New IRmep book now available!

Follow @IRmep
on Twitter!

Audio

Question #1
Did the events of the last decade, American interests, and terrorist attacks of 9/11 warrant a US military invasion of Iraq?
(Source: IRmep MEASURE 2004)

Question #2
What drivers do you believe are influencing Bush administration policies on Iraq?
(Source: IRmep MEASURE 2004)

a. Establishing a military foothold in the Middle East.

b. Control over petroleum reserves/infrastructure.

c. Concerns about the security of Israel.

d. Transformational desire for Middle East democracy.

e. Private business interests.

Question #2
What drivers do you believe should influence Bush administration policies on Iraq?

a. Establishing a military foothold in the Middle East.

b. Control over petroleum reserves/infrastructure.

c. Concerns about the security of Israel.

d. Transformational desire for Middle East democracy

e. Private business interests.

Question #1 Comments

Did the events of the last decade, American interests, and terrorist attacks of 9/11 warrant a US military invasion of Iraq?

• The invasion and occupation were and are illegal, largely unilateral, have been incompetently and unjustly prosecuted, and they have increased the threat of terror attacks on US/UK civilians.
• The US govt. pursues its "interests" in the Middle East in an ad hoc, opportunistic way, and making war is not in the interest of either the American people or the peoples of the Middle East.
• Question is pretty darn vague but I think I'd answer the same way if you were more specific.
• 9/11 was not related to Iraq.  "American interests" as currently conceived are not a good foundation for US foreign policy. 
• The combination of U.N. sanctions, weapons inspections and U.S. destruction of all significant military/defensive targets in the no-fly zones had certainly neutralized the regime as an active threat to any one, including the U.S.  Any invasion motivated by the desire to liberate the Iraqi people and their energies for the sake of their country should have been an action of last resort by coherent multinational force acting under a U.N. mandate.
• Iraq was invaded under false pretexts, which had nothing to do with the "war on terror" but much to do with conventional geopolitical thinking and especially the fancies of neo-conservative ideology.
• The invasion of Iraq was clearly considered and planned well before 11 Sept., and executed for ideological reasons that seem fundamentally to have little to do with Iraq or even the Middle East.
• The invasion of Iraq is not justified on any grounds, strategic, political, or moral.
• Iraq was paying a heavy price due to misguided US policies. No substance to claims to support another attack on Iraq.
• Once decided however poor strategy wrecked much good
• Thanks to the first Gulf War and to the sanctions subsequently imposed on Iraq, the country was scarcely a threat to anyone. The WMD have yet to be unearthed and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
• It warranted the Afghan war and the destruction of al-Qa'ida, but certainly not the invasion of Iraq.
• There was no relationship between Iraq and September 11th, despite the disturbingly common presumption that there was.

• At this point of history nothing can justify an invasion of another country, colonialism, and human lose.
• I don't believe there was ever a clear connection between 9/11 and Iraq established.  Over the last decade the UN had been dealing with Iraq inspections and while it wasn't perfect, I don't think it required a unilateral invasion by the United States (and Britain).
• I believe that the neo-conservatives in the Pentagon wanted to attack Iraq whether or not the world trade center attack had occurred.
• I think an educated policy making would have prevented the birth of so-called "terrorism."
• No clear, substantial beyond the reasonable doubt evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
• Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but he was also the enemy of fundamentalists, all of whom opposed his "irreligious" rule.
• No connection between 9/11 and Iraq; diversions of attention and resources from al-Qaeda
• A catastrophically wrong idea.
• Its an established fact that there is NO connection whatsoever between Al Quaeda and Iraq
• None of the stated objectives of the invasion has proven valid: "weapons of mass destruction," inauguration of democracy, links to al-Qaeda, etc. US forces have apparently not even tried to arrest the group in Northern Iraq that provided the "evidence" of Iraq's al-Qaeda links; the Turks did arrest some of them in late April.
• Al-Qaeda was not based in Iraq. And even if there had been convincing evidence of WMD, this war would not have constituted a "preemptive strike," because that implies that Iraq was on the verge of attacking the U.S. - according to the definition of preemption - which was not the case, whatever hostility Saddam had towards the American government or people.
• We should have kept the pressure on Afghanistan, and made additional pressure on Saudi Arabia.
• Absolutely not; the United Nations charter forbids military invasion and occupation. The problems resulting from out illegal and immoral action were all fully foreseeable.
• It was a pretext that served the predetermined plans of the current administration
• The 9/11 attacks were not relevant to attacking a country whose government was at an opposite pole from the attackers. It is shameful how ordinary, uninformed people were made to think there was a connection. Saddam was a bad fellow, but his worst crimes were while he was being backed by the U.S.  Experience with Algeria, Vietnam, etc. should have taught us that it is too late for such blatant colonialism. Also, respect the provisions of the U.N. Charter on the use of force.
• The invasion was the worst foreign policy mistake made in the history of the U.S.
• Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the "events" of the last decade include suppressive sanctions that don't work.
• None of the above required, or even justified, military action against Iraq.  Events of the last decade proved inspections were working; American interests have been damaged rather than edified; and 9/11 was related to Iraq in that U.S. policy may have contributed to 9/11.
• It was a colossal mistake from the outset, both in terms of the way it was carried out and its unilateral nature.
• The invasion did not serve American interests or stem the growing terrorist threat.
• Anyone who studies the Middle East would have known that Hussein and Bin Ladin are diametrically opposed and a liaison between them would have been a last ditch effort to save themselves.  The White House should have known that.
• It should be clear to all by now that not only was the invasion unwarranted, it has been disastrously counterproductive in every respect.  
• Iraq had no part in 9/11.
• The Saddam Hussein regime SHOULD have been deposed by military power in 1991.  It had, however, nothing to do with 9/11, & therefore the Iraq issue is COMPLETELY separate from 9/11.
• Iraq had no connection to the terrorist attacks if 9/11
• Iraq is a diversion, or rather an unnecessary, self-inflicted hurdle, in the "war on terror" which shows how traditional weapons/thinking cannot solve the problem. Instead they make it worse.
• The invasion of Iraq has increased US vulnerability toward terrorist attacks and resulted in much higher degree of anti-Americanism that US deserves.
• Not to condone 9/11, but it is the result of our foolish, colonial minded foreign policy, esp. blind support of the Israel.
• These events and concerns warranted pragmatic diplomatic efforts in the U.N., not a unilateral invasion.
• A solution to the Palestinian question would be the only long-term stabilizer in the Middle East
• Which events exactly?

• Of course Bin Laden stated very clearly that the Bush administration would invade Iraq and that the invasion would directly serve the interests and appeal of al-Qa'ida.
• Since Saddam Hussein has obviously not been involved in the 9/11 attacks and is not involved with al-Qaida (he is actually opposed to them, due to his secularist government), there was no reason to invade due to that.  And where are these "WMD" that were supposedly our reason to invade?
• The two are unrelated.
• No, because there is not a shed of evidence indicating Iraq was implicated in 9/11
• I don't believe that 9/11 should be connected with Iraq.  Rather, American interests are best served by the removal, or demise of leaders like Saddam Hussein who are responsible for human rights abuses on the scale that took place in Iraq.  Attempts to fund or aid insurgents were unsuccessful -- invasion was the only way to overturn the regime. 
• It's clear the Bush administration has been lying again and again about Iraq.  We have abandoned most of our traditional allies in an ill-advised exercise in military adventurism.  The pre-2003 world that has served American interests so well will not easily be put back together.  This seems almost a classic case of national hubris.  I'm guessing that historians of the future--at least American historians--will not treat George Bush very kindly.
• It was important to reshuffle the Middle East and Iraq is a good place to start. But the timing was bad; preparations on the military and especially the diplomatic front were deficient.
• I do think there were justifiable reasons for invading Iraq, but these are not them.
• The invasion of Iraq was unrelated to the 9/11 events.  The connection was completely constructed by the neo-conservatives in power by manipulating the drama of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the fear they caused.

Question #2 Comments:

What drivers do you believe are influencing Bush administration policies on Iraq. 

