Actual effects of invading Iraq

This article is about the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. For more information on this particular part of the topic, see Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Template:Message box

This page is a followup to Predicted effects of invading Iraq.

Contents

1 List of effects predicted by those favoring the plan, and the actual outcome 2 List of effects predicted by the opponents of the plan, and actual outcome 2.1 Increase of Islamist activity 2.2 Instability in Iraq after a war 2.3 Changes to the balance of power in the oil industry 2.4 Diplomatic power shifts 2.5 Economic effects 2.6 Ecological effects 2.7 Political impact in UK 2.8 Domestic US political impacts 3 Synopsis of outcome 4 See also 5 External links

List of effects predicted by those favoring the plan, and the actual outcome

• destruction of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
  • Inaccurate. No weapons of mass destruction have been found (with the exception of at least mustard gas shell and one Sarin shell, both used as static devices against the coalition). In fact, according to self-reviews of their intelligence, neither the United states nor the United Kingdom, the two contries alleging that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, had cause for suspicion. (US Senate Intelligence Committee, final report released July 9, 2004: (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3878969.stm); United Kingdom Butler Review, released July 14, 2004: (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3890961.stm) (Guardian) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/butler/story/0,14750,1261259,00.html) (Independent) (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=540900)) Also, before the War on Iraq, the C.I.A. was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists that Iraq's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned. (Guardian) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1255650,00.html)
• holding Iraq accountable for attacks of September 11, 2001 - although no Iraqi took part in the attacks and no evidence supports claims that Iraq supported it [1] (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html) [2] (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/)
  • Inaccurate. Iraq is still not accountable, or held accountable, for the September 11, 2001 attacks. In fact, the 9-11 Commission Report, after thorough review, concluded that there is absolutely no evidence of any connection between the two whatsoever.

