who had used chemical weapons in the past (i.e. against Iran) and despite the narrative often regurgitated in popular culture, his own government's documents reveal he still planned on reviving his previously destroyed nuclear program once crippling sanctions were lifted. The Iraqi people deserved better.
The thing is, learning to be a cohesive, tolerant, and secular society is an organic process. Even brutal dictatorships can't force the process in a lasting way (as demonstrated by nationalist attempts at pan-Arabism is Egypt, Syria and Iraq). All dictatorships seem to do be able to manage at best, is to impersonate a cohesive society by way of violence.
Operation Iraqi Liberation. OIL as seen on the TV trailers and logos :)
literally he never said that and no-one wanted the oil their actually... that's debunked.... you might be on the right side but please educate yourself before you have an argument with a neo con or a zionist..... you'll just embarase yourself
A lethal combination of hubris and ignorance. That's what went wrong.
No no you don't get it usa won't apologise because they didn't do anything wrong they are doing what their ancestors do to the native amircans this why they still stand proud of supporting isreal, person is a copy of his friend.
@@taj3968 except Israel’s land is literally their ancestral land. They are the literal natives to the land stolen from them.
@jax3695 no it is not it is Palestinian ancestors land because they are the real people of isreal not that sons of Japheth that just because they changed their religion it means they changed their race to be the real people of isreal which is the Palestinian
@@jax3695 who tould that lie that they returned when their real ancestors is not even isrealy? Question if a male say that he is woman is that make it a woman by name or woman by biology? Is the people of isreal changed their religion does this mean they are no longer a indigenous people? If sons of Japheth changed their religion to Judaism is that mean they changed their race to become the real people of isreal (which is the Palestinian)? If I tould you that there is no kingdom in that name nether god has promised them of it would you believe me?
If I told you that everyone hated and refused Jewish(son of Japheth) refugees except the Muslims in middle east and north Africa would you believe me? 1881
If I told you that it is the same lie that European was saying to themselves to justify what they was doing to the native amircans as well Australia everyone make that fake excuse.
@@jax3695 if history and DNA evidence is not enough for you how about you listen to some song such is "palastinalied" that was Crusades massacre sing
As an Iraqi you're torn between two evils :- the one is a dictator who destroyed the country for 23 years of his reign and the other is a foreign colonial force who want to remove him but with horrorible consequences of misunderstanding the country for the benefits of their global dominance as an Empire, we Iraqis suffered and we still to this day the impact of those two Evils.
Where were the WMDs again?
They're still looking for them Lol.
In the minds of GOP-appointed officials.
The logic behind it is so dumb as well. Why not invade Russia too than? Since they also have weapons of mass destruction.
@@erhansolhan9564 or the usa....
The invasion eliminated one problem and created a thousand problems to this day.
The invasion eliminated one problem and theres still one problem in iraq which is the people that dont want their country to be rebuild. Have you seen kurds and how they rebuilded?
@@netalllf2329
Yes, as I said, we as a people love goodness and want to build the country, but the government is loyal, and the Kurds have reached this stage of construction and development because of their loyalty to America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and all of these want to eliminate the Shiite sect (and the discussion is long).
@@netalllf2329I’ve been to both, they’re both developed good.
Kurds rebuilt faster because the war didn't affect them as much @@netalllf2329
@@netalllf2329 The Iraqis began building their country, and Baghdad was chosen as the capital of the Arabs Tourism 2025
Moral: if you want stability and rule of law in an Arab country, don't invade it and erase the strongman dictator in charge, no matter how much vocal minorities in your own country might dislike his human rights record. He is the _only_ thing keeping the country from breaking into individual sects, groups, and tribes, all warring continuously with each other for decades until another strongman can arise and put some other minor sect in charge.
Kinda makes me wonder what Syria is going to look like over the next decade. Well, not really _wonder_ . It's pretty obvious what the result is going to be.
Yep I remember my grandad explaining to me that not everyone knows what to do with democracy sometimes they do better under one strong man. Now that I’m older and gadaffi and sadam are gone look at those places now
Iraq's not too bad now, and Libya wouldn't be either if Russia weren't supporting the unrecognised government.
This isn't to say that invading Iraq was worthwhile or legal, though.