• The neocons do have a messianic vision of 'democracy' and it is important for them, but their application of this desire is so selective - i.e. not in Saudi Arabia, Occupied Palestine, DR Congo etc, that it cannot be considered a real causal factor.
• I think the claim that they want to make the ME democratic by invading Iraq and imposing a new regime are a thinly veiled lie to justify seizing control of the region.  I think in making this claim, many Americans believe them, but that the Bush administration seriously miscalculated the complexities of Iraq.  The notion that a country can be invaded, occupied--with thousands on deaths on both sides--would result in a democracy is clearly ridiculous.  If they did believe this then the administration is more incompetent than if this is simply a lie to justify the invasion.
• Achieving a stable, economically viable state under Iraqi leadership.
• All of this may be summed up in the neo-conservative ideology of the administration.
• I would place "ideological view of the world and America's role in shaping, guiding, and controlling global affairs in the interests of the US and its allies/friends" very high on the list of drivers
• US already have a military foothold in the Middle East. It also has ample access to, and control of oil supplies. Transformational desire for democracy is a manipulative strategy to win public support. Invading Iraq first and foremost serves the interests of Israel and US commercial interests.
• Combination of factors has promoted US policies toward Iraq, oil, Israel, opportunity to punish Arab Muslims for 9/11, personal revenge, covered by the argument for democracy once the argument for WMD failed to materialize. Hegemony of the Middle East that includes Afghanistan and its neighbors by the neocons seems a clear aim. These individuals wish to have the attention of the American people elsewhere in order to carry out a broad agenda of their policies at home.  This seems clear from what has transpired over the past three and a half years.  What seems also clear is that the selling of these policies has begun to be undone.
• Bush administration policies are influenced by others outside but re-election dominates everything & public opinion must be satisfied.
• With regard to (c), it is less a matter of Israel's security (thanks to the USA, Israel is a substantial military power) but of getting Iraq to recognize Israel on the latter's terms.
• The democracy argument is not being backed up by tangible actions, leading me to be skeptical of its importance.
• His influences completely ignore the needs, concerns and aspirations of the Iraqi people.
• The U.S. already has a well-established military foothold in Saudia Arabia, I do not believe the goal was to set up bases in Iraq for long-term purposes.  Certainly there would be more interest in control over the petroleum reserves.  Concerns about the security of Israel play a constant and critical role in the U.S. foreign policy in that region of the world.  I don't think there is a tremendous amount of concern for establishing democracy in the Middle East.  That is rhetoric.  Certainly private business interest also plays a role in foreign policy particularly when big oil/defense business is involved.
• There already are many military footholds in the Middle East - The US Navy is very active in the Gulf. 
• A desire to establish American type of democracy in Iraq has no validity. It has no scientific base.
• The degree to which individual policy makers are influenced by these drivers differs, but they all are important or critical to administration insiders (including non-governmental advisors with direct access to policy makers).  I also would point out that "democracy" is not the focal point of transformation but rather marketization, which is why there was so little concern for countervailing institutions (including state institutions) and the focus on citizens' rights and liberties is fuzzy at best.
• Without 9/11, no war.  9/11 changed the president's mind on Iraq, and on the transformational policy advocated by neo-cons
• They already HAD a military foothold. Some people in the administration may care about democracy in the Middle East, but they haven't been pushing for invasion of any place that doesn't have either petroleum reserves or strategic importance. People who strongly support the current government of Israel (Wolfowitz, Perle) have considerable, perhaps determining, and influence in the Department of Defense and have apparently made a strong case there for the long-standing Israeli drive to destroy Iraqi military power -- even though Israeli policy has failed conspicuously to establish security for the country or its citizens.
• Interestingly, we should not under-estimate the power of the Wilsonian ideal ironically espoused by the neo-conservatives and at great cost to both Americans and Iraqis.
• Now since there is enormous damage to repair our image (I can't even say 'good will'):
• to stop fighting for two weeks
• to continue to apologize, and not talk about 'paying' them for their torture
• to admit we were wrong
• to insist Israel remove the settlements (yes, it is all connected)
• The Zionist lobby and right-wing Christian romantics have driven this invasion and occupation.
• concern about security of Israel and private business interests
• The talk about democracy was utterly hypocritical, designed to placate those who otherwise would have opposed such actions. Washington depends too much on alliances with authoritarian rulers whose continuation in power is critical for the maintenance of its hegemony.
• You have clearly revealed your own ideological bias. THE reason for the invasion, of course, is not even listed here: Saddam's destabilizing influence, harboring and financing of terrorists, and threat to the whole region. Is your funding Saudi, by any chance?
• Need to mention terrorism and historic legacy of 91 gulf war
• The President is a self-righteous lunatic. That's what drives his "policy" in the Middle East.
• I see it as about re-shaping the international order of the region in a way that is distinctly pro-US and pro-US business interests.
• Almost all are important.
• It should be noted that both Israel's security and the prospects for democracy in the region have been very adversely affected by those policies which this administration mistakenly believes will serve both.
• This is an administration bent on finishing off 'unfinished business' of previous administration. Cheney was Sec. of Defense under Bush senior.  He wants to finish the job started then.
• Our president is a born again Christian and he has messed up our country. His definition of terror is arbitrary. Removal of Saddam was also influenced by person vengeance for an attempt on his father.
• Stability in petroleum markets and appeasement of AIPAC are the primary influences in my opinion.  
• Basing rights, regional hegemony, and control of petroleum resources are important now as they were important to Britain in the 1920s and 1930s in Iraq.
• The notion "all they understand is force" and that smiting a Middle Eastern country, even the wrong country, will "send a message to evildoers" is important too.
• Extending US global hegemony and capitalizing regions for US benefit are primary reasons for its invasion of countries. Communism is over for the most part, so we're back to the era of the British Empire and its "army of merchants."
• The US over the course of the last 20 years the US has increasingly defined its interests in the Middle East in terms of Israel's. With respect to Iraq, the US is there to eliminate a strategic competitor to Israeli regional dominance.
• Not clear what is meant by a "military foothold."  We already have a military presence in the region.   If you mean the ability to transport large numbers of troops to hot spots quickly, then yes, we need to maintain that ability.
• I believe this administration naively and arrogantly thinks it can remake the Middle East in some kind of American-Israeli image.  A week and a half ago during a conference in Tehran in a private discussion I heard a senior Iranian political-intellectual insider (a member of the Ire's state security council--or whatever they call it) say that American policy in Iraq/the ME is "insincere."  In terms of stated objectives in Iraq (the lies we all know about--Wads, links to Al Qaeda, etc., etc.), I agree.
• I am still confused about why the U.S. went to war in Iraq.
• The reserves are important, but all evidence points to complete willingness on the part of Hussein and gulf leaders to provide oil.

Question #3 Comments:

What drivers do you believe should influence Bush administration policies on Iraq? 

