Did the recent public release of the Downing Street Memo change your view on the validity of the Iraq Invasion and Occupation?

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 05:59:48 -0400

I'm not linking to the memo because I'm not 100% sure of the current classification; however, there are plenty of news outlets and other sites that give the gist.

Short version is that the memo claims that the Bush administration had already decided to invade Iraq up to a year before the actual invasion and built its justification around a foregone conclusion.

Does any of that change your perception of the war itself, your service in it, or the sacrifices made and lives lost? Did the ends justify the means or the motivation? What, if anything should be done to keep similar events from happening again? Should there be consequences for those directly involved who knew the issues? Were Servicemembers who refused to deploy justified in those actions and should their punishments be rescinded? Was it an illegal war and were the orders to deploy illegal orders?

So many questions!

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 18 at 2015 6:08 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 06:08:38 -0400

I think it's full of poop myself. How would a foreign journalist get a hold of a classified US document?

My opinion is that it is another leftist attack on GW, yet another attempt to place the blame "on my predecessor" if you will.

With that said, it does not change my feelings about the war. Also, anyone who refused to deploy were justly punished. I also feel the same way about people who refuse to deploy because they claimed that Obama was/is not a US citizen, etc., etc., etc.

Response by Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay made Oct 18 at 2015 9:00 AM

Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:00:15 -0400

Wars are less successful, they become complicated, goals and justifications change too fast, "American interests" are not my interests, pre-emptive wars are not defense but paranoia, wars should clearly be for self-defense.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2015 9:12 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:12:44 -0400

The end most definitely did not justify the means, unless the aim was to create a power vacuum large enough for a terrorist organization so fierce that even Al-Qa'ida is "too peaceful" for them to rise to power with enough leeway to claim territory and establish a faux caliphate.

That said, "Curveball" (as the informant was aptly referred to, in hindsight) did us no favors, and HUMINT based on his input was the entire basis of the WMD in Iraq misinformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

Curveball (informant) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi (Arabic: رافد أحمد علوان, Rāfid Aḥmad Alwān; born 1968), known by the Defense Intelligence Agency cryptonym "Curveball",[1] is an Iraqi citizen who defected from Iraq in 1999, claiming that he had worked as a chemical engineer at a plant that manufactured mobile biological weapon laboratories as part of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program.[2] Alwan's allegations were subsequently shown to be false by the...

Response by MAJ James Woods made Oct 18 at 2015 1:07 PM

MAJ James Woods — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:07:05 -0400

Hindsight is pointless at this point. Just hope all future POTUSs and SECDEFs consider history among many other factors when making their decisions and recommendations. Bush administration isn't the first to use faulty intelligence to justify combat operations for political or economical goals.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 18 at 2015 1:40 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:40:04 -0400

I use to yell, "Finish Strong!" at the APFTs. My concern in Iraq is, can we finish strong? Can the Iraqis finish strong?

Response by SSG Jason Penn made Oct 18 at 2015 9:31 PM

SSG Jason Penn — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:31:03 -0400

Not at all sir, For several reasons. 1) the yellow cake reasoning was Intel (later to be proven to be false) that was given to us by our allies (Britain, Germany, and others and was a major factor in deciding to go to war). 2) WMD was proven true by the UN itself as reported by CNN within a month prior to the invasion (Han Blix reported finding 12 warheads, 11 were empty and the 12th had chemicals in it. Iraq wasn't to have EITHER the chemicals OR the means of delivery per the UN resolutions.) 3) On a daily basis, Iraqi AAA fired at our aircraft enforcing the "No Fly Zone" which is an act of war. 4) Ties to terrorism, we found an abandoned Al Qaeda training camp in Baghdad as well as wounded AQ members from Afghanistan would go to Iraq for treatment and recovery. 5) Other than the WMD resolution, Saddam intentionally violated every resolution imposed after the Gulf War. Reasons 2 through 5 are enough (each on their own) by international law to justify our invasion in Iraq. That being said, I fully support our involvement in Iraq, but I don't support the bumbling fiasco of how it was run by Bush and Rumsfeld.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Oct 18 at 2015 9:35 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:35:21 -0400

I guess I would have to see what evidence they had that the Bush admin had already decided to invade Iraq up to a year before the actual invasion. And then I would want to know for what reason they planned to invade. After all, Sadam had been violating the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war for a decade, so there was plenty of reason to invade even before 9/11.