A vital consideration is how the nation was created.
If it's a colonial construct then of course it's going to fracture into sectarian lines at the first chance it gets. Iraq would never have been a nation organically.
@@alihasanabdullah7586same applies to africa and more nation it does nation created organically or not even Belgium literally form just buffer state between french and germany and having two language group in nation still maintain it peace among community
@alihasanabdullah7586 That's what the Islamists in Turkey and Qatar keep repeating, and it's entirely false, Iraq was established in 1920, it survived 83 years on it own despite its vast differences, all it took for sectarian violence to break out was a war against half of the planet followed by an invasion by 2 global super powers and other puppets, then regional powers fueling sectarian hate between Iraqis who once fought side by side despite their differences. You underestimate the power of propaganda.
You have a mis-speak at 1:13, the narrator says East of the country when it's the west referenced
You'll get over it
@@JG-ib7xkwell it wasn’t about irritation but about letting them know. Don’t assume the worst.
Many blame America for the events that happened to Iraq after Saddam, but Iraq could have become a better country after Saddam, just as Germany and Japan developed after World War II, but this did not happen with Iraq because of the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries surrounding Iraq, who took a hostile position towards the Shiites after the collapse of Saddam's regime and supported extremist Sunni organizations that targeted Iraqi Shiite civilians, leading to a civil war in Iraq. This was reflected in the economy and infrastructure and weakened foreign policy. This conflict is a historical extension of the war between Shiites and Sunnis before the presence of America, and it was more bloody than the American occupation itself. Today, the American people acknowledge and apologize for the mistake of their government's invasion of Iraq, but the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries are still proud of their support for extremism in Iraq and consider what they did insufficient. They justify this by saying that it is necessary to deter Iran, even though Iran did not occupy Iraq with its army like America, and there are no Iranians in the ranks of the extremist Sunni organizations. Basically, America brought Saddam to power and then got rid of him later after he caused the loss of millions of Iraqis in his wars. However, no one talks about Saddam's dark period. Because they consider it heroic because of the genocide he committed against the Shiites of Iraq!!!
"Mission Accomplished"
...Yeahhhh. about that.
I was kind of skeptical when I saw this video at first because, generally, most Western prospectives on this war are very very limited and shallow, this one was an exception, it didn't cover everything but good enough for a 20 min video, good job.
My father was one of the ppl who lost their lives in the 2006 sectarian violence, he was kidnapped and never seen again, we found some guy who was kidnapped with him, he was in a horribly state, he said that during torture they said "the guy with the blue shirt (my father) fell" he said thats the last he heard of him, he had diabetes so after we saw the state of the guy who survived, we accepted the fact that my father is long gone, sadly 2 of my relatives had the same fate.
One of my cousins was also killed by the US forces, he was a civilian who was ran over by a Humvee, presumably for "sport" as it wasn't a rare occurrence, his brother joined the Mahdi Army although his family was mainly secular, he did lots of operations against US forces and keeps many trophies of tbose days although he rarely shows them to anyone, he left the militia when the fight switched from targeting the coalition to targeting Iraqis from different sects. I honestly appreciate you guys mentioning how the violence of the coalition shifted the attitude towards their existence in Iraq, western narratives usually just skip over that part or completely try to delete it from history.
لاحول ولا قوه إلى بالله الله يرحمهم ويتقبلهم من الشهداء يبدو انه لا احد يهتم للعراقيين حتى عندما أتى رئيس قوي يريد ارعاب المحيطين بالعراق كدفاع عن العراقيين اعتبر العالم هذا ممنوع يجب على العراقيين ان يبقو عبيد للصوص اما بسرقة الارض او تجربة الاسلحه علينا
Many blame America for the events that happened to Iraq after Saddam, but Iraq could have become a better country after Saddam, just as Germany and Japan developed after World War II, but this did not happen with Iraq because of the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries surrounding Iraq, who took a hostile position towards the Shiites after the collapse of Saddam's regime and supported extremist Sunni organizations that targeted Iraqi Shiite civilians, leading to a civil war in Iraq. This was reflected in the economy and infrastructure and weakened foreign policy. This conflict is a historical extension of the war between Shiites and Sunnis before the presence of America, and it was more bloody than the American occupation itself. Today, the American people acknowledge and apologize for the mistake of their government's invasion of Iraq, but the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries are still proud of their support for extremism in Iraq and consider what they did insufficient. They justify this by saying that it is necessary to deter Iran, even though Iran did not occupy Iraq with its army like America, and there are no Iranians in the ranks of the extremist Sunni organizations. Basically, America brought Saddam to power and then got rid of him later after he caused the loss of millions of Iraqis in his wars. However, no one talks about Saddam's dark period. Because they consider it heroic because of the genocide he committed against the Shiites of Iraq!!!
