2004 - Diyala Province, Iraq. 1st Infantry Division
Annie Duke, author of “Thinking in Bets” and “Quit” flips traditional judgement of decisions on their head. She questions why if one makes a risky bet and it pays off, we say it was brilliant. But if we make a risky bet and it does not pay off, we say it was stupid. But the action is the same. Its value only changes afterwards based on the meaning we give it. On a long enough timeline that same value or meaning can change, yet again. Often our greatest failures are our greatest lessons and triumphs. If success is thus never universally defined, and is fluid and living, then do we throw out the rubric for success metrics?
The answer is probably not. You could, but then if you cannot measure anything it is hard to know anything. What is probably the better option is to apply some different lenses. Was the action done in good faith? Were the intentions good? Was the plan for execution at least somewhat thought out? Was the implementation of that plan done well? Were the metrics of success defined – or achieved? Let us take a look at some of these.
Intentions-based Lens
Were intentions morally good? Yes. Removing a dictator. Stopping Weapons of Mass Destruction – even if there were none and even if there was a conspiracy of lies (the truth is less so the case) those outside of the conspiracy were operating with good intentions. If they were not, then they would not have to have been “lied” to. Despite all the bullshit propaganda about “War on Muslims,” or “War on Arabs,” or “stealing oil” or “imperialism.” None of those narratives hold any water and are old anti-American tropes. The United States invaded Iraq to remove a perceived threat and leverage a perceived value-added gain.
The Plan-based Lens
Was the plan thoughtful? Probably a 50/50 rating on this. The US likely were convinced that the Shia majority would embrace the invasion, and the invasion would be equally clean as the 2001-2002 toppling of the Taliban. Similar to how the 2026 US Government likely assumed an easy win in Venezuela, would translate to an easy win in Iran. There was ample data to support this assumption. There was also data to counter this assumption. Some people had agendas, some people had good faith heart. The action occurred somewhere in between.
Additionally, how do you rate a plan that evolves? You are wrong if you do not evolve your plan upon first contact with the enemy, but if you do evolve it, then you are accused of changing and moving the goal posts. You are damned either way. If you help topple a dictator and don’t drop 250k troops like Libya, then you are blamed for not doing enough. If you help topple a dictator and use proxy and special forces as in Syria – Iraq-lite, you are also blamed for meddling. If you do nearly nothing unilaterally like in Yemen, you are also blamed for a failure.
Each of these are living cases though. Syria did not look like a possible success until 2026. Libya is still a failure. Yemen was arguably a success until late-2014 when the Houthis stormed out of Saada mountains into the capital city Sanaa and staged a coup. As someone who sat with the Houthis in the UN-backed working groups in Sanaa, it truly seemed to fail in the 11th hour. It really looked like Yemen would reflect the Tunisia model. Then, one day, it suddenly did not. The value and meaning and definition changed in 24 hours after the fact.
Defined-Results based Lens
"Do any of you think Iraq is better from what we did there?" Let's break down the question using the operative terms: "Iraq," "Better" and "What we did"
Iraq defined as a 2003 Saddam and Baath Party dictatorship? By some measures yes, by some no; but dictatorships are by their nature not sustainable long term - hence the Arab Spring. Iraq defined as 2026 rugged and nascent democracy? Is that better than the former dictatorship? Just comparing the two? Probably 100% for sure. If you gave Iraqis a chance to pick one or the other today, I would bet my life they would pick 2026 Iraq over 2002 Iraq.
The majority of Iraqis hated Saddam. Had Iraq turned into sunshine and rainbows in late-2003 it would be hailed as a perfect success story. A ton of Iraqis are still happy with the result. Now the population is not static. So, sentiment changes. The population had nearly doubled since 2000, which means most alive now, grew up under only post-Saddam and conflict. They are hopeful, connected online, educated and ambitious. These are the ones I interviewed regularly for years in Baghdad from 2018 to 2022.
Before, they would have had nearly zero chance of anything. Now, they have a much greater chance of dreams. to highlight this paradigm, I encourage a brief read of this optimistic read from years ago: https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/war-iraq-was-won/. I wrote this before ISIS laid siege to Iraq, occupied Mosul and had the US Embassy evacuate due to fear of pending invasion. I often wondered if ISIS came in and messed everything up, if I should now suddenly change the assessment. I decided not to, because future may dictate past meaning, but future is infinite, so meaning is infinite.
The idea that there was a singular war is completely false. There were multiple wars fought in Iraq since 2003. That is not a rose-glasses past-view of from an American. The Iraqis I spoke to regularly, all referred to the Sectarian violence period as its own war. And the invasion and occupation of ISIS as its own war. The Iraqis taught me this. There was an invasion that was a massive success. There was a counterinsurgency that was messy but starting to work (see the Awakening tribal effort in Al Anbar Province), there was the sectarian war that was just a disaster or horribleness between Sunni and Shia. There was also the ISIS war, which seemed a failure but then appears to have been a massive success.
