Welcome to History!
This community is dedicated to sharing and discussing fascinating historical facts from all periods and regions.
Rules:
NOTE WELL: Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated. Stick to talking about the historical topic at hand in your comments. Insults and personal attacks will get you an immediate ban for a period of time determined by the moderator who bans you.
Post about history. Ask a question about the past, share a link to an article about something historical, or talk about something related to history that interests you. Please encourage discussion whenever possible.
No memes. No ads. No promos. No spam.
No porn.
We like facts and reliable sources here. Don't spread misinformation or try to change the historical record.
I'm not commenting on the legality or appropriateness or intelligence of either invasion, but on the nature of the goals behind them.
One was an attempt at forcing a regime change, the other was an attempt at regime elimination and annexation of territory.
Both can and should be criticized, but not for being the same thing. They weren't.
Could we call them different flavours of imperialism, though?
Words like this are fun for schoolkids but don't say anything at all about what was actually done. It's an effort to take something phenomenally complex and reduce it to a slogan. Slogans are good for fostering outrage, but not much else, and they distract attention from detail. Leave slogans to politics, not history.
I always welcome being condescended upon. Thanks.
If that's what you want to take from it, it's up to you. That was not my intention. What I said is entirely true.
Well, maybe you are someone who doesn't notice it so easily. Even if you know what is true, it is still your lens through which you view it. The OP asked specifically for how the events were perceived elsewhere. Generally, adding a little "in my opinion" or "I think" does quite a thing toward signalling that you acknowledge someone else's lens instead of immediately silencing them. Especially in recent history, there is no full objectivity, and that is (imo) what the OP was asking. Perhaps it's not even really ahistory question, though.
The problem is, the reasoning you are using is how false equivalency gives itself credibility that it cannot earn on its own merits. It's not an opinion if I say an apple is not an orange, and these two events are not the same thing. Opinion is not part of this argument. This is why people argue endlessly about politics-reality has been divorced, and it's just opinions. This serves absolutely no purpose.
Ok ... are you perhaps neurodivergent? No offence, but please read the original question, and my response again. And no, i'm not going to argue with you any longer because it would server absolutely no purpose.
(the last part was sarcasm because you really seem to not recognise your fellow's dignity ... and just in case i'm talking to a machine: learn this or shut down)
Thank you very much for your answer!
I cannot provide an objective answer but where I live (former eastern block) the answer was basically yes. Not so much in the media but common people saw US as a clear aggresor which sparked unnecessary war just to get access to more oil or land or something. I have to admit also I myself was very anti-american at that time because of the war in Irak
So yeah, pretty much how we see Russia nowadays
Thank you very much! I appreciate your honesty.
In the US there was a minority against the war. It was pitched to us for three different reasons: First as a response to 9/11, then as a search for WMDs, then as a regime-change maneuver to liberate the Iraqi people.
Naturally, some saw this shotgun blast of reasonings with suspicion, particularly when it was a petroleum-rich country that his father had been involved in a war with.
However, 9/11 had shocked most Americans out of the banal complacency of the 90's. Just for some context for how we respond emotionally to such shocks, I would direct you to one of our most famous leaders in history, and his famous Date Which Will Live In Infamy speech. Skip to 2:00 and listen for about a minute, and you will come away with exactly how we respond to such things:
As a result, the invasion had a broad amount of public support in our country. Someone, somewhere, was gonna get fucked up. We just got pointed at the wrong guy in our heated emotional state.
And let‘s not forget that the claim, that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, was a lie.
And lets not forget that world leaders and the “free world” were emotionally manipulated by a “nurse”:
The Nayirah testimony was false testimony given before the United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a 15-year-old girl who was publicly identified at the time by her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized and was cited numerous times by U.S. senators and President George H. W. Bush in their rationale to support Kuwait in the Gulf War.
In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was Al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيرة الصباح) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign, which was run by the American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti Government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda.
In her testimony, Nayirah claimed that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, remove the incubators and leave the babies to die. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony)
And lets not forget that world leaders and the “free world” were emotionally manipulated by a “nurse”
Interesting! This is the first time I hear of her. In your opinion, how much of an effect did her testimony have on the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
I think the context between the two was much different, so you can't say the two were the same at all.