امريكا هي التي اوصلت صدام للحكم
@@taj3968
@@علومآلمحمد The circumstances in WW2 were extremely different from the Iraq War, the US had little to no intention on building Iraq as much as they did to West Germany or Japan, you have to understand that the reason why the US felt the need to rebuild these 2 countries was mainly so they don't fall for COMMUNISM, it was during the cold War so very different scenarios. In the case of Iraq, the US needed a destabilized Iraq so it can justify prolonged military existence on Iraqi soil, because the core of the conflict was natural resources and the strategic geography of Iraq, and I agree about the hostile stance that neighboring Muslim countries took towards Iraq, especially the Arabs, but I disagree about Iran's role because just like the Sunnis they played a very critical role in crippling Iraq, an infamous militia called "Badr" took the role of taking revenge on the vulnerable Iraqi pilots scientists generals bankers business owners etc after the regime collapsed, I'm a shiaa myself and my relative who was a pilot had multiple assassination attempts made on him by Iranian proxies, he was imprisoned by the baath party and discharged for not complying with orders to attack civilians during the 1991 intifada, yet they still targeted him because for Iran it's not about sect but rather revenge and they brag about it to this day. Iraq found itself in a very unfortunate position after the invasion, everyone wanted to play the divide and conquer game in Iraq and the varying demographics in Iraq made that game much easier, the US itself relied on it by making sure Iraqis know that they're divided by forming a government that gave senior positions on sectarian bases rather than qualifications, Iraq cannot succeed if it keeps going down the same sectarian route, nationalism is a better concept for Iraq like that was promoted during Abd Al-Kareem Qassim's 1958 revolution, but thats merely my opinion.
Why dont you begin with the question... why should you invade a nation that has cause no harm to you?
Look at who controls US foreign policy and you'll figure it out
Because Iraq was a danger to its neighbors and our Allie’s. If Saddam was more friendly, it could have turned out differently.
@@leoniduvarov6565 you mean it was a "danger" to Israel, right?
So... folloeing your logic... if a country is a danger to other ones interests its OK to invade it, right?
@ Yeah Israel is our friend. Is it morally okay… idk. All I know is that personally it’s what I’d do, I protect my friends if it’s reasonable. Also it’s literally what all nations have done throughout history…. So it’s nothing new.
But of course I wish violence, war and invasions never happened. Unfortunately there are enemies in the world.
You watch your neighbors beat their kids?
Sad person you are.
We should have never invaded, a Saudi cab driver told me democracy will never work in the Middle East because of the tribal divide.
not that it will never work, for reference, I am Lebanese, I hold this belief that the middle east is sociologically at least 500 years behind Europe, meaning, whatever you see in Europe now, you'll see in the middle east after 500 years, 500 years ago Europe was ruled by monarchies, a lot of which (like the Holy Roman Empire for example) could have been considered tribal, the concept of a nation state also did not exist back then in Europe (just as it does not exist today in the Middle East).
@unkouwnfigure2746 The middle east isn't "500 years behind Europe". There is a direct connection between standard of living and acceptance , It is entirely the fault of colonialism and imperialism that the standard of living in global south countries is so low (Global south meaning countries oppressed and abused by colonialists and imperialists) Your wording makes it sound like the Middle east is just naturally behind and tribal in its beliefs and culture by comparison, Which is definitely not the case.
@abas656thegodemperor9 There comes a point where you must stop blaming others
@@unkouwnfigure2746 that point is when the evidence DOESN'T point towards it being their fault
@@unkouwnfigure2746The truth is the truth little bro
Why did Iraqis not welcome the invading armies?
