Iraq war 20 years later

The US spearheaded invasion of Iraq, was controversial, happened on 20th March 2003. Completed US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. The unwinnable war realistically was about regime change, oil supplies, and chemical/nuclear weapon security. Aim to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussain and end his active support for modern terrorism.

Saddam Hussain declared war on his neighbouring states and resorted to chemical weapons in the questionable past. Iraq’s direct invasion of Kuwait for the discovered oil fields naturally caused the Gulf War. Forcing regime change, by economic sanctions, was unsuccessful. After 9/11, it caused serious security concerns around chemical and nuclear weapons. Saddam continued to threaten to use them. Geopolitics is messy, alliances form based on common interests. Therefore, at times, rivals can be your useful friends. Global powers, like US and Russia, have as much influence as great regional powers. 

The Iraq war with Iran took place between 1980 and 1988. The war was fought over territorial disputes, religious differences, and political tensions. Iraq went to war with Kuwait over wanting to secure more oil fields. The Gulf War, which took place between 1990 and 1991, was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition of countries led by the United States. The war was fought over Iraq‘s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. Following the war, restraint was the response, economic sanctions and inspections over weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Western interventions helped foster a feeling they could achieve anything. A series of successful military interventions followed.

– Iraq and Iran war in the 1980s.
– Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 caused the Gulf War. 
– UN mission to Haiti after a violent coup in 1991.
– Somali Civil War correctly saw a UN peacekeeper operation in 1992.
– Bosnian war massacres, NATO air campaign in 1995.
– Afghanistan in 1998 promptly attacking Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.
– US-UK 4 day bombing of Iraq in 1998 over WMD concerns
– Kosovo War, NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999.
– Fierce US war against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, 2001

The US official policy after 1998 efficiently was regime change in Iraq. After 9/11 argument was Saddam Hussain supporting terrorists and supplying weapons. Any evidence was found linking Al-Qaeda to Iraq was weak. Any intelligence about weapons programs came from untrustworthy sources. Isolated, it was difficult to substantiate any claims. Political pressure overruled any concerns. Al-Qaeda had retreated to the mountains in Afghanistan. Americans considered this a victory. Focus switched from Afghanistan to Iraq. Liberate the Iraqi people from oppression and create a democratic state.

Americans believed the next terrorist attack would come from Iraq. Efforts were made to get support of the UN, but that failed. On March 20th, 2003, the US invaded Iraq. The aim was regime change and finding WOMD. In May 2003, Saddam Hussain’s hold on power was lost. The quick defeat of Saddam exposed lack of planning. Tensions began to raise, beginning of a civil war and insurgency. Saddam was promptly captured in December 2003.The search for weapons ended in January 2004, intelligence was completely wrong.

Clear the claims were based on faulty intel, exaggerations and lies. No WMD were ever found, no credible evidence linking Al-Qaeda to Saddam. Democracy did not bring a wave of freedom, but unleashed sectarianism and violence with chaos. Millions displaced in the years afterwards.US occupation faced fierce resistance from various groups. Creating a sense of resentment and alienation.

Trying to rebuild a society during that time full of violence outbursts. Arab enemies of the US funnelled money and weapons to create zones of influence in Iraq, turning Iraq into a regional proxy war. Iranian funded militant groups flooded into Iraq. Saddam‘s loyalists started an insurgency. Factional civil war in the shattered country, regional power vacuum allowed Islamic state to rise.

Consequences of the war include, strained relations between the US and its allies. Ended up destabilising the balance of powers, Iraq was a counterweight to Iran. The war helped fuel the rise of anti-Americanism and radicalisation among some Muslims.

As a teenager, I was against the Iraq war. I never believed the weapons of mass destruction claims and was sceptical about the claims being presented. Charles Kennedy debating the war and protests in London remains vivid memories. The Iraq war did make me question my trust in Westminster. It’s to recall what you were thinking 20 years ago.

I don’t expect the US or UK lied about the WMD. Therefore, groupthink combined with lack of critical thinking and analysis. Raw information was directly sent before any analysis or credible evidence could confirm it. The intelligence community obtained exaggerations and lies, and failed. Traditionally collecting valuable intelligence is difficult at the best of ideal times; if you demand a certain answer, you can discover it. It did reveal a fundamental weakness that has been addressed. 

Blair has argued intervention endures the valid thing to carry out, even without WMDs. That moral argument is rather weak considering various conflicts, civil wars and more the west ignored. Therefore, Iraq was much greater strategic importance due to fossil fuels. 

I however believe armed intervention merely provides a political purpose and should be used sparely. Upholding international law, typically helping properly defend independent nations from direct attack.  Does typically require a coherent set of practical aims and realistically be sole option left. Political peace can purely exist because of the offensive threat of raging war.