• regime change: the removal of Saddam Hussein and most likely the Ba'ath Party
  • Accurate. Saddam Hussein has been removed, and the Baath party is currently not in power.
• establishment of a representative democracy in Iraq, via an interim government
  • Not yet determined.
• ending the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the country, where, according to defectors, women are routinely raped by Iraqi soldiers, and men, women and children are often tortured and killed
  • Not yet determined.
• reducing the power of dictators elsewhere in Arabia, and beginning a general move towards democratization similar to that of Eastern Europe and Latin America.
  • Not yet determined.
• improving the security of Kuwait and enabling the removal of most US troops there
  • ?
• formalizing the autonomous status of Iraqi Kurdistan (within limits imposed mostly by Turkey, as a condition for supporting the U.S. plan, i.e. not to partition Iraq itself).
• providing more autonomy for the Shi'a region of Southern Iraq (though not so much so that it threatens to unify politically with Iran or emulate its Shi'ite constitution)
• an investment policy of the G8 towards Iraq that would encourage rebuilding its economy
• an end to UN sanctions against Iraq which have resulted in substantial hardship there
  • Somewhat. UN sanctions against Iraq have ended, but over 60% of Iraqis say their standard of living and well-being has declined since the invasion.
• a victory in the War on Terrorism, ending Saddam's payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and any threat that Saddam might ally actively with Al Qaeda
  • Inaccurate. There is no evidence, suggestive or otherwise, that Saddam had any collaborative relationship with any terrorist organization, financial or otherwise. Terrorism has increased since the invasion.
• an end to the threat that Saddam Hussein might attack or invade Iran (whom he fought in the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988), Kuwait (as he did in 1990 leading to the Gulf War), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Israel (which he attacked by missile in that war), in particular, doing so with chemical weapons (as he has used before), and biological weapons
  • Inaccurate. Said WMDs did not exist, and programs to develop them had stopped.
• an end to the threat that Iraq might develop nuclear weapons, as it has sought to do in the past, and (the United States claims) it continues to do
  • Inaccurate.:
    • The lack of WMD or such a program shows that said threat, claimed by the United states, was nonexistent.
    • The threat that Iraq might develop nuclear weapons remains. The change in probability is arguable and speculative.
      • The existence of a democratic government, if it succeeds and remains reasonably democratic, and if it eventually becomes secular, some argue may lower the risk of Iraq developing WMD. However, some democratic governments, such as the U.S., have WMD.
      • The ending of inspections, which was a direct consequence of the war being declared, makes it easier for Iraq to develop WMD. However, it saves money and labor.
      • A possible end to U.N. sanctions, resulting from the change in leadership, would make it easier for Iraq to afford and purchase WMD-related material.
• interviews with Iraqi scientists and measures taken to ensure that they do not renew work on such weapons for Islamist or rogue states, e.g. North Korea, which has already imported missile technology from Iran, and re-activated its nuclear reactors
• increased credibility for international laws against weapons of mass destruction
  • Inaccurate. Besides the fact that no weapons of mass destructin have been found, making any efforts to effect policy on account of finding weapons of mass destruction de facto self-defeating, the political strength of international law has been diminished as a consequence of the Bush Administration's disregard for international law and cooperation in entering the war.
• additional pressure on Iran and North Korea who are trading in missile technology
• increased credibility for the G. W. Bush administration on containing the "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) it characterized as threats in 2002
  • Inaccurate. Polls show that the approval for the Bush Administration's foreign policy has steadily declined since the invasion.
• a warning against other nations, e.g. Cuba, that the Bush administration has also accused of having or researching weapons of mass destruction
  • Somewhat Libya has agreed to full inspection and decomissioning of any WMD programmes, however much of the impetus for this agreement is owed to ten years of sanctions and negotiations. The U.S. State department downplays the effect of the Iraq invasion on Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's decision, while the Bush Administration claims it is the entire reason. The U.S. State department is the department of American government uniquely responsible for accurately assessing such matters and relaying such information to the president.
• leverage to impose or broker a solution to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by reducing the influence of Yasser Arafat and others who have allied with Saddam Hussein in the past (especially before 1991)
• increased credibility for the United Nations, or at least, no reduction of its influence
• proving irrelevance of the United Nations, removing their impairment of United States interests [3] (http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/time.htm)
• a Pax Americana imposed by awareness of U.S. power deployed to back up the U.N. and especially the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, starting with 1441 by which Iraq is to be disarmed
• reduced oil prices due to regional stability
  • Inaccurate - as of September 2004 these were around 50% to 100% more than pre-conflict prices.

List of effects predicted by the opponents of the plan, and actual outcome

Opponents of the plan claimed to seek some of these same outcomes by means other than war. They often argued that some of the problems the U.S. plan seeks to overcome, such as high oil prices, challenges to the United Nations' authority, UN sanctions against Iraq of twelve years' standing, and high tensions between France, China, Russia and the US (these being three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council), were all a direct or indirect result of US policies that have been in effect from at least 1986 and especially since 1991. Changing some of these policies, including removing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia (as Al Qaeda and more recently some Saudi officials have also demanded), ending or relaxing sanctions that have had no effect on Saddam Hussein's grip on power, and respecting both the authority and pace of the United Nations, they argued, was likely to lead to reduced tension. Attacking Iraq on a US timetable they claimed would lead to:

Increase of Islamist activity

an increase in Islamist activity leading to

• a drop in world tourism, especially by air, as fears of Islamist retaliations rise
  • Disputed. Although world tourism has dropped, fears of terrorist activity have not been established as the root cause.
• a general increase in the credibility of Islamist claims that the United States seeks hegemony in the oil-producing regions of the Gulf.
  • Accurate. However this may change as and when international forces are withdrawn from Iraq
• a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan
  • Inaccurate as of May 2005
• increased Al Qaeda recruiting.
  • Disputed. Opponents of the War state that this is true, but have not provided solid evidence to back up this claim.
• attacks on UN forces in Afghanistan
  • Inaccurate in the sense that a low level of attacks has continued, most reported violence is against the interim government.
• one or more Islamist revolutions in Arabia: Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt - possibly supported from Iran, maybe as a distraction to avoid being invaded themselves
  • Inaccurate as of May 2005
• threats to the political stability of Arabia especially the monarchies of Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as militant but not terrorist Islamists gain credibility, and especially if US, British, or Turkish forces remain anywhere in the region after the war
  • ?
• a deteriorating relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia especially if Wahhabist Saudi Princes gain control of the country, and US forces remain in the region
  • Inaccurate as of May 2005
• Islamist terrorism elsewhere, especially against American and British citizens
  • Inaccurate Worldwide pseudo-islamist terrorism has continued, but not at an escalated level, and the targets have varied.
• attacks on, and suppression of, moderate figures in modern Islamic philosophy who might otherwise successfully limit terrorist influence
  • Inaccurate