Hmm… I wonder 🤔
i was a US soldier and I was welcomed. Iraq war gave woman the right to vote for the first time and now they have a democratically elected (Kurdish) president instead of a brutal dictator. This video is pro china/google rhetoric
Kuwait: "first time?"
They did, until they failed to keep order and maintain living standards.
@alphamikeomega5728 no they didn't you are lier
Will American's accept Chinese if they invaded US?
I know many Chaldean Christians from Iraq who have emigrated and moved to San Diego, California. They said their life was good when Saddam was in power with no State persecution at all-not that they liked him at all. Perhaps his problem was with the Shia and not religious but because the Shia were close to Iran another Shia state.
Christians emigrated from Iraq not because of the Shiites, but because the extremist Sunni Al-Qaeda organization led by the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi blew up the main church for Christians in Baghdad, called the Church of the Resurrection, because the Sunnis felt resentment at the return of freedom for the Shiites to practice their religious rituals, and they wanted to ignite the entire country and transfer the conflict to the rest of the sects. This was one of the incidents that prompted Christians to emigrate from Iraq. As for their relief during the time of Saddam, it was not because he was a good person, but the Shiites did not target Christians during his time or after him because their Shiite religion prevents them from targeting the beliefs and freedoms of others.
The Christians under saddam hussein 1.5 million..after the white ✝️ freedom and democracy they were targeted by foreign and local pisslamist
@ There’s not enough time to talk about Bush’s incompetence!
Why nobody is talking about the use of chemical weapons by the US in iraq... it led to many birth deformities and cancers
Great video, I remember this disaster from my youth and I love the critical reflection here of this disaster...
Currently, Iraq is safe and stable We hope that the war will not be repeated 2003
I think the main reason they didn't like the Coalition is because you invaded their country...
That being said, not having a major Muslim country as an invasion ally really didn't help. And then, everything mentioned in the video just made everything worse.
I really like this video. Really gives you a great historic overview, the bigger picture so to say.
As an Iraqi and I have suffered this war Terror from beginning, I say American don't come again her
First mistake, listening to the CIA
You fell short of criticizing the British war crimes in Iraq
The title should be 'why not to invade a country'.
The first mistake was invading; the second was treating it as a bloody libertarian experiment.
Frankly, I think the invasion went astoundingly well. Heavier resistance was expected, and the conventional war was over swiftly.
It was in the administration of the country, and through a poor understanding of sectarianism in Iraq, that things went ary; allowing various indurgencies to blossom.
@@aymonfoxc1442 maybe you shouldn't invade in the first place
"The bomb in my garden" is a fine book by Mahdi Obeidii, that tells another story about how Saddam wasn´t stupid. MAHDI OBEIDI oversaw Saddam's top-secret centrifuge program and later became director-general of Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization. The few remaining components and plans for the uranium-enriching centrifuge that he voluntarily turned over to the United States during the war still represent the largest collection of evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Also available on Google-books. Saddam wasn´t stupid. He had no bomb, but everything close and easy to assemble quickly.
There was no wmds period, stop for my love of God, making up nonsense
False information
The iraqi nuclear program and the facility was bombed by israel in the 80’s and no new attempts have even been made since
The UN ordered saddam to stop the nuclear program in 1991 and he agreed
Iraq had a crippling electricity crisis throughout the 90’s and if the nuclear program actually existed it would’ve been a great source of energy
Also multiple US officials straight up admitted that there was no WMD
The only thing that existed were chemical weapons which was purchased from Nato countries like Germany and Holland and allegedly the US
You know who actually used WMDs? The same coalition that invaded iraq in 2003
Britain and US both used chemical weapons like white phosphorus in falluja and the results were catastrophic
you don’t really mentioned the kurd
I understand this probably more of a british focused channel and mainly focused on the broad history of a conflict that ocured 20 years ago but a lot of key information is missing. Part of the public preception turning on the war had to do with the fact no WMDs had been found and that was the key lie to sell the conflict to the american and british public. It also fails to mention that american military command had not actually had their original plans for occupation implemented. Secretary of Defense for the US at the time vetoed the military's request of 300k US troops to contribute to the coailition and occupation and instead went with half that number. That was also the same genius that approved the disolution of the baath party and the Iraqi army.