I don’t think the illegal war was proper. Alternatively, it has become bad a strategic blunder and moral failure. Ended up helping to spread terrorism and failed to spread democracy. Undoubtedly leaving behind an enduring legacy of considerable destruction and social division, empowered Iran in the middle east political region. 

Undoubtedly helped to merely accelerate waning American influence within global institutions. Merely demonstrating the political limits of global cooperation within regional institutions. Regional cooperation would be far better if you genuinely wanted regime change. Iraq in common was inevitably in the gradual process of forcibly disarming, and chemical weapons were old. The nuclear program had stalled because of international sanctions and attacks. 

A lasting legacy of Iraq has undoubtedly caused isolationists to typically warn against preventive intervention. It realistically was the possible start of much wider political trend, progressively weakening of global order in visible America image. Bunch more strategic failures due disunity. Creating strategic headaches, like Syria or Iran. Regional stability has been a decade old problem and it was made worse. Libya civil war did instantly see NATO-led armed action in 2011. An illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine saw a stronger response compared to Crimea in 2014. 

In conclusion it was an illegal war. Intervention has a place. 

Palace of Westminster

The UK Parliament is in a state of disrepair. The majestic Victorian building requires major work. It was first built in 1016, current structure is Victorian 1840. Damaged during WW2, can find details about it here and here. Rebuilt after WW2, Victorian design remained untouched. Over time, it has developed many hidden dangers, such as asbestos, fire hazards and structural defects. Temporary fixes have kept it functioning, but they are insufficient to prevent further deterioration.

Members of Parliament know about the problems, but they have postponed. They have spent years considering the same options: whether to remain in the building while it is being fixed, or to relocate temporarily or permanently. During 2018 debated Restoration and Renewal Programme, voting to temporality move out. After five years of indecision, they scrapped the sponsor body that was supposed to oversee the project and decided to bring it in-house.

However, this could result in a delay that could inflict huge permanent damage on the historic building. Kicking the issue into the next parliament. Westminster’s design is deeply flawed by modern standards. It lacks adequate fire safety measures, ventilation systems and accessibility features. The whole process of repairing stone, art and basic systems is complex and expensive. Conservatives are destroying the very thing they claim to love. No desire to preserve the Victorian palace of Westminster.

One option that has been suggested is decanting Parliament, which means moving its functions outside the main building while it undergoes restoration and renewal. This would make the project cheaper, safer and faster than staying put. Restoration and renewal would involve replacing existing systems that are outdated or unsafe with more efficient and reliable ones. Maintenance at present is costly and only delays a more comprehensive solution.

My own opinion is that Parliament should move out permanently and find a new location that better suits its modern needs. The palace should be turned into a museum that displays its history and significance for the public. Westminster is an icon of London and a symbol of democracy. The building and what it stands for are well-known, but it does not have to be limited by its past.

Some of the factors that may influence this decision are: accessibility, affordability, availability, security and symbolism. Here are some of the potential candidates for a new parliamentary site:

York has been proposed as a possible location by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. It is a historic city close to the geographic centre of England with good transport links to the rest of the country. It would require upgrading infrastructure to accommodate parliament and its associated functions. The city may lack the space and the estimated cost is £3 billion.

Manchester has also been suggested as a possible location. It is a modern city considered the capital of Northern England with good transport links to the rest of the country. It has hosted major events like the Commonwealth Games and the G7 summit. It has the infrastructure to accommodate parliament but may lack the space. The estimated cost is £2 billion. There may be competition from other nearby cities such as Liverpool or Leeds.

Birmingham is another option. It is the second-largest city in England with a diverse population and a reputation for culture. It is well connected to the rest of England and has hosted events like Manchester has done. It already has the infrastructure but may lack political support. A new parliamentary complex in Birmingham is estimated at £1 billion.

Need to offer local housing for MPs. Every MP has unique circumstances, families of different sizes. There could be other alternatives depending on feasibility, affordability, desirability and acceptability. The cost of the project is huge ranging from £3 to £77 billion. Until work begins we won’t know the real cost. Westminster’s decay feels similar to politics at present: unable to discuss policy instead focusing on division over problem-solving. Part of broader trend, lack of scrutiny.

The next government is going to have to deal with a crumbling parliament. Both mainstream parties have a consensus: something must be done. Parties are seriously thinking about devolution. Moving parliament would show they are serious about that. Devolution is going to play an important role going forward, aiming to decentralise the UK. There is a broad direction pointing that way, but no agreement on the fine details.

The next parliament is will be one dealing with crisis. Therefore would need to restore trust in British politics. Period of renewal not just Westminster but public service. Decaying palace is an reflection.