The “We Did” Fallacy
So, when someone asks “What we did” I ask what did we do? For which war? Because there were several with several different actors involved. Just looking at our rotation – OIF II from 2004-2005, I would say we survived - when many others did not. Half luck, half skill. I would say for the soldiers I knew, they operated more with ethics than not. When we saw bad stuff happen, we countered it – whether it was insurgents or abusive translators beating detainees. What we did was survive – and in cases of trauma, that is all that is required.
We, as America or the multinational force writ-large, were not the only actor involved. If we are going to only judge our actions, then we can't use the results of other actors into the calculated response. That’s like saying "I was driving to donate to a charity, but a drunk driver hit me and many people died. Was what I did (donating to a charity) worth it if so, many people died by the drunk driver?" You can do everything right and still fail. That does not negate your actions.
We did not make Al Qaeda chop off heads- or blow-up mosques. We did not make Iran funnel support to Shia insurgents to go around killing Sunnis and Iraqi Security Forces. The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were cause by other Iraqis, not the American military. If you are a police officer and arrest an abusive father and the sons start beating the shit out of each other – are you morally right or wrong? Did you make it better or worse?
The Universal-based Lense
I firmly believe the Arab Spring would have taken down Saddam. No one ever talks about this. I would rate that chance at over 90%. Frankly, looking at other case studies from the Arab Spring (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria) where the dictator lost control. Libya and Yemen are still civil wars arguably. Syria only kind of ended its civil war this year. Egypt held up decently and Tunisia is considered the best success story, but the jury is still out on that. So, Iraq’s chance of being in a civil war still is pretty high. On balance, Iraq today is closer to mirroring Tunisia and Egypt, and to some degree, 2026 Syria.
So, in an alternative universe where the US and its allies (and there were a lot of allies there, that people conveniently forget) did not invade Iraq in 2003, what would have hypothetically happen in history? My money is hands down on the Arab Spring turning Iraq into a complete catastrophe. Frankly, with no international presence there, it, in my professional assessment, would have been far worst – on par with Syria. In fact, it probably would have merged into a large bi-national Balkanized free-fuck-zone of epic proportions not seen in ages. Iran would take their parts, the Kurds theirs, ISIS theirs, Assad his, and Turkey some parts too, etc.
The Human Cost
Cost matters. A nice watch is cool unless you tell someone you paid a million dollars for it. Then not so cool. There is and always will be a cost benefit analysis to everything under the sun. So it begs the questions, was the human toll worth it? In reality, there is no universal answer. But we can compare. In the end comparison and consensus is all that define reality. And the cost of American lives was one of the smallest ever in history. If there is anything humans cannot do, however, is calculate human cost.
Does the cost change the calculation? Would we say it is better if the outcome was the same, but no one died? America lost about 1% of its population to be free from England. And it wasn't immediate. The first 10 years was fractional shitshow, where everything was fucked. In fact, you can compare the timeline of Iraq’s ‘second independence’ with the United States here: https://www.361security.com/brandon-scott/1776-vs-2003-us-iraq-timeline. Twenty-three years is a blip on the radar of global history. You can do the math - 1% of America's current population would be like 3.3 million people. If China took us over today, would 3.3 million people be worth "freedom"? The US barely touched Syria and Yemen and both have a staggering death tool higher than Iraq. Sudan, just lately, has a deathrate that far exceeds both by a massive calculation.
What is the price of freedom? Freedom doesn’t mean health, wealth, peace and happiness. Freedom means the possibility of such - and the possibly of not such. Freedom doesn’t guarantee things go well. It guarantees the possibility that it could. A chance. When you turn 18 in America you are free from your parents. That means there is at least a chance you can make choices that maybe could turn out great. It also means you could end up dead in a gutter giving handies for crack at a truck stop. But there is a chance for both. Options and possibilities. That is gift that is immeasurable.
On Quitting
Quitting defines it too. Afghanistan was often considered the “good war” but the moment the US withdrew in a disastrous manner in 2021, most now view it as a complete waste. Had we stayed with a marginal international force – as we were already doing with effectively zero casualties, we would call it a success – on par with South Korea. Iraq was considered the “bad war” on par with Vietnam, but the fact is US has kept various forms of forces there since 2003 on through 2026 has been a positive stabilizer. All of these definitions can flip like a coin in 24 hours.
You cannot fail to do something if you keep working at it. It is literally impossible. When you walk away, it becomes a failure – and even that is relative as so many “Failures” are massive lessons learned that become leveraged into massive successes. Success versus failure is defined relatively by the individual, in retrospect, on a moving aperture that can change at any moment.