I learned a lot from this video!
The title should be: "How not to occupy a country that you easily invaded."
You didn’t tell where they found the WMDs
All would have been well if they didn't dismiss the existing army should have only change the high command
Yeh it just boost insurgents get new recruitment from unemployed iraqi soldier
Or just how not to occupy a country period
i respect that this chanel has imperial in its name. i come here for the imperialist perspective. thanks for that, hope this helps to jail all imperialists in the future.
This is the most white washed take on this I’ve seen so far aside from official imperial propaganda, please watch something else for your information on this topic
Thank you for not using Ai voice overs, much appreciated ❤
Don't mention the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, I mentioned it just now, but I think I got away with it.
I guess the US led coalition didn’t think to look to history or they could have had a much easier time of it potentially. All they had to do was look to post WWII West Germany for a blueprint. Those Generals realized very quickly that by dismissing ALL government workers who had been members of the Nazi party or been in the Military, they would have had no one to run the party so barred only SS and higher tier workers who were Nazis and these were the worker bees who knew the system. By doing this, civil society was able to get on with the job of running towns, courts, law enforcement fairly quickly. I don’t know why this was not followed by the Coalition in Iraqs case but I suspect it had to do with Islamophobia since it was right after 9/11 and emotions were still high. George W. Bush, KNEW there were NO weapons of mass destruction and ONLY went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein had evaded and embarrassed his father when he was President.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It doesn't leave a good taste in the mouth but you can't simply fire the entire civil service and army because they were working for a dictator.
It means that you will have some bad apples left in positions of power, like when German police forces had Nazi officers well after the war - but the alternative is the complete collapse of the country.
Denazification was overstated, so someone with a casual understanding of history would think that Germany was occupied, denazified and democratised.
As you say, though, there was in fact a lot of rehabilitation. It was only when the next generation of West Germans reached university age that West Germany came to terms with its past, while in East Germany, there was no such movement.
@@annehersey9895 welp my original comment was deleted for some reason but I agree with your comment.
@@_Wombat I’m sorry it got deleted! That’s very odd. Thanks for replying though!
@@annehersey9895 anything talking about historical stuff on RUclips is often censored, not willingly but because their algorithm for checking comments is way too strict.
I can give two reasons why the Iraqi people's resistance occurred.
First and foremost: Christians invaded Muslim lands.
Second: Ba'ath Party members had truly unique rights and enjoyed unique privileges in the society which made them devoted to the former social order. Realizing the loss of those rights in a matter of months made them unhappy with the attack.
@@nima3388 The primary advocates for the invasion were not Christian.
Not only the Americas, but the Syrians learnt a thing or two in this too. Which is why Syrian regime bureaucrats largely stayed in their jobs and entities were preserved
The incompetence and missteps of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and its administrator Paul Bremer, after the toppling of Saddam, was breathtaking.
Dude it wasn't mistake the usa said it everything was intentionally amd they are proud of it and you here say it was mistake ..you give those criminal favour as they never used to this
Do you really think the iraq government was build for Iraqi intrest and happiness? Do you really know what they did to iraq after invading it?
1:09 Well, the map surely seems to show that Sunni Arabs dominated the *west*, not the east of Iraq.
now watch syria become about the same post-war 2003 Iraq
@@chooyongming110 nah Syria is very different from Iraq
Why do you think that's going to happen? The circumstances are very different.
I think Syria already finished the fked up period. But I guess we'll have to wait and see
Maybe… don’t illegally invade in the first place. None of this would’ve been an issue then, would it?
I am an iraqi, I'm very glad that the americans liberated us, whatever happened was our own fault, not just the government but the people as well.
Sunnis are not a minority, we are literally half of Iraq
😂
@@MA-lb8dq It's true. If you add up the Kurds, we are almost half and half, and we are ONE!
@@f4wnz132 Wrong. Shias are 65% to 70% in Iraq if we include Kurds. Also all Kurds are not Sunnis. Most sources say that Shias in Iraq is 70%. Sunni percentage in Iraq is less than that.
I didn't know how complicated/complex it became in Iraq.
