The consequences of the illegal invasion of Iraq still shape geopolitics today.
by Helena Cobban, Globalities
The history of U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War can be seen as a litany of forceful regime-change projects undertaken in other countries around the world, with the force used being sometimes military, sometimes economic, sometimes both. Among these projects, the invasion of Iraq launched twenty years ago, on March 19, 2023, stands out for several reasons. These include the scale of the military operations involved, the level of the destruction inflicted on Iraq, and the jaw-dropping effrontery of the decision Pres. George W. Bush had taken to launch the war without any authorization from the United Nations.
Throughout the post-Cold War era, government officials and members of the (often fawningly compliant) U.S. punditocracy have cloaked most of Washington’s regime-change projects in some form of “humanitarian” or “international law” justification. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were, in their initial inception, different. The main driver of the decision to invade Afghanistan was angry revenge for the attacks of 9/11. The excuse used for invading Iraq was the (quite unsubstantiated) allegation that Pres. Saddam Hussein was manufacturing chemical or biological weapons. In both those cases, though, the original “reason” for the invasion was soon adorned with all kinds of other gauzy, feel-good justifications, usually lumped together under the rubric of “nation-building.” In the case of Iraq, after Pres. Hussein was removed by force of U.S. arms, his ruling Baath Party would be speedily disbanded and a democracy would magically be planted in Iraq featuring a new Constitution; a court system capable of conducting war-crimes trials; a decentralized political system; a flourishing free-market economy; and even—as many of the invasion’s most ardent proponents hoped—peace with Israel. The template that many of the war’s planners seemed to be using for their post-war planning was that of the Allied occupations of Germany or Japan in 1945.

As we know, almost none of those oft-touted goals were achieved—or, when they were, they proved of little or no value to Iraq’s people. Iraq did, at a formal level, get a new Constitution; but the version adopted foisted onto the country a “muhasasa” system of divvying up the top posts along sectarian lines, such as had already, for many decades prior, proven deeply dysfunctional in Lebanon. Iraq did get some political decentralization (as foisted onto it by numerous DC politicians including then-Senator Joe Biden, who had earlier voted enthusiastically for the invasion itself.) But Iraq’s decentralization did not prevent the intrusion into its political sphere of numerous powerful militias or, in 2014, the explosive arrival of the completely new and disruptive political force IS, the Islamic State.
Recent Posts
The Trump-Musk Spat Exposes Our Ugly Plutocracy
June 7, 2025
Take Action Now Two billionaires, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, are squabbling over the federal government’s spoils. It seems almost quaint to worry…
Donald Trump Is Advertising Genocide As A Business Opportunity
June 6, 2025
Take Action Now The U.S. president is still trying to sell the world on the destruction of Gaza.By Edward Hunt, Foreign Policy in Focus Among all…
The FBI Sought Search Warrants For Columbia Students’ Social Media
June 5, 2025
Take Action Now New court documents reveal how the feds tried to unmask the Columbia students — and got blocked by federal judges on First Amendment…
Greta Thunberg Speaks From Aid Ship Heading To Gaza Despite Israeli Threats: It’s My Moral Obligation
June 5, 2025
Take Action Now “We cannot have climate justice without social justice. The reason why I am a climate activist is not because I want to protect…