• Stability and peace require large doses of self-determination and democratic change in the Middle East at this point. Military footholds and control don't gel with this. Israel can look after itself at the present time. Its obsessive security concerns destabilize the region, they do not bring peace.
• The Bush administration or its successor should remove the US military from Iraq, Kuwait, and the other Gulf countries as quickly as possible. Creating true friendship with the peoples of the Middle East, including Iraq, should start with fulfillment of the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict as laid out in UN resolutions. This means security for Israel within its pre-June 1967 borders, a real independent state for the Palestinians in all of the West Bank and Gaza (with a secure connector between the two), internationalization of Jerusalem so that it can serve as the shared capital of two states, and a just resolution of the Palestinian refugee tragedy. The latter can be in the form of a negotiated combination of "return" to inside Israel, "return" to the new Palestine, and compensation by means of donating the existing Jewish settlements to the refugees and material help to resettle those refugees who choose to become citizens in their current host countries.
• Democracy should not be imposed by killing people off and setting up a US military government. This is hardly democracy.
• Building a just Israeli-Palestinian peace, as this is the most destabilizing problem in the Mid East, the cause of terrorism and US insecurity.  I'd like to see the US focus on building good diplomatic relationships, based on the interests of people in the region, rather than opportunistic US interests.  The only real security comes from good relationships.
• This question does not address my ideas about what the Bush administration should or should not be doing in Iraq.  I think they should not have invaded.  I think also that this invasion has made all of the options above more difficult to carry out than if they had contained Saddam.  The main problem was that Saddam refused to play according to the rules, as they set them out---for instance the US has no problem with establishing military bases in countries which have dictators or violate human rights.  They also could have created a policy which enabled business deals...the only wrench in these possibilities was Saddam's attitude towards the West. 
• The US already has a major military foothold in the ME.  There are bases in Turkey...just neighboring Iraq. 
• HUMAN RIGHTS should be at the top of any list of why and should.
• Genuine commitment to justice, peace, democratic values, and global harmony should guide the administration's policy towards not just Iraq but the whole Middle East. The US alliance with Sharon's government in Israel is detrimental to US interests around the world.
• For an atmosphere where US business will be welcomed in the Middle East a policy of mutual respect & mutual benefit has to be established. Pushing for Sharon's policies as Bush has, control of oil through force, & and attempting to impose some brand of democracy in one country and support dictatorship in others are not the factors that can lead to that kind of atmosphere. I am certain a high school student would come to the same conclusion.
• Because the occupation of Iraq is bound to fail, so is the US ambition to control the nation's petroleum.
• This is hard to answer since it isn't clear what the baseline is.  Basically the status quo prior to the war was just fine as far as US interests were concerned, and the proper thing to have done was nothing.
• Since I don't think we should be in Iraq to begin with, justifying it with any rationale is difficult.
• The Bush administration needs to figure out how to leave with an Iraqi government with true sovereignty in place quickly, overseen in part by an international not an American supervisory institution that includes many Arab and Muslim members.
• I think it should be influenced towards establishing stability in the region (which looks almost out of sight at this point).  It should help rebuild the petroleum infrastructure --not control it.  It should take into consideration security concerns for the greater region--not just Israel.  It should be guided by building capacity in the region and building democratic processes. 
• There are many ways to deal with oil production and oil reserves.  US corporations play a major role in the control of Gulf oil reserves with or without the invasion of Iraq.  As for a military foothold, towards what end?
• Israel - via Sharon and, unfortunately, Barak, has dug its own grave in the Middle East, and it will have to lie in it all by itself.  The U.S. gets nothing at all from this effort for Israel's security
• None of the above. relations with Iraq should not be different then the other countries in the world community.
• It is interesting that you have no "driver" focused on the Middle East itself.  I think that the most important driver for US policy should be regional stability and the second the encouragement of civil rights and liberties, greater political participation, and political and economic transparency within a framework of law and regulation.  The stability and accessibility of this region, with its pivotal role in the global economy, is of primary importance not only to US security and prosperity but also to global security and prosperity. 
• Should not have gone in at all.  Already have military bases.  Oil is important, but Saddam was not a threat to it
• Now it's too late, the damage is done. No military foothold is possible there in the long run.
• US should abandon its militarism or face increased resistance everywhere in the world; Bush is incapable of formulating any policy whatsoever
• The US should never have gotten involved in Iraq. In the current situation, the only way to get out is to let Iraqis choose their own government -- which may choose to negate all the other US interests listed.
• However, whatever the factors driving the policies, war should not be among the options - too late now, of course.
• Trade and cultural exchange are our only legitimate interests in the Middle East.
• None of the above
• The "Transformational desire for Middle East democracy" would be good in principle, but promoting it through such invasion would not be the way to do it--even if that were the goal.
• The most important issue is establishing order in Iraq so that the military can leave.  They should not have gone in but now that they are there they should finish the job:  Establish a viable government -- it will inevitably be anti-American -- and leave.
• Again, the key reason, and the reasons on account of which the US Congress authorized the war, are glaringly absent from your "survey."
• Choices are regional, not Iraq specific
• I think that U.S. policy in Iraq now should be driven by a policy of cutting losses, not only in Iraq but also with the rest of the international community.  The gaps are wide and the U.S. is self-destructing.
• We should take our rhetoric more seriously, and support the kind of reform US policy has been talking about for fifteen years, though has consistently refused to implement (i.e. stop bankrolling dictators, overlooking massive human rights abuses by allies, and turning a blind eye on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian people).  Promoting a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestininan conflict should be the foremost issue on the US agenda. 
• The Bush administration should be working to get US troops out of Iraq.
• The US needs, at long last, to realize that Israel's long-term security in the region can only be assured through a just and durable peace with its neighbors. Current policies which purport to serve Israeli interests merely extend and deepen the conflict and makes peace ever more unachievable. The myth about the lack of 'a partner' etc. must be abandoned before it actually becomes reality (an eventuality which Sharon's govt. is only too keen to see). 
• Support for Israeli security need not to harm US position with the Muslim world.  Bush administration has done the exact opposite.
• Pre-emptive strike was wrong. Should get out as soon as possible and bring the UN. The whole thing has brought disgrace to America and suffering to Iraqis ... thousands of civilians are killed and enormous damage to the country.  It has hurt our economy too.
• America's security and global image need to be placed above concern over the Jewish vote and/or concerns about Israel are having its way in the peace process. Current policy borders on lunacy.
• No reason at this point should warrant an invasion of Iraq, but it's a little late for that.
• The most sensible US policy, if possibly the most difficult, is that of honest broker between the states of the region. That may no longer be an option given the invasion of Iraq and the aftermath that we are witnessing. The best thing for the US to do is to cut its losses now.
• None, he should not be there.
• These "drivers" do not justify warfare on our part. There are other ways of pursuing our national interests. "Control over petroleum ..." is a bad question. We don't need "control" to pursue our important interest. We need an international marketplace.
• I strongly believe that the Bush administration should not be so heavily involved in Iraq at all.
1. Concern for the rights and human needs of the Iraqi population must be the goal of US policies in Iraq if they are to conform to the Geneva conventions.  Those are the responsibilities of an occupying army.
2. I believe this administration naively and arrogantly thinks it can remake the Middle East in some kind of American-Israeli image.  A week and a half ago during a conference in Tehran in a private discussion I heard a senior Iranian political-intellectual insider (a member of the IRI's state security council--or whatever they call it) say that American policy in Iraq/the ME is "insincere."  In terms of stated objectives in Iraq (the lies we all know about--WMDs, links to Al Qaeda, etc., etc.), I agree.
3. I believe that the U.S. should get out of the region and allow people to build robust, healthy, accountable societies.  That includes ending support for neo-liberal policies that increase poverty, such as privatization, as well as support for the huge military base called Israel.  When hell freezes over, I guess.

Question #4 Comments:

If you could give the current or a new incoming administration three recommendations for Iraq policy, what would they be?

1.       Transfer political and military power to a transitional UN body.

2.       Phase out troops

3.       Implement a Marshall Plan

---

1.       Get UN involved

2.       Avoid clash with Shiites

3.       Leave it to John Kerry

---

1.       Get the US military out of Iraq and the Gulf immediately.

2.       Provide generous economic aid, without strings attached, for rebuilding the country.

3.       Stop selling armaments and stop giving military aid to countries in the region, including Israel.

---

1.       Let the Iraqis figure out what THEY want rather than telling them what they should think. 

2.       Involve the UN more.

3.       Reconstitute the Iraqi military into a basic police-style security force to help with day to day violence and stability issues.  Do more rebuilding.

---

1.       Internal stability with justice

2.       External stability in region

3.       Improved US understanding of cultural difference -- dump the clash of cultures approach

---

1.       Can't do so, without knowing what will happen in late June.

2.       Withdraw and let the UN deal with Iraq.

---

1.       End the coalition's occupation of Iraq, phasing it out over the next six months

2.       Let the Iraqi people really choose their own leadership (not the corrupt Chalabi or others handpicked by the US)

3.       Establish an equal relationship with Iraq

---

1.       Internationalize the occupation

2.       Hand over sovereignty

3.       Get out as soon as possible--a UN peace keeping force will do more good than a US military occupation.

---

Anything the US does to influence or create a new government will be instantly discredited.

1.       Human Rights

2.       Involvement, as approved by Iraqis, of the International Community, including Arab States, esp. at a community to community level; e.g. establish "sister" towns & villages.

3.       Iraqis should be involved far more with the rebuilding of their own infrastructure, as there are numerous well-trained engineers already there, etc. 

---

As soon as possible, place authority and administration in the hands of some combination of indigenous Iraqi leaders and UN technicians, secured by a mixed international and national army.