Instability in Iraq after a war

possibly including

• a humanitarian crisis in Iraq due to water, food, medicine and other war shortages
  • Inaccurate. Power levels were reported to have been restored to pre-war levels within six months of the U.S. invasion, and no major food, water or medicinial shortages were reported.
• collateral damage to civilian infrastructure, especially hospitals, roads and power grids
  • Accurate. However, the vast majority of the damage caused to infrastructure, hospitals, and civilian buildings following the initial invasion was caused by insurgents who oppose Coalition forces.
• incapacity of electronics due to electromagnetic pulse weapons used by the US, including emergency response vehicles, hospital equipment
  • Inaccurate. No such weapons reported used.
• rebellion, sabotage and terrorism by the Ba'ath Party, with or without Saddam
  • Accurate.
• threats to Kurdistan as an independent region within Iraq
  • Inaccurate. Kurds in Iraq are generally supportive of the elected government, which contains proportional Kurdish representation and a Kurdish president. As of May 2005, there is little talk amongst Kurds of secession from Iraq to form an independent Kurdistan.
• renewed conflicts with Kurd in Iraq and Turkey if Baghdad or Ankara imposes any new limits
  • ?
• interference by Turkey, Syria and Iran which also have Kurds in their populations
  • ?
• war if Turkey renews its traditional claims to Mosul and other oil cities in the North of Iraq
  • ?
• threats to ethnic Turkmens in Iraq and Kurdistan, especially if Turkey or Turkmenistan uses them as an excuse to interfere in Iraqi politics
  • ?
• rebellion in Shi'a regions by forces seeking union with Iran (and/or other Persian influenced areas sometimes known as Greater Iran according to analyst Robert D. Kaplan).
  • Inaccurate so far. No violence or rebellion based on this cause reported; issue characterized as a canard.

Changes to the balance of power in the oil industry

due to

• lost public ownership of Iraq's oil reserves, fields, infrastructure and contracts
  • Not yet determined
• US, UK, and Turkish control of Iraq's oil supplies
  • Not yet determined
• higher oil prices long-term due to US de facto control of world supply on the markets
  • Accurate
• oil imperialism as Caspian Sea oil resources are developed under the control of the global military hegemony of the United States
  • Disputed. See Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy.

Diplomatic power shifts

including

• a reduced role for international law, the world court and United Nations especially the United Nations Security Council - especially if these play little or no role in the war and aftermath - see The UN Security Council and the Iraq war
  • Accurate.
• loss of credibility for UN weapons inspectors if they are not able to finish their work
  • Accurate.
• a precedent of ignoring recommendations of UN humanitarian relief agencies in war plans, and as a factor in UN Security Council approval of future wars
  • ?
• reduction in the role of NATO due to differences between US/UK and Eurasian views, conflicts with Turkey over the Kurds, and France's position against the US invasion
  • Accurate.
• increasing unity on the Iraq issue between France, Germany, Russia and China threatening to create a bloc on the UN Security council to block most US and UK actions
  • Accurate.
• loss of global tolerance of American leadership on questions of international relations
  • Accurate.
• a renewed reliance on war and assassination as legitimized means of resolving crises
  • ?
• loss of the Arab League as a peace partner
  • ?