Imagine that the Iraqis themselves do not understand what is happening in the Iraqi political arena 😂
Dud like the next election after the first one was rigged all the politicians that America brought were corrupt asf
Thanks! Ill keep it in mind🥰
Honestly wild to refer to a war against an occupying force as a civil war.
So invading was not the mistake?
Saddam was not a nice guy. Like any "war of choice" its always a subjective question.
Deposing the ruling Baath party was the mistake. Putting every educated, military trained male out of work just fuelled the insurgency
“Barely a two tier army” I hate to think what it is now
Maybe lying about the need for the war and invading would have prevented this 🤔
12 years blockade 7 of them was investigating inside Iraq ... then this
I love getting my comments censored
You mentioned our greatest ally didn't you
@@CB-so8xd are they located in the middle east?
@@CB-so8xd I've just tried it below, I guess my comment will also be cut.
@@CB-so8xd the one with the most moral army in the world
It's simple: Listen to your generals.
Don't give the generals a job that the military can't do.
And the ultimate problem is the lack of political will, in the US and the UK, to actually work diligently, honestly and with open ears until the country is stabilized. Even when it takes 15 years or more.
Rebuilding Germany from its Nazi ruins was wildly successful - because the West absolutely had to ensure success. Western Germany was in a sort of competition with the Eastern Bloc countries.
"Our bad but thankfully Iraq is no longer corrupt and all is now well, you're welcome" - average American
Or
"Iraq? O yea that country we invaded, forgot that place existed" - Average American
Spot on
They really just go along whatever their state shoves down their throats, the trend from the Obama administration upwards was to just pretend it didn't happen at all, then they try to shape it as "the middle east keeps making problems" problems that the Americans started 20 years ago because they voted for a warmonger.
I am an Iraqi born in 2006 my father sent me when I was 14 to Afghanistan with the children of my relatives I studied there for 4 years and I knew what America did in my country One day we will take your dearest
Idiocy. A good way to ensure the middle east is invaded even more. Al Queda only furthered American invasions into Muslim countries, and so will you.
How many videos with this title need to be made 🙄
Just don't occupy in general
It's unfortunate that the coalition didn't learn from history. When Germany surrendered after WW2, the allied coalition quickly realised that in order to keep the country from further disintegration and get it back on the road to recovery, the profound cultural and language barrier had to be overcome. The only logical solution was to restore the civil service and infrastructure control to the Nazis. While this raised a lot of objections, there really was no other way in the short to medium term. They had the know-how. Efforts were made to screen appointees for criminal behaviour. However most Germans had joined the Nazi party for their own personal security, not because of ideology, so they were basically safe hands. The result was that within 15 years of the end of the war, Germany - a country that had been smashed flat - emerged as the leading manufacturer and economy in Europe as well as a stable democracy. In Iraq however, the coalition seemed to have done the opposite, sacking and barring all of those former administrators and disavowing them from future office whilst wholly unable to offer a viable alternative. Not surprisingly, everything fell apart...
Last resort, just cause, proportionality. There was no ethics in this invasion.
It seems the first problem with the Iraq invasion was the same problem the Russians had during the start of the Ukraine war: not enough manpower.
Yep. Plus, the frenzy from US and Russian mainstream media supporting the invasion was more or less identical. The only practical difference between Fox News in 2003 and Rossiya1 in 2023 is the language.
Situation very different us invasion of iraq is good us troop get less casualties but problem they topple saddam they suck to rebuild the whole nation literally samble the whole institution ( by removing all govt official in every sector and disband the army ) turn population more tribalism spread chaos among and new extremist come we see isia stuff
Alright friend of of mine was in Fallujah after the battle, he was a crew chief and saw combat there
Many blame America for the events that happened to Iraq after Saddam, but Iraq could have become a better country after Saddam, just as Germany and Japan developed after World War II, but this did not happen with Iraq because of the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries surrounding Iraq, who took a hostile position towards the Shiites after the collapse of Saddam's regime and supported extremist Sunni organizations that targeted Iraqi Shiite civilians, leading to a civil war in Iraq. This was reflected in the economy and infrastructure and weakened foreign policy. This conflict is a historical extension of the war between Shiites and Sunnis before the presence of America, and it was more bloody than the American occupation itself. Today, the American people acknowledge and apologize for the mistake of their government's invasion of Iraq, but the Sunnis in Iraq and the Arab countries are still proud of their support for extremism in Iraq and consider what they did insufficient. They justify this by saying that it is necessary to deter Iran, even though Iran did not occupy Iraq with its army like America, and there are no Iranians in the ranks of the extremist Sunni organizations. Basically, America brought Saddam to power and then got rid of him later after he caused the loss of millions of Iraqis in his wars. However, no one talks about Saddam's dark period. Because they consider it heroic because of the genocide he committed against the Shiites of Iraq!!!