Remember the commitment to reconstruction. Sustain the funding for this activity long enough to solidify the material and social achievements.

Never make such a stupid mistake again, and, if you do, at least make plans for the aftermath. Learn to think unconventionally in an unconventional world. Establish clear links of responsibility and answerability in all facets of administration. Encourage a vibrant and free press; undertake steps to educate Americans about the rest of the world and especially vital areas of interest like the Middle East.

---

1. Disengage as quickly as possible. 
2. Give up all ideas of teaching the world by force to uphold an American style of government.
3. Move on to an international process of resolving issues. Listen, don't talk all the time.

---

1. Place immediate emphasis on negotiation and accommodation with all significant parties, including those such as Muqtada al-Sadr that are not seen as advancing American or broad Iraqi interests.
2. Remove the ideologues from policy-making positions and listen to the true regional and Iraqi experts, both within and outside the government.
3. Be much more aggressive and timely in handing over responsibility for political affairs (and, as much as possible, security matters) to the UN or other multi-national arrangement.  The credibility of America's role in Iraq is damaged beyond repair and continued American control over Iraqi institutions can only be counter-productive.

---

1. Give the UN a primary role in insuring a transition of sovereignty to real representatives of the Iraqi people.
2. Dissociate the US from alliances with corrupt politicians like Ahmed Chalabi and his supporters inside and outside of Iraq. Admit the failure of the Iraq policy and hold those responsible (especially in the Pentagon and the vice president's office) accountable for their failures.
3. Revamp the US foreign policy towards the Middle East and pursue an even-handed policy towards the region. Recognize that the situation in Iraq is intricately tied to the situation in Palestine/Israel and take genuine and positive steps to solve both situations justly.

---

1. Involve the UN before it is two late
2. Turn Full Control to Iraqis as soon as possible.
3. Leave Iraq as soon as possible

---

1. Admit the mistakes.
2. Call for time table to pull out.
3. Call for international support for security, reconstruction, & mending fences with the Iraqi people & let them elect their form of government. Ibrahimi's proposals will cause serious problems. What did he accomplish in Afghanistan? The Loyal Jorge system has been in place for several thousand years, & the war lords-war criminals are brought back to control, extreme poverty prevails along with handful of individuals who through fraud, bribery, & drug trade have become the dominant force in the Afghan society. If there is a lesson for Iraq, it is not to repeat the same as in Afghanistan.

---

1.       Not only bring the UN in but cede all authority to it

2.       Fire Rusted and Chalabi

3.       Recognize the authority of Ayatollah Sistani

---

1.       Remove army activities from cities

2.       Turn over all affairs to Iraqi political leaders

3.       If chaos results divide the country into 3 parts

---

1.       Try to transfer control to the UN.

2.       Failing that, try to transfer control to an Arab coalition.

3.       Failing that, leave!

---

1.       Withdraw

2.       Withdraw

3.       withdraw

---

Turn the whole thing over to the UN as soon as possible, even if it means eating a lot of crow.  If the Bush administration continues, fire everyone remotely connected with the enterprise (this should be done before the election)

Really internationalize the occupation; publicly roll of few heads for the serious bungles to date; back away from Sharon and the Likud in Israel as that issue is killing us in the ME.

1.       Send in more troops

2.       Find better ways to negotiate with local groups

3.       Don't let isolated groups of soldiers run amuck and don't use negatively symbolic sites for US operations, i.e.  Abu Ghraib.

---

Historical experience shows that when Arabs and Muslims are actually helped by American policies, they appreciate America and Americans; therefore American policy must seriously address the desires of the Iraqi people, not Wolfowitz's or anyone else's grand plans for the Middle East.   If America must have bases in the ME, let them be in Israel, Jordan, or someplace like Chad, not in Iraq.  It is very important to look at the larger Arab and Muslim worlds, and thus to openly work for a truly just solution in Palestine/Israel, even if that costs Israel control of land and resources, and costs America money, in devising post-war plans for Iraq: just solutions must be sought in both countries concurrently.  For the time being, without compromising his authority in any way, the Americans must ensure the security of important, patient, moderate clerics and tribal leaders, such as al-Sistani; nothing could imperil the impending transition more than further successful assassinations of such voices of moderation. 

---

1.       A fast rebuild of the infrastructure.

2.       Organize free and democratic elections.

3.       A prompt exit.

---

Work to bring in all parties in Iraq- even ones that are "anti-American"  Democracy demands that all points of view be represented

1.       Work more closely with the UN, Europe, and neighboring countries in the region.

2.       Get troops out as soon as possible and put a priority on rebuilding basic infracture like clean water and electricity.

3.       Tune down the rhetoric and start listening.

---

1.       Go home

2.       Go home

3.       Go home

---

1.       Invasion and occupation of Iraq is contrary to long-term US interests, because occupations are always highly unpopular.

2.       States are minor players in relation to Terrorism. Therefore invading countries is not going to help much in the war on terror. On the contrary, it tends to make things more difficult, because it dramatically increases hatred of the US government.

3.       We should represent mainstream Israeli and Palestinian interests. This drives extremists on both sides underground, and gains popular support for US policies in the Middle East. In recent years we have agressively supported right-wing Israeli agendas, and have actively worked against all Palestinian groups, moderate or otherwise. This recipe has failed for several decades now.

---

1.       The first priority is to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

2.       The second would be to adopt a more evenhanded and more rational policy towards the occupation of Palestine.

---

1.       Apologize for the actions taken by an unelected figurehead and his de facto illegitimate government

2.       Prosecute war criminals from the preceding administration and set up a commission to determine reparations due Iraq

3.       Get out.

---

1.       Withdraw militarily from the Middle East - US military presence has always been a provocation to extremist elements.

2.       Resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict - by pressuring Israel to withdraw from all Occupied Territories, remove settlements, and allow some form of return/recompense to Palestinians in the Diaspora.

3.       Cease and desist from blindly supporting Israeli concerns/agendas in the region

---

1.       Get out of Iraq

2.       Pay war reparations

3.       Encourage UN General Assembly to provide interim stability

---

I would advise the administration to go to the roots of the problems. This approach of Mr. Bush made the world a more dangerous place especially for Americans.

Realism, Humanism, Feasible measures.

---

1.       Get the UN and EU involved.

2.       Allow the south and north of Iraq to be semi-independent.

3.       Make deals with conservative and even religious leaders, allowing them to participate in the running of Iraq.

---

To engage in consultation with Iraqi groups and factions, and with US allies (including regional allies), and UN officials that would give each segment both agency in determining and responsibility for the mode and the outcome of US disengagement from Iraq.  Second, I would indemnify Iraqis for damages, ensuring that funds go directly to persons who have lost family members, their own health, and property as a direct result of the invasion and occupation, as well as to the state to compensate for collective losses such as damages to infrastructure, the looting of museums and libraries.  Finally, I would recommend strong support of democratization in Iraq, going beyond concerns for open markets to include support of individuals and groups committed to working for the expansion of civil liberties and political participation, and guaranteeing the rule of law in Iraq.

---

1. Do not do unto others as others do unto you.
2. No blood for oil.
3. Turn over to UN and get out.

---

1. Hand over to the U.N.
2. Involve the Arab League
3. Support democracy

---

1. Internationalize the transition
2. Given up on democracy -- go for stable, representative govt.
3. Tell Kurds clearly they can't have de facto independence

---

1. Internationalize by handing over to U.N.
2. Hold elections ASAP
3. Reduce troop presence while allowing an international policing force to oversee interim security

---

1. Work with other international actors; give up trying to do it alone.
2. Stand up to Sharon and force Israel to vacate the territories.
3. Find a strategy for dealing with al-Qa'ida that is not military.

---

1. Withdraw all troops immediately
2. Establish a compensation/development scheme for Iraq
3. Bring in patronage from the so called coalition

---

Clean up the US image, not by public relations gimmicks, but by voiding the "lucrative contracts" and giving Iraqis the resources to help each other and themselves. In the long term, this will be less expensive in money, human lives, and diplomatic credit.

Join the International Criminal Court.