Economic effects

Negative economic effects were predicted

• Oil would rise to $100 a barrel, or higher [4] (http://www.petroretail.net/npni/2002/0212/0212nws.asp)
  • Inaccurate. Oil prices rose substatially, exceeding $48pb and reaching a historical record by mid-2004, with predictions that they will continue to rise. [5] (http://www.wtrg.com/daily/crudeoilprice.html) However, the $100/barrel prediction referred to " A United States attack to dislodge Iraq president Saddam Hussein" which must be considered complete by that date.

Ecological effects

Negative ecological effects were predicted

• on the watersheds of the Persian Gulf, Tigris River and Euphrates River
  • ?
• on the Caspian Sea watersheds especially if new oil pipelines are built
  • ?
• on several ecoregions, such as the Kuwait desert ecoregion - already badly damaged by actions by both sides in the Gulf War
  • ?
• water flow and soil quality of Kurdish, Arabian, and Shi'a agricultural regions of Iraq
  • ? Note that work has begun to reconstruct some of the wetlands drained by the Saddam regeime.
• whole region due to release of chemical weapons or biological weapons by Iraq, or by accident
  • Inaccurate.
• whole region due to radiation poisoning due to depleted uranium ammunition or nuclear weapons (which the United States has threatened to use, especially on bunkers)
  • Inaccurate. - Although the Bush administration had planned to use nuclear weapons on the first strike, they were discouraged by both the domestic and international community.

See also Arabian Desert and East Sahero-Arabian xeric shrublands

Political impact in UK

• European Union's unity, especially on matters of global military conflict and NATO
  • Just Accurate Took a slight turn for the worse, but few disputes apart from one between a German and an Italian junior minister.
• Labour Party (UK) - split between Cabinet (pro) and Commons (con)
  • Made the party generally less united, contributing to the split between Brown and Blair.
• UK House of Commons' confidence in UK Prime Minister Tony Blair - which could lead to his dismissal by the majority and his replacement by another Labour Prime Minister
  • Accurate. Dramatic loss of popular support for Tony Blair, although he remains the head of his Labour Party (UK) which remains the favourite or joint favourite to win the next UK general election, 2005/06
• Foreign relations of the United States, especially if Blair loses power for supporting Bush's Iraq position.
  • ?
• credibility of the UK government and its handling of evidence in international decisions
  • Accurate. Loss of credibility, as evidence purported as high-confidence has been shown to be highly erroneous.
  • 'Student Paper' fiasco
    • ?

Domestic US political impacts

on the

• safety of American citizens travelling abroad
  • Accurate. Terrorism activity has increased worldwide.
• United States Democratic Party - which has not openly or severely criticized Bush's plan
  • ?
• Green Party - which is clearly against the war, and gaining support due to the Democratic Party's lack of condemnation of the Bush unilateral policies
  • ?
• role of Colin Powell within the G. W. Bush administration
  • ?
• credibility of the US government and its handling of evidence in international decisions
  • Accurate. Credibility has greatly suffered, as "evidence" has been shown to be highly fictituous.
  • Office of Strategic Influence fiasco
    • ?
  • acceptance of US wiretap and satellite evidence by the UN (see technology issues below)
    • ?
• prospects for re-election of Bush/Cheney in the U.S. presidential election, 2004
  • Disputed. While popular support for Bush/Cheney has declined since about a month following the invasion, his support level moved up and down throughout the 2004 presidential race. The race finished Bush's reelection with a 3% margin of victory in the popular vote. His critics continue to dispute the validity of the election results.
• relationship with Canada especially if they split on Iraq badly
  • ?
• relationship with Mexico especially if they split on Iraq badly
  • ?
• attitude of the U.S. public towards aid to dictators friendly to the U.S.
  • ?
• world prestige of the US if things go badly or a large number of US troops are killed
  • Accurate. See anti-american sentiment.

destabilizing influence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict due to

• increasing scrutiny on Israel under international law, especially regarding UN Security Council resolution adherence, and weapons of mass destruction
  • Inaccurate. Israeli-Palestianian relations have markedly improved since 2003, although much of this is likely attributable to the death of Yasser Arafat and his succession by Mahmoud Abbas.
• increasing scrutiny on the status of West Bank settlers (or "colonists") who remain in defiance of other United Nations resolutions
  • ?
• no motivation to renew the Oslo process between Israel and Palestinian Authority, as Yasser Arafat will lose influence, and there is no other clear leader to negotiate with
  • ?