We did something that many people believed was wise, honorable and for the better. Simultaneously, many people believed the exact opposite. And who believes what, has, and will continue to slide on a spectrum scale for all of history, just like everything else. England thought America was a bunch of terrorist rif-rafs during the Revolutionary War. They viewed losing the colonies as failure. Not so much during World War II when we saved all of Europe. Does WWII change their take?
The answer is probably not. You could, but then if you cannot measure anything it is hard to know anything. What is probably the better option is to apply some different lenses. Was the action done in good faith? Were the intentions good? Was the plan for execution at least somewhat thought out? Was the implementation of that plan done well? Were the metrics of success defined – or achieved? Let us take a look at some of these.
Intentions-based Lens
Were intentions morally good? Yes. Removing a dictator. Stopping Weapons of Mass Destruction – even if there were none and even if there was a conspiracy of lies (the truth is less so the case) those outside of the conspiracy were operating with good intentions. If they were not, then they would not have to have been “lied” to. Despite all the bullshit propaganda about “War on Muslims,” or “War on Arabs,” or “stealing oil” or “imperialism.” None of those narratives hold any water and are old anti-American tropes. The United States invaded Iraq to remove a perceived threat and leverage a perceived value-added gain.
The Plan-based Lens
Was the plan thoughtful? Probably a 50/50 rating on this. The US likely were convinced that the Shia majority would embrace the invasion, and the invasion would be equally clean as the 2001-2002 toppling of the Taliban. Similar to how the 2026 US Government likely assumed an easy win in Venezuela, would translate to an easy win in Iran. There was ample data to support this assumption. There was also data to counter this assumption. Some people had agendas, some people had good faith heart. The action occurred somewhere in between.
Additionally, how do you rate a plan that evolves? You are wrong if you do not evolve your plan upon first contact with the enemy, but if you do evolve it, then you are accused of changing and moving the goal posts. You are damned either way. If you help topple a dictator and don’t drop 250k troops like Libya, then you are blamed for not doing enough. If you help topple a dictator and use proxy and special forces as in Syria – Iraq-lite, you are also blamed for meddling. If you do nearly nothing unilaterally like in Yemen, you are also blamed for a failure.
Each of these are living cases though. Syria did not look like a possible success until 2026. Libya is still a failure. Yemen was arguably a success until late-2014 when the Houthis stormed out of Saada mountains into the capital city Sanaa and staged a coup. As someone who sat with the Houthis in the UN-backed working groups in Sanaa, it truly seemed to fail in the 11th hour. It really looked like Yemen would reflect the Tunisia model. Then, one day, it suddenly did not. The value and meaning and definition changed in 24 hours after the fact.
Defined-Results based Lens
"Do any of you think Iraq is better from what we did there?" Let's break down the question using the operative terms: "Iraq," "Better" and "What we did"
Iraq defined as a 2003 Saddam and Baath Party dictatorship? By some measures yes, by some no; but dictatorships are by their nature not sustainable long term - hence the Arab Spring. Iraq defined as 2026 rugged and nascent democracy? Is that better than the former dictatorship? Just comparing the two? Probably 100% for sure. If you gave Iraqis a chance to pick one or the other today, I would bet my life they would pick 2026 Iraq over 2002 Iraq.
The majority of Iraqis hated Saddam. Had Iraq turned into sunshine and rainbows in late-2003 it would be hailed as a perfect success story. A ton of Iraqis are still happy with the result. Now the population is not static. So, sentiment changes. The population had nearly doubled since 2000, which means most alive now, grew up under only post-Saddam and conflict. They are hopeful, connected online, educated and ambitious. These are the ones I interviewed regularly for years in Baghdad from 2018 to 2022.
Before, they would have had nearly zero chance of anything. Now, they have a much greater chance of dreams. to highlight this paradigm, I encourage a brief read of this optimistic read from years ago: https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/war-iraq-was-won/. I wrote this before ISIS laid siege to Iraq, occupied Mosul and had the US Embassy evacuate due to fear of pending invasion. I often wondered if ISIS came in and messed everything up, if I should now suddenly change the assessment. I decided not to, because future may dictate past meaning, but future is infinite, so meaning is infinite.
The idea that there was a singular war is completely false. There were multiple wars fought in Iraq since 2003. That is not a rose-glasses past-view of from an American. The Iraqis I spoke to regularly, all referred to the Sectarian violence period as its own war. And the invasion and occupation of ISIS as its own war. The Iraqis taught me this. There was an invasion that was a massive success. There was a counterinsurgency that was messy but starting to work (see the Awakening tribal effort in Al Anbar Province), there was the sectarian war that was just a disaster or horribleness between Sunni and Shia. There was also the ISIS war, which seemed a failure but then appears to have been a massive success.