---

1. Ask, beg, bribe, cajole, etc. NATO members and key UN members to share the burden.
2. Award these same countries reconstruction contracts, regardless of whether they supported the war initially.
3. Appoint a panel of prominent Iraqis who have domestic legitimacy to meet with the CPA about how the 30 June hand-over should take place.

---

1. Get out
2. Fair and free elections
3. Fix U. S. policy in Middle East

---

1. Don't invade other countries
2. Find a way out immediately
3. Dedicate resources for genuine improvements in Iraqi infrastructure

---

1. To leave soonest.
2. To apologize effusively.
3. To provide reparations.

---

1. Involve the UN directly
2. Get out as fast as feasible
3. Support a truly representative govt. of Iraq

---

Get out sooner rather than later. That will mean fewer body bags.

1. Finish the job and leave
2. Accept the fact that the new administration in Iraq will be anti-American.
3. Encourage democratic processes so that the government can be held responsible for developments there.

---

Get the hell out and give the UN full support to return the country to some semblance of stability; make sure that democratic elections are set up within the next six months -- even if the results are not what US neo-cons want to achieve for "the new American century"; make sure that Wolfowitz, Perle, Pipes, Ajami, et al. are permanently discredited as Middle East "experts" (which Wolfie and Perle have never even claimed)

Be tough with them and brook no violence; seal off the Syrian and Iranian borders if you are not going to take those regimes out as well; read John Derbyshire.

---

1. Give up on picking Iraqi leaders
2. Give more responsibility to the UN
3. Train troops better for civilian tasks

1. Devise a workable exit strategy immediately
2. Dump Chalabi and his cronies
3. Employ Iraqis in the rebuilding process and dump the Halliburton's and their ilk.

---

Link up with local moderates, including moderate Shi'ite clerics, let them establish a functional government, and get the Hell out of Iraq.

1. Promote democracy in all countries, including Israel.
2. Promote human rights in all countries, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
3. Promote self-determination for the Palestinians and the Kurds, and political and cultural rights for minorities everywhere, including Kurds, Shiites, Jews, Christians and Bahais.

---

1. Withdraw from Iraq
2. For interim period, UN should take care of Iraq
3. Ensure that Iraq would be ruled by a govt. of Iraqis' free choice

---

1. Negotiate with the U.N. members to provide peacekeepers and help in clean-up;
2. Drastically reduce the expense on military maintenance and presence, and put those resources toward rebuilding infrastructure;
3. Not to fear a democratically elected government, even if it is not fully compliant with U.S. directions.

---

Get out now.

---

1. Create a three state solution, either within a federal political structure or outside it.
2. Dump Ahmed Chalabi
3. Genuinely work with the local communities, even knowing that what they will want may not be what the US wants.

---

Work by diplomatic means to involve other countries in restoring security to Iraq and remove US troops as quickly as possible.

1. Settle the Israeli-Palestinian problem on the basis of justice and international law, thereby creating a truly viable Palestinian state, without checkpoints, and with Israelis in control of their own water resources, air, and coast.
2. Give the Iraqis more power to deal with their own country.
3. Strong international presence with a distinct timetable for departure, based on goals agreed upon with the Iraqis to be achieved before final pull-out.

---

Get the military out. Give rebuilding and enterprise loans to Iraqi firms, schools, etc. Solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute on an equitable basis.

Current administration: Make what gestures can still be made on the management if prisons - immediately dismiss Rumsfeld and remove all private 'security contractors' from Iraq; cease preparations for US indirect rule after June 30 and announce that the new Iraqi administration will enjoy complete sovereignty; announce a timetable for complete and final withdrawal of all US forces, including all bases, within one year from June 30.

New administration: publicly distance US from previous administration's Iraq and Middle East policies; abandon plans for indirect rule of Iraq from new US embassy there and confirm complete sovereignty of new Iraqi govt., including freedom to establish whatever constitutional form of state may be chosen by Iraqi people (since any attempt by US to impose 'liberal' prescriptions will backfire at once on Iraqi democrats and progressives); announce timetable for complete evacuation of all troops and bases within a year of taking office (to be replaced if possible by Arab and Muslim troops under UN command where Iraqi govt. may request outside assistance).   

---

1. Handover political admin to the UN
2. Withdraw US troops as soon as possible
3. Make generous funding for Iraqi reconstruction as reparations to regain Iraqi goodwill and prevent another failed state.

---

1. let the Iraqis have free elections, regardless of what the outcome might be
2. let the Iraqis have complete control over the oil, regardless of what the outcome might be
3. Offer the Iraqis to help with training the new army, education, justice system, etc.

---

1. Hand over transition to 'peace' administration to the UN. 

2. Get US troops out of the country - they have neither the training nor the skills for peace building.

---

1. Withdraw in a timely but responsible fashion.
2. Remove all long-term US interests (oil contracts, military bases).
3. Provide generous funding for infrastructure, education, and health care.

1. Declare a timetable for withdrawal of troops.
2. Have the UN declared a trustee over Iraq.
3. Support the establishment of a UN administered multinational force to preserve the peace in Iraq until a national government is formed.

---

1. Support Israeli security and a Palestinian state in the occupied territories with pullback of all settlements in those areas.
2. Give Iraq a true and full sovereignty through a transitional government of elected Iraqis.  Stop to be fooled by Chalabi and the Co.
3. Pressure the countries in the region to open up their systems, more transparency, accountability, and restrictions on people's choices and freedom.

---

1. Get out, and bring the UNO
2. Pay compensation to the Iraqis
3. Respect the "other" don't be aggressive

---

1. Either immediately increase the number of troops in the theater or pull out altogether. Sticking it out in this configuration to prove Rumsfeld's thesis is not only insanity, it is unfair to American active military and reserve forces who are having to pay the price.
2. Everything outside of military maneuvers/strategy needs to be totally transparent, and Rumsfeld needs to fall on his sword (i.e. resign) to demonstrate to the world how serious the American people take this issue of prisoner abuse.
3. Abide by the Geneva Conventions across the board. The selective application of it regarding others with simultaneous expectations for treatment under it for U.S. soldiers/citizens is the height of hypocrisy, and has been very damaging to our international image.
   
   

---

1.       Get the military out

2.       Establish business partnerships with Iraqis

3.       Establish some educational exchange program

---

1.       Bring in the UN and bow out ASAP

2.       Investigate the prison scandal thoroughly and don't allow a few low-ranking soldiers to become scapegoats;

3.       Continue economic and social re-building of Iraq.

---

1.       Internationalize the conflict or evacuate. History shows us that endless arguments based on "credibility" and "not showing weakness" lead to error, folly, and pointless tragedy. 

2.       Only Iraqis can form a democracy in Iraq.

3.       There is no successful example of a Middle Eastern occupation, but one can at least be aware of past errors.

---

Establish an independent Iraqi government ASAP and get out of there; repair loss of faith in US government from global Muslims; let Iraq fight it's own wars rather than fighting them for Iraq, giving the Muslim community reason to hate the US and having their extremist groups commit more acts of terrorism against the US

1.       Get out of Iraq now.

2.       Force an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza.

3.       Work to eliminate nuclear arms in the region.

---

1.       Bring the troops home immediately.

2.       Stop following Sharon's recommendations.

3.       Treat Iraqis with respect rather than arrogance.

---

1.       Get out of Iraq - period. Withdraw.

2.       Think ahead before exercising military action - and other foreign policy initiatives.

3.       Cease neo-imperialism

---

1.       Give local authorities more power and resources.

2.       Give central authority to an older, respected man and let him establish govt. unpatronized by the American ambassador

3.       Only act militarily if requested to do so by Iraqi authority.

---

1.       Apologize.

2.       Pull out the military.

3.       Pour in aid.

---

Marginalize the Vulcans; Internationalization of the transition process; Iraqification of political power.

Put in place mechanisms for true democracy. Work as a neutral but active broker on the Palestinian issue. Get a true coalition in to work closely with authentic Iraqi representatives, rather than "going it alone".

Please please read history and consult academic specialists and also Iraqis about Iraqi history and culture.

Hand over sovereignty and control ASAP

---

Only two:

1. Reduce the damage caused by the Abu Ghraib Scandal as rapidly as possible to whatever limited degree is possible; change the subject to a focus on point number two.
2. Internationalize all aspects of Iraq's occupation and reconstruction as rapidly as possible in order to begin reducing our burden in blood and treasure.