In 2001, there was an attack on the twin towers in NYC and the pentagon, and one other target that we don't know (but it was probably the whitehouse). I remember waking up on September 11th 2001, after spending the night before reading about the DMCA and how Adobe had a guy who wrote a screen reader arrested for breaking rot13 encryption (basically just moving all the characters ahead by 13). So I woke up with my radio playing about some sort of attack, and I was like "heh, serves em right, assholes", but I turned out to eat my words seriously. What happened there wasn't justifiable (yeah yeah "well america did this, america did that" there's a discussion to be had about whether they were right, but nobody in those buildings did any of that, and neither did the people on those planes)
The 9/11 attacks weren't just some attack. It was a major tragedy for NYC, and Americans came together in a huge way. It's easy to forget now, but it was a pretty bipartisan thing at the time -- it was not acceptable to attack America. The immediate war in Afghanistan was supported across the board. Eventually, the president started making a case for war in Iraq as well. That was much more tenuous, but he did have a bunch of stuff that looked pretty bad (even if we later found out much of it was garbage).
At the time, I was seriously opposed to the war. I was deep into news at the time, and something smelled wrong -- like they were just trying to get a war started but it wasn't really justified. It seemed like they were just trying to hop into this thing they wanted to do and they were using 9/11 as justification.
If anything, I feel like the establishment wanted the war so it was going to happen. One of the big problems John Kerry faced in his presidential run in 2004 was that he voted for the war, just as many Democrats did. Countries opted out of the war, and in the end his "grand coalition of the willing" was made up of like 3 countries so obviously they didn't want to touch that with a 50 foot pole, but America had some legitimacy on the global stage so they somewhat gave America some benefit of the doubt, even if it wasn't clear it was justified.
That being said, with 9/11 right there, and George W. Bush trying to tie the war in Iraq to 9/11, there was a veneer of legitimacy. One the invasion was underway and it became clear how different the reality was from the fiction presented, that's where support fell apart. Keeping in mind that the Democrats did vote for the war, they struggled because they wanted to distance themselves from the war they voted to start, but quickly they pivoted to become the anti-war party until they got elected.
By contrast, Putin is invading Ukraine because "fuck you that's mine". There isn't a 9/11 event he can pivot off of, so while he's making an argument about NATO, it doesn't strike the same. Putin wasn't looking for a "coalition of the willing", and cared even less about international legitimacy than George W. Bush did.
So to summarize, the war in Iraq was something that didn't smell right in the days leading up to it but they kept trying to spray it with deodorant, and afterwards turned out to be a giant sack of crap. The war in Ukraine never really tried to hide the fact that it was a giant sack of crap.
Thank you for such a thorough response. It really helps to put it into perspective.
It makes me feel old that this is a c/history question.
I think the situations in both of the invader countries is comparable. A small minority of us actively stood up against the obvious propaganda used to justify the Iraq War. We faced some repression from the state, particularly given all of the power-grabbing under the Patriot Act and similar legislation and Bush’s executive orders. But the US still has notional free speech, balance of powers, and rule of law, so most US protesters didn’t face nearly the level of repression as Russian dissidents do.
The responses abroad I think were pretty different. This can largely be chalked up to the US being the sole superpower after 89-91. There were huge protests around the world to the Iraq War. I remember the one in Berlin was particularly large. But despite the massive unpopularity in Western Europe, those governments still joined the “coalition of the willing”. Sanctioning the US would have been unthinkable given its economic status. Russia is far less essential to the world economy. The main thing they have going for them is natural gas exports.
Western views of Iraq and Ukraine were also quite different. Nobody really liked the Saddam Hussein regime (though the US was willing to work with him in the 80’s!). But that didn’t make regime change a good idea. Ukraine has been viewed more favorably as a fledgling liberal democracy. No one would deny it hasn’t had its problems, but it’s preposterous to claim Ukraine is beholden to Neo-Nazis when they have a Jewish president.
The responses of the global left have also been markedly different. In 2003 we were all united in opposing what was clearly an unjustified war of aggression. These days a lot of the Anglophone left has been captured by Russian soft power/ psy ops, despite Russia not even pretending to be communist at this stage. I’ve had to call out a lot of people for repeating Russian talking points that were used to justify the war. The German Linke (Left) party is currently split over their positions on the war. Even weirder is that the far right in the US and Europe are also claiming the title of “anti-war” by tacitly or openly supporting Russia’s actions.