you resemble the new iraq perfectly… just go on with your sectarianism, iran will surely save you
Look up the reason why Iraq was invaded, wasn't what you think.
Iraq retaliated against Israel after Israel bombed a nuclear power plant killing Iraqi and French scientists, and US jumped to Israel's defense?
Wasn't it like 58 countries vs Iraq. What chance does Iraq have?
The mistake was the West getting involved at all, Strong Borders on the the EU Frontier and USA with a non involvement strategy would have been vastly beneficial.
Yep, but you forget that the US/EU citizens interest are not what guides the elites promoting these wars but profit for the mega corporations or the security of Israel.
Maybe dont invade
Improvised explosive device; when saying bomb is apparently too difficult.
You can't blame usa being usa you only can blame yourself for trusting them
1:12 west*
Saddam was a bad guy, but he knew how to control his country. After he was toppled, Iraq went into chaos, and as a result Iran's position was strengthened as they now have a foothold inside of Iraq with their proxy forces and within the Iraqi government. Saddam during the 1980s was friends with the US. There's a video of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Saddam kept his country in order and he kept Iran in check too. His toppling led to the chaos in the region and the creation of IS/daesh.
Hank, are we the baddies?
Iraq number one looted country in the British museum
I can see George Bush watching this and thinking, “I don’t care about all this fancy-shmancy academic stuff. Saddam was bad, so getting rid of him was good. Nothing else matters.”
👏 my country living in 2005 with Meadville mindset
Sunni Arabs live in the west of the country, not east.
This is not true
That's true @@taj3968
If the purpose was to leave the country in turmoil then this is how to occupy a country, which I argue was the purpose of it so primarily Israel would benefit from a weakened neighbour, the premise of this analogy is wrong as it implies there was some form of ‘wellbeing’ for the million dead in Iraq.
Now Iraq is better than choosing Baghdad as the capital of Arab tourism 2025The Iraqi army has become stronger and more armed than before Iraq is back
The U.S. and its allies had over 500,000 soldiers + air and naval power in Viet Nam in the late 60s - early 70s. That was not enough to stop the insurgency in the south or the PAVN in the north. Why would only 170,000 soldiers be enough to defeat Saddam's regime, provide security nation-wide until elections and after, and train new Iraqi recruits?
Such a huge mistake a total fiasco.
I was there, 10 months up to that December in 2011. What we left was in shambles, we probably shouldn't have fired the whole gd army
The media treated this like they did covid.
And despite this and Afghanistan, the US still thinks it has the right and the ability to dictate how Ukraine should defend itself.
Starmer has just sent £500 millions to Syria to help regeneration in the wake of Al Assad's departure. Numerous irregular groups are now disputing who shall become the rightful rulers. Talk about throwing petrol on a fire. Thank you Kier, a wonderful act of statesmanship.
Bush repeatedly referenced the successful occupations of Germany and Japan, and then promptly ignored all the lessons (if he and Cheney even really knew what they were.)
Good content and a viable topic - but Frontline did it better over ten years ago.
It’s already amazes me that nobody brings up Kurds in these kinds of videos?. In Iraqi Kurdistan unlike the rest of Iraq the KDP and PUK peshmerga was never disbanded leading to greater security in the northern regions.
Funny thing. You put a Raytheon bar code on a weapon it’s all cool.
Hand build a weapon it’s an IED.
Funny that.
I is for "improvised."
But hey atleast Raytheon stock increased 10 times. That’s a lot of good shareholder value.
Iraq should pay war reparations instead of funding genocide
US should pay Iraq war reparations instead of funding genocide *
Americans....