---

1. Establish an international coalition, including some Muslim countries, to oversee preparations for elections and assumption of sovereignty. The US would at most play a minor role.
2. Distance ourselves from Israel sufficiently so as to play the role of an honest broker
3. Provide massive amounts of economic aid to Iraq to compensate for the destruction caused by military invasion and occupation.

---

1. Iraq cannot become stable until the occupation has ended.
2. All those accused of criminal offenses against Iraqis in both the previous administration and the occupation administration should be tried by an international tribunal; nothing less would restore international confidence in the good intentions of the US.
3. The coalition must pay reparations for the destruction of the infrastructure and livelihood of the Iraqis.  These reparations will be essential in creating the infrastructure necessary for stability after more than a decade of sanctions and two US-led wars.

---

1. Continue dealing with insurgents, but simultaneously transfer key decision-making and political functions to Iraqis. 
2. Engage in a greater amount of dialogue with Iraqis, and the Arab press and Arab world.  One appearance by our President post - torture photos is not enough.  Teach the troops that names like "Hajji" are racist.
3. Try to institute structures that will not rest on sectarianism.

---

1. Withdraw forces
2. Increase UN involvement
3. Provide more economic aid

---

1. Involve the U.N. and NATO--especially in decision-making.
2. Don't presume to tell the Arab (and Muslim) world about how to govern them
3. Develop a rational U.S. foreign policy vis-�-vis Israel, an aggressive small state (but with nuclear weapons) bent on imposing its neocolonialist will on a subject Palestinian population.

---

1. Establish international diplomacy to work with Iraqis to create a government of Iraqis, not American puppets;
2. Pull out troops;
3. Work on rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure.

---

1. Leave Iraq
2. Stop using techniques used by the Israelis in Palestinian areas to attempt to control Iraq
3. Stop determining policy based on Israel's recommendations

---

1. Involve the UN

2. Begin immediate negotiations with all Iraqi groups, including those that are hostile

3. Change completely our policy towards Israel

---

Get as much international involvement as possible; demonstrate humility; hand-over as much authority as possible faster.

---

There will never be a perfect time to get out of Iraq now, so just try to do it as quickly and responsibly as possible.  You cannot decide what the future of internal Iraqi politics will be, and trying to control this will make things worse.  Do not repeat arguments and justifications that you know are false or unconvincing; we will not be universally adored for telling the truth, but we will never be respected so long as we prevaricate on what our domestic and international interests are.

1.       Support democratic and feminist movements in the region.

2.       End military support for Israel. (This is unlikely given the strong links with U.S. military-capitalist interests.)

3.       Learn more Arabic, for God's sake.

---

1.       Get the UN in.

2.       Pull out US troops

3.       Allow Iraqis to decide their future

Question #5 Comments:

A century from now, what will be considered the key lessons from the US preventive/preemptive war on Iraq?

---

1. When occupying a country which you seek to control, don't destroy the local power structure (chiefly the army, and the Ba'th Party). [Cf "The Prince" Machiavelli]
2. Don't underestimate the power of nationalism and the need for hegemonic (as opposed to coercive) rule.
3. Don't assume that one country owns the "sole model for national success".

---

As the key event giving rise to the new wave of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism that caused trouble for middle ease and the world for a decade.

A century ago, the British created "protectorates" around the Persian Gulf, intervened in Iran at will, and plotted with the French to create colonies (the so-called "mandates") out of the Arab parts of a dismembered Ottoman Empire (what became Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq for the British, and Syria/Lebanon for the French). The results of this policy have been nothing but turmoil for the region for the last hundred years, and the feedback effects on Britain have been negative -- they are much despised for their nefarious role in "transforming" the Middle East to their own liking. The United States is currently in the process of repeating Britain's misdoings in the Middle East, and I expect the verdict (especially by the people of the Middle East) in one hundred years will be the same: imperialism and colonialism do not serve the interests of the occupied and colonized, or, in the long run, even of the colonizers. They create the basis for more war and conflict, not for solutions to the problems of the region. The feedback effects on the US are already negative: vague threats of more terrorism, the loss of civil liberties at home, and a renewal of "the ugly American" syndrome in the world at large.

---

Depends on how the above issues are handled.

1. How empires fall through overextension.
2. How human rights are crucial but largely ignored or misunderstood in a context of other national or commercial interests.
3. How dangerous it is to have minority interests control the US government

---

Legacy of British and French imperialism in pre-WWI era--destructive after-effects; linkage between Reagan, Bush (41) and Bush (43) administrations and business interests; futility of such actions.

I hope a century from now we will have learned that military intervention is a problem, not a solution; that US military interventions make our relationships considerably worse in the region concerned, hence creating a more dangerous situation for the US, not a more secure one. 

---

Preemption is naked aggression

You cannot prevent a war by making a war

Military invasion and occupation are ineffective strategies, enflaming nationalism, other forms of political unity (such as through religion, ethnicity) to fight the invaders.  If your interest is in galvanizing the enemy/opposition invasion and occupation accomplish this very well.  These are not strategies which will result in peace, democracy or even a free market, unless the US wants to kill millions of people and seize control of all assets.  Unless the US wants to become a lawless, aggressive regime (very similar to Saddam's Iraq) then these policies are not an option.

---

Violence Begets Violence, as a historical understanding of the regional events shows... In the 1950s, a CIA-lead coupe overthrew the democratically elected president of Shia Iran in order to replace him with the deposed Shah -- who was willing to sell oil to the US at less than the market rate.  This extremely oppressive and decadent reign was eventually overthrown by violent fundamentalists, whose influence reaches far beyond their physical and religious borders. The US $-backed Hussein's regime for years during the first Iran-Iraq Gulf War, while turning a blind eye to gross human rights abuses, esp. of the Kurds and Shia within Iraq.   After the 1990 Gulf War, the Iraqi Shia responded to the first President Bush's call for internal revolt.  They were then slaughtered from the air, while the US military literally stood by.   And now this current horror of the US becoming very much an oppressive occupier of Iraq, esp. in southern Shia region: If one's father or sister was tortured in prison at US hands, such as by being sexually humiliated, it's not surprising that the Shia would feel duty-bound to rise up against the US.  All of which is being exploited by terrorists.  

---

At a minimum, it will be seen as an ill-considered, faith-based, ideological exercise in naive imperialism. Beyond that, the magnitude of the consequences, all negative, will depend upon this administration's ability to admit that it falsified the rationale for this undertaking and based it on the views of persons who were totally untutored in the history and culture of the region. It will surely result in a loss of respect for central American values both abroad and at home.

---

I believe history will not consign George W. Bush to its garbage bin but damn him to hell. Einstein commented after 1945 that in a world that could divide the atom peace must now become indivisible. This administration has blindly pursued an ill-informed neo-conservative ideology and agenda, which had become obsolete before it even took office. After 9/11 it was imperative to learn quickly how the global world had changed, but the Bush administration was incapable and unwilling of undertaking such new learning and rethinking. The "war of terror" could only be meaningful and profitable as a war of foxes and not elephants, and the Bush-Cheney Administration manipulated an atmosphere of fear--as opposed to rational dangers and probable risks--to carry out an agenda it had already set for itself and crashed in like elephants. It has harmed the long term interests of the United States so gravely that it will take decades to appraise the extent of the damage. It has made a mockery of international law and, therefore, made it unlikely that any nation state will feel moral compelled to adhere to international standards when they go against its interests. At a time when we urgently needed courageous moral and politically sound leadership, George W. Bush gave us the opposite. History will not forgive him.

---

It is not possible for one regime (US) to force its format on another nation, not just in the Middle East, but anywhere.

---

1. Don't let ideological fervor blind you to practical considerations (that should have been learned already from Vietnam).

2. Military victory, even when quick and relatively painless, is not the answer to regime change.   At best, it is the instrument that permits the introduction of more fundamental and complex political and administrative transformation (that should have been learned already from British experience in Iraq in the first half of the 20th century).

3. Despite America's overwhelming power in the early 21st century, it could not ignore the rest of the world and rely solely on brute force to solve a difficult problem.