The “We Did” Fallacy
So, when someone asks “What we did” I ask what did we do? For which war? Because there were several with several different actors involved. Just looking at our rotation – OIF II from 2004-2005, I would say we survived - when many others did not. Half luck, half skill. I would say for the soldiers I knew, they operated more with ethics than not. When we saw bad stuff happen, we countered it – whether it was insurgents or abusive translators beating detainees. What we did was survive – and in cases of trauma, that is all that is required.
We, as America or the multinational force writ-large, were not the only actor involved. If we are going to only judge our actions, then we can't use the results of other actors into the calculated response. That’s like saying "I was driving to donate to a charity, but a drunk driver hit me and many people died. Was what I did (donating to a charity) worth it if so, many people died by the drunk driver?" You can do everything right and still fail. That does not negate your actions.
We did not make Al Qaeda chop off heads- or blow-up mosques. We did not make Iran funnel support to Shia insurgents to go around killing Sunnis and Iraqi Security Forces. The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were cause by other Iraqis, not the American military. If you are a police officer and arrest an abusive father and the sons start beating the shit out of each other – are you morally right or wrong? Did you make it better or worse?
The Universal-based Lense
I firmly believe the Arab Spring would have taken down Saddam. No one ever talks about this. I would rate that chance at over 90%. Frankly, looking at other case studies from the Arab Spring (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria) where the dictator lost control. Libya and Yemen are still civil wars arguably. Syria only kind of ended its civil war this year. Egypt held up decently and Tunisia is considered the best success story, but the jury is still out on that. So, Iraq’s chance of being in a civil war still is pretty high. On balance, Iraq today is closer to mirroring Tunisia and Egypt, and to some degree, 2026 Syria.
So, in an alternative universe where the US and its allies (and there were a lot of allies there, that people conveniently forget) did not invade Iraq in 2003, what would have hypothetically happen in history? My money is hands down on the Arab Spring turning Iraq into a complete catastrophe. Frankly, with no international presence there, it, in my professional assessment, would have been far worst – on par with Syria. In fact, it probably would have merged into a large bi-national Balkanized free-fuck-zone of epic proportions not seen in ages. Iran would take their parts, the Kurds theirs, ISIS theirs, Assad his, and Turkey some parts too, etc.
The Human Cost
Cost matters. A nice watch is cool unless you tell someone you paid a million dollars for it. Then not so cool. There is and always will be a cost benefit analysis to everything under the sun. So it begs the questions, was the human toll worth it? In reality, there is no universal answer. But we can compare. In the end comparison and consensus is all that define reality. And the cost of American lives was one of the smallest ever in history. If there is anything humans cannot do, however, is calculate human cost.
Does the cost change the calculation? Would we say it is better if the outcome was the same, but no one died? America lost about 1% of its population to be free from England. And it wasn't immediate. The first 10 years was fractional shitshow, where everything was fucked. In fact, you can compare the timeline of Iraq’s ‘second independence’ with the United States here: https://www.361security.com/brandon-scott/1776-vs-2003-us-iraq-timeline. Twenty-three years is a blip on the radar of global history. You can do the math - 1% of America's current population would be like 3.3 million people. If China took us over today, would 3.3 million people be worth "freedom"? The US barely touched Syria and Yemen and both have a staggering death tool higher than Iraq. Sudan, just lately, has a deathrate that far exceeds both by a massive calculation.
What is the price of freedom? Freedom doesn’t mean health, wealth, peace and happiness. Freedom means the possibility of such - and the possibly of not such. Freedom doesn’t guarantee things go well. It guarantees the possibility that it could. A chance. When you turn 18 in America you are free from your parents. That means there is at least a chance you can make choices that maybe could turn out great. It also means you could end up dead in a gutter giving handies for crack at a truck stop. But there is a chance for both. Options and possibilities. That is gift that is immeasurable.
On Quitting
Quitting defines it too. Afghanistan was often considered the “good war” but the moment the US withdrew in a disastrous manner in 2021, most now view it as a complete waste. Had we stayed with a marginal international force – as we were already doing with effectively zero casualties, we would call it a success – on par with South Korea. Iraq was considered the “bad war” on par with Vietnam, but the fact is US has kept various forms of forces there since 2003 on through 2026 has been a positive stabilizer. All of these definitions can flip like a coin in 24 hours.
You cannot fail to do something if you keep working at it. It is literally impossible. When you walk away, it becomes a failure – and even that is relative as so many “Failures” are massive lessons learned that become leveraged into massive successes. Success versus failure is defined relatively by the individual, in retrospect, on a moving aperture that can change at any moment.
We did something that many people believed was wise, honorable and for the better. Simultaneously, many people believed the exact opposite. And who believes what, has, and will continue to slide on a spectrum scale for all of history, just like everything else. England thought America was a bunch of terrorist rif-rafs during the Revolutionary War. They viewed losing the colonies as failure. Not so much during World War II when we saved all of Europe. Does WWII change their take?
RSS Feed