Response by SSG John Mitchell made Oct 19 at 2015 1:47 AM

SSG John Mitchell — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 01:47:27 -0400

Tough question. Much like Vietnam, the war itself was drawn out for monetary gains by Chaney I believe. When we started limiting ourselves is where we took a left turn. We didn't follow the simple plan that was followed with Germany and Japan after WWII. Set up the Government to succeed and rebuild the Country. Provide them with the blueprint to be able to provide for the Country but that's just a view point from the Bottom. Would I do it all over again? In a heartbeat. Especially my last Deployment. Just NOT with the Idiot that I had for a Boss. Maj. Huwit was as dumb as a box of rocks. Our Convoy Commanders kept our Soldiers alive in spite of his dumb ass.

Response by SSG Antonine Galvan made Oct 19 at 2015 7:55 AM

SSG Antonine Galvan — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:55:07 -0400

unfortunately it cannot be changed soldiers and military people sign up and give up their rights. There's an old saying that you sold your goals was gold it's all the sordid just tol unfortunately it cannot be changed soldiers and military people sign up and give up their rights. There's an old saying I used to Learned a soldier goes were he is told to go and a soldier fights who is told to fight.

Response by SSG Antonine Galvan made Oct 19 at 2015 7:57 AM

SSG Antonine Galvan — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:57:09 -0400

We are not politicians we don't make policy we merely enforce that we are military personnel.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 19 at 2015 7:58 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:58:58 -0400

I have felt all along we should have stayed out of Iraq. We now know the intelligence was flawed. We should've concentrated our efforts on Afghanistan. This is the law of unintended consequences and we have destabilized Iraq.

Response by MSgt John Carroll made Oct 19 at 2015 6:21 PM

MSgt John Carroll — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:21:59 -0400

Did you ever read this. I know for a fact this is true. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=1

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 19 at 2015 6:26 PM

SGT Richard H. — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:26:11 -0400

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE

Democrats Hypocrisy Over The Iraq War

Listen to the Democrats mislead, distort, and otherwise lie about the Iraq War. The party of appeasement and defeat eschews democracy in favor of hypocrisy.

Response by PO1 Todd Cousins made Oct 20 at 2015 11:52 AM

PO1 Todd Cousins — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:52:47 -0400

Without full disclosure of all sources it doesn't change a thing.

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 20 at 2015 12:43 PM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:43:03 -0400

If we only had a time machine. The war in Iraq was not a good idea no matter what "proof" there was one way or the other. We destabilized the entire region and have set ourselves up for a long war that may not be winnable. Nobody knew what things would happen.

In saying that, us (as the not in the know) did what we were told to the best of our abilities and I am proud that served next to my brothers and sisters. My dad served in 'Nam, my grandfathers served in WW2, I sure was not going to answer the call.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2015 7:56 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:56:18 -0400

You cannot show a link then you politicize it? LOL. Try again. MAJ Bryan Zeski

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Oct 21 at 2015 5:38 PM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:38:12 -0400

The thing that gets me mad is the Idiots that are in charge never have a plan as to who will be the new president of a particular country. It seems half the time we get someone in power to replace someone else they wind up doing stupid shit and we have to go in eventually and remover them by force. At one point we allied with Iraq because they were fighting Iran...We supported the Shaw of Iran for a while before the Ayatollah took over...;.The enemy of MY enemy is my friend !!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 9:24 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:24:31 -0400

The threat of Iraq did exist before September 11th. People forget the NY Times Brst Seller from 1998... Saddam's Bombmaker.

Response by SGT Scott Henderson made Nov 2 at 2015 8:42 PM

SGT Scott Henderson — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:42:04 -0500

Nope, still a waste of some damn fine people for a country full of people who could give two shits about them or who runs their third world toilet.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2015 7:03 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:03:20 -0500

MAJ Bryan Zeski Have you read, The Price of Loyalty?

"O'Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that someone high up in the administration – Donald Rumsfeld - warned O'Neill not to do this book.

Was it a warning, or a threat?

"I don't think so. I think it was the White House concerned," says Suskind. "Understandably, because O'Neill has spent extraordinary amounts of time with the president. They said, 'This could really be the one moment where things are revealed.'"
Not only did O'Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.

"Everything's there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that's sensitive," says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. "You don't get higher than that."

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001."