increasing fear in other nations not known for political stability, including

• North Korea, as a precedent for dealing with the "Axis of Evil"
  • ?
• Pakistan especially regarding control of its nuclear weapons
  • ?
• Iran the next Axis of Evil invasion candidate
  • ?

negative impacts of the use of technology and public support for technology-focused wars, esp.

• American doctrine on nuclear weapon use and tolerance of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of other nations
  • ?
• role of the Internet in mass media and forming of public opinion
  • Inaccurate. Since the invasion, the internet has been a medium of criticism and debate, serving not to aid, but to counter-act mass media.
• role of the Internet in the peace movement
  • Inaccurate. Since the invasion, the use of the internet in the peace movement has greatly expanded.
• credibility of photo and audio and video evidence vs. forgeries or fakes
  • ?
  • role of persuasion technology in general
    • ?
• weapons development, especially nuclear weapons and anti-missile technology
  • ?
• attitude of developed nations towards nuclear proliferation
  • ?
• attitude of developing nations towards nuclear proliferation
  • ?
• attitude of developed nations towards general spread of dual-use technology potentially useful to create weapons of mass destruction - especially if such nations feel that they can simply invade later if those technologies are put to uses they do not approve of
  • ?

Synopsis of outcome

As of May 2005, insurgent violence is still occurring in Iraq, with casualities occurring at roughly the same rate as when the U.S. invasion of Iraq began. Saddam Hussein has been deposed and is in U.S. custody. An interim Iraqi government has democratically elected by Iraqi citizens, and sovereignty has been transferred to it. Coalition troops remain in Iraq, at the request of the Iraqi government.

Iraq's economic and civil infrastructure remains poor, with electrical and communication systems in poor shape or non-functional, and oil lines, stations and production facilities facing regular attacks by insurgents.

The legitimacy of international organizations such as the United Nations has suffered, although much of this may also be attributed to the Oil for Food Scandal as well as the continuing genocide occurring in Sudan. Critics of the Iraq War state that global security has worsened, terrorist activity has increased in Iraq and worldwide, international cooperation has decreased, and the U.S. has set a precedent for "pre-emptive" war. American foreign relations have also suffered, with long-time allies strenuously criticizing American foreign policy.

Political discussion on the internet and other forums has increased, possibly as a result of popular criticism of the war. Some who oppose the war have at times also created Wikipedia pages to convey their dissatisfaction with President Bush's policies and their suspicion of foul play in the 2004 presidential election.

See also

• Iraq crisis of 2003
• Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq
• The UN Security Council and the Iraq war
• media manipulation

External links

• http://english.pravda.ru/region/2003/03/21/44768.html (ecological threats)
• http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2003/02/11/43273.html (diplomatic consequences)
• http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03306/235829.stm
• http://www.princeton.edu/~lisd/amin.html (political reasons, predictions and fear over what could occur)
• http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul43.html
• http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm
• http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has197010.000/has197010_1.HTM (electromagnetic threats)
• http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13898
• http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908911555.html (tolerance of wmd in the hand of some nations)
• http://www.udf.org/presse/interviews/fb_lacroix_260203.html about fear of diplomatic implications (Bayrou is an important French politician)
• http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/515/515p17.htm about worries on Kurdistan as an independent region within Iraq
• http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/01-25-03/international_2.asp about fear on tourism drop as an argument against the war
• Collection (http://republicansforkerry.americancouncil.org/wmd.pdf) (PDF) of apparent contradictions between predictions and outcomes for the war. Collected by very partisan source. (Or see non-PDF Google cache (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:eh8dAoDhJjcJ:republicansforkerry.americancouncil.org/wmd.pdf+wmd+%2Bassertions+%2Breality+%2Brepublicansforkerry&hl=en))