---

The conduct of foreign policy is too important to be left in the hands of ideologues willing to engage in lies and deception to achieve ill-conceived goals.

Military solutions to international problems have limitations.

Alienation and defiance of world public opinion is destructive and can lead to disastrous consequences.

Long-term consequences of policies must be studied and evaluated before actions are taken.

Global leadership can not be achieved by coercion.

---

This war has no real base, and it dose not serve the interest of the US

---

The US is a great country which clearly is capable of doing much good for its citizens and for the world if only the rules of mutual respect, free markets, and sharing in the resources of the world and discoveries of technologies are carried out for multilateral benefits and through multilateral agreements. The Iraq war will be an example of bad policies and use of raw power without regard to consequences. 

---

No pre-emptive war. Use of diplomacy instead of guns. Disasters result from ideologue administrations 

---

1. Regular armies do not fight in hostile cities
2. Globalization will stop the blood letting
3. The UN must handle affairs in Iraq

---

Another failed imperial project which, combined with the United States' virtually unqualified support for Israeli expansionism, sorely compromised the American position in the Middle East.

---

It was doomed from the beginning

---

The fact that the US has the ability to quickly and decisively defeat the *military* of Iraq was almost entirely irrelevant for the vastly more complex task of controlling Iraq politically.  In a century, we may also look at this as one of the last times that the US undertook an effectively unilateral military action without the backing of most other major powers

---

That a hyper power unchecked and unrivaled engaged in a hubristic attempt to remake the world any way it wanted, and instead discovered the real limits to even overwhelming military power.

---

Don't invade a Middle Easter n country without the support of the Arab/Muslim world & the UN

---

One cannot accurately predict what the lessons of history will be after many later events have changed peoples' view of this past, but in the shorter term, there seems to be little doubt that this war will be remembered by scholars, journalists, and well-informed individuals as one that fuelled by misinformation in the planning and justifying stages, and was riddled with utterly unnecessary mistakes due solely to the insolence and ignorance of key officials who were fully warned of probable dangers ahead of time by knowledgeable sources--dangers spanning from the probability of disastrous looting immediately following the war to the importance of having enough troops on the ground, and the unlikelihood that leaders from exile such as Ahmad Chalabi would find much Iraqi support.  Several main lessons might or might not be learned from this war, not all of which have to do with the preemptive nature of the war, among them, the importance of strong, realistic post-war planning--at which this administration has failed miserably, unfortunately--and the lasting problem of failing to garner international support, especially when no ethnic cleansing or genocidal measures are involved.  No intelligent, informed American believes that weapons of mass destruction had much to do with the genesis of this war; the larger international community never did believe that Iraqi WMD were a real threat, and the moderating role of that larger community was ignored in the prosecution of this war.  One hopes that realization that the moderating role of international consensus is crucial to decisions about wars of any kind--except when genocidal conflicts are to be quelled--is what will emerge most prominently from this experience.

---

There was a grave misunderstanding of the culture and beliefs of the Iraqi people, and diplomacy is always the better option.

---

Know the facts before you intervene!

---

Pre-emptive War is an extremely dangerous policy.

Colonialism ended in the 20th century - and attempts in the 21st Century brought predictable results:  failure and animosity.

The United States policy of separation of Church and State was a brilliant foundation of the country that was sadly eroded under the Bush administration.

---

Go home

Go home

Go home

---

By then, international law will be more important in politics, so the fact that we invaded Iraq illegally will be remembered. It will also be remembered as a desperate, misguided and failed attempt to fight terrorism. By then, I suspect that they will have more effective strategies for dealing with terrorism.

---

This will be considered a mistake on par with the US invasion of Vietnam and the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan

---

When the President thinks Jesus is authorizing his actions, Congress should initiate impeachment hearings, not war. 

---

That the US's preemptive actions have lent further vindication to Islamism, which in itself is a product of the globalizing policies the US has pursued.  As a result of the chaos we have caused in the region, we have doomed it to economic underdevelopment and eventual irrelevance as its resources will have been replaced by those in Central Asia even before they are exhausted, and they most certainly will have been in a century's time.

---

The U.S. imperial expansion destabilized much of the world.

---

A historical event cannot be evaluated at the time and space which occurs. Its ramifications unfold as the time passes. The images pertaining the war and the prisons will not disappear from the collective memory of the Arabs and Islamic world. The US needs to pay high prices to win the trust of the third world countries in general and Arabs and Muslims in particular.

---

Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

---

This will be seen as the "lesson not learned from Vietnam". Military force is essential in many instances, but it only works in the shortest term. Cultural conservatives and others who think the US has nothing to learn from other cultures rely solely on military solutions -- which have only a limited usefulness.

---

That unchecked power threatens everyone, including the citizens of the unchecked power; That international institutions which reinforce the global power distribution rather than Diluting its effects is worthless; that individuals can stand up to power and be effective in checking it, just as their refusal to stand up to power strengthens it.  Learning these or any other lessons is contingent on a resolution of the current crisis that does not include damaging the current political economy beyond repair.  A global economic collapse and/or another world war, both of which have been made more likely by current US policy, generates too many unknowns (known and otherwise) to imagine how US policy today will look one hundred years from now.

---

That we cannot impose democracy on any entity.

---

1. It doesn't work for a country that is considered an empire.

2. Even the most powerful country, needs help from the 'little guys' on the ground.

3. Ideology gets in the way of objectivity

---

Don't get involved in remaking societies that you don't know much about, and, if you do, be willing to commit the resources up front, right away, to establish security.

---

1. Disregard for international norms governing use of force leads to precipitous loss of legitimacy

2. Combating terrorism requires more of a policing approach than a primarily military one

3. Iraq will figure as a key moment in the rejuvenation and reinforcing of al-Qa'ida and Islamism, generally, in the Middle East

---

Failure of preemptive war as a strategy. End of the discussion over whether the US is an "empire" or not. (It isn't, and now it's going to lose ground rapidly.)

---

Shameful, useless waste of human resources; international terrorism, and another step in implementation of a detrimental, terminally flawed policy

---

Occupation of Muslim lands by foreign/Christian countries is very costly.

---

Waging a war on untenable premises and for unacknowledged reasons can lead to unintended consequences.

Democracy isn't authentic if an external authority sets limits to the acceptable outcomes.

An attempt to establish unchallengeable military and economic power worldwide is likely to arouse strong opposition.

---

 (1) Preemption was not at issue, and the U.S. preventive war is actually no different from aggression according to well-established international law.

(2) A war of ideas must be replaced by diplomacy and dialogue - not winning the hearts and minds, but rather earning the trust and respect of the Arabs and others

(3) Democratization cannot be imposed out of the barrel of a gun.

(4) U.S. troops should not be sacrificed for missions that are not core national interests.

---

Big Mistake.  Pro-Israeli interest misled the U. S.

---

I think it may well be seen as the first and last act of the expansionist empire of the "new American century"

---

1)      Mixing of evangelical righteousness and bombs doesn't work;

2)      That America no longer walks the moral high ground, and those generations will still be paying for this disgrace;

3)      Business interests and Christian righteousness leads to bombing others.

---

Illegal and immoral military adventures that disregard loss on innocent lives will arouse nationalism and provoke international condemnation.

---

how not to get involved in wars not serving directly American interests and let not countries with strong influence on American policies dictate them to the detriment of U.S. interests

---

Don't let this country's policy be manipulated by a few ideologues who are hiding their loyalty to a foreign state behind a pretense of extreme American patriotism.

---

1)      A pre-emptive war is desirable only when there is clear reasonable cause.

2)      It should be undertaken only when the wider community of nations agrees that it is necessary.

3)      Wars should be addressed to real enemies:  in this case it should have been against Al Qaeda, which the Bush administration must have known was not involved in Iraq.

---

It was an asinine and "un-American" step

---

Too early to tell. Up until now, that the US wasn't willing to fight to win and underestimated the Arab reverence for overwhelming power and force.

The real question is whether or not Arab/Muslim society is able and willing to be free and civilized or not.

---

wars of choice are dangerous and have unintended consequences for the initiator.  Can't impose democracy through military force.  US govt. does not have adequate civilian resources for post-conflict situations.

---

1. You can't "democratize" a country by force.
2. The Iraq war will be seen to have marked the beginning of a precipitous decline in United States stature and influence in world affairs.
3. The Iraq war will be seen as a period which resulted in severely curtailed rights and liberties for American citizens and perhaps the beginning of the end for whatever remains of democracy in the United States.

---

Never elect a Texan as President. Don't forget LBJ and Vietnam; don't forget Bush and Afghanistan/Iraq.

---

1. The dangers of allowing ideologues/fundamentalists decide on foreign policy.
2. The damage to U.S. principals caused by arrogance, unilateralism, racism and hypocrisy.
3. The terrible cost in human lives and material wealth in the Middle East and the United States, and the resulting damage to those societies

---

There is no preventive/preemptive war on Iraq. Iraq under Saddam is never a threat to US. The question is irrelevant.

---

1. More evidence of needed before war is waged;
2. The branches of government have a role, not just the Executive Branch;
3. Oil is not worth it.

---

Arrogance does not pay.

---

Look before you leap, i.e. think about what comes after you win the war, and focus more on winning the peace.

---

Preventive wars rarely work, and certainly do not work if the "facts" driving them cannot be proven true to other countries or to the American people.

---

That it is indeed a very bad policy that only leads to strife between the nations of the world.

---

American hubris in Iraq will have spawned a new generation of militants drawing on both radical Islam and nationalism. Until we show respect for the dignity of other nations, we will be mistrusted, and often hated.

---

That calls for 'preemption' of supposed threats whose reality is not immediately demonstrable (cf Cuba and Iraqi 'WMD') should be regarded with great suspicion, as (as in this case) more likely to be covers for other agenda which have no basis in the 'threat' presented to the public; that a genuine commitment to multilateral diplomacy is indispensable and that the US can no longer act as sole superpower against international legality and consensus without irreversibly damaging its own interests and, ultimately, security; that the 'clash of civilizations' was a hugely irresponsible self-fulfilling prophecy; that democracy cannot be delivered on the tip of laser-guided munitions (dixit Chris Patten).

---

The need to work cooperatively with the international system and within recognized bounds of legality.

That the war on terror was much set back by invading Iraq.

---

1. Don't invade a country unless you have both a plan & the forces to maintain the peace afterwards
2. Don't let ideologues tell you what a foreign country is like -> ask the academic specialists

---

Might alone cannot change the outlook of a state or a people

---

The lunacy of rushing to war under false pretenses.

The self-fulfilling prophecy of the "war on terror."

---

Ensure that no conspiratorial, ideologically- driven, group can hijack the foreign policy of the US again & involve the nation in overseas adventures.

---

Empires have a tendency to get ahead of themselves and lay the ground for their own downfall!

---

It will be considered as arrogance of power, colonial mentality to subdue other nations/people and to control other countries and exploit their resources to keep up the American living standards and total disregard for other people or moral/ethical values

---

1)      That preemptive war is never a better option than diplomacy.

2)      That blind acceptance of any administration's military/security policies by the public is dangerous to our national security, economy, and global image.

3)      That the Bush administration and its unilateralist, neoconservative policies represents the apex of American hubris in the post-Cold War era.

---

A foolhardy policy that resulted in the exact opposite results of those sought out.

---

It will be seen as a disastrous undermining of US image and values in the world.

---

The question is poorly worded since both "preemption" and "prevention" posit an actual threat. 

Lies and incompetence mixed with self-serving arrogance lead to tragedy. The ultimate scope of the tragedy is unknowable at this point.

---

If you have a reason for attacking/invading another country, your reason better be concrete and provable to the world community for justification.  Remember, it's not what you "know," it's what you can prove.

---

That depends on who wins. My guess is that the US "loses" almost no matter what happens given the hopeless contradictions in its position. An interesting question is whether or not Israel is successful in becoming unchallenged regional hegemon, and Iraq is only one issue among several that will affect that outcome.

---

Do not engage in pre-emptive military actions.

---

Shame

---

1. Elect intelligent leaders.

2. Avoid excessive use of power (military, political, economic.)

3. Human rights are more important than hegemony. 

---

Many of the same things said about the Spanish American war. We will "win" but at the cost of much respect. It may be the beginning of a decline in our world power. Our government will be considered very hypocritical in what they say about the (unjustified) use of violence. It may be the beginning of an ever growing distance between of proclaimed democratic principles and our global domination.

---

Terrorism cannot be broadly solved through 'war'/military action; the danger of U.S. foreign policy driven by a convergence of extremist Christianity and Judaism against extremist Islam; the naivet� in the 21st Century of electing a U.S. president not experienced and/or well-versed in international law and diplomatic relations.

---

Preemptive war is ineffective and unreliable. Authentic global participation in any military or humanitarian acts. Policy needs to be driven by ethics rather than self-serving pragmatism.

---

The tragedy of going in so ill-informed and unprepared.

---

Do not pre-empt; do not go it alone; respect international law; know what you are beginning; be honest about your real reasons to the public

---

Imperial over-reach or over-stretch: How the US actually hastened its decline as a global "Superpower" because of a quixotically ill conceived, grossly miscalculated foreign war and occupation.

---

The counter productivity of unilateralism in foreign policy.  The major players must learn to work together

---

Preemption is inconsistent with the international system established after World War II.

Occupation involves responsibilities for the occupied population that must be included in the planning for war.

Toppling a foreign government does not necessarily lead in the long term to the gratitude of the subject population.

Occupation and its effects are not universal; a successful occupation of Germany would not necessarily work in a country with a different historical experience of national construction and occupation.

---

Iraqi regular military was over-rated, but its "insurgent ability" was underestimated. 

I wonder if it will be remembered that war was declared to eliminate WMDs, or history rewritten to trace the removal of a cruel dictator.

---

Don't get involved in something you don't understand

---

1.      Policymakers ignored history, particularly the 20th-centry British experience in Iraq.

2.      Military power does not translate into world hegemony

3.      Admiration abroad for American ideals is worth a great deal more than seeking to impose some perverted version of those ideals by military force

---

Don't let the Bushes steal the election via a coup, then run roughshod over Iraq for a second and more deadly time.

---

I would like to say "Don't lie to the US public," but I suspect government will only find ways to lie successfully.

---

Moral authority is required before one can launch a transformative operation such as the invasion of Iraq.  When the U.S. has no moral authority with the persons sought to be liberated, those persons will be hostile.

Military force is effective for immediate tearing down, but an extremely blunt instrument for rebuilding.

---

the need to reform the intelligence community; the mission isn't over with the end of major combat operations, thinking about the day after should get higher priority; the significance in coordinating diplomatic and military steps in a way that will give the president more available options instead of chaining him to a small number and under considerable time constraints.

---

Intelligence is never as exact as we would like.  Good intentions do not mean that a war will go well.  And, no, we can't do these sorts of things on our own. 

---

It was another huge disaster, maybe (hopefully) the beginning of the end for U.S. Empire.

---

That colonialism and empire are alive and well.

About MEASURE

Measure is the acronym of Middle East Academic Research and Exposition.  MEASURE is a grant funded research tool that advises policy makers and the American public on highly relevant topics.   MEASURE surveys are fielded by the Washington DC based Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, (IRmep) a non-profit, non-partisan, non- ideological public policy institute. 

MEASURE surveys academics via a series of multiple choice and open questions to compile and aggregate of informed opinion on timely policy issues.

116 MEASURE survey candidates are drawn from a pool of 2,300 academics with advanced degrees in Middle East area studies.  Not all MEASURE candidates teach or write about contemporary Middle East issues, but are generally more informed and involved in regional issues than their counterparts in academia, and reside within Middle East university departments.  The terminal degree profile of this pool reveals a majority at the PhD and Master level.

MEASURE Pool Terminal Degree Profile

MEASURE survey results are presented in aggregate form only.  Individual responses are anonymous.  MEASURE survey results are presented to the public in a timely fashion and also made available to policy makers and the press.    MEASURE avoids uninvited or multiple survey responses by soliciting response by invitees only and discarding repeat responses. Download PDF

 |  home | search | site info | privacy policy  | contact us! | MEASURE | CPLE