[March 10, 2026] I have spent many years thinking about the mistakes made in the Iraq War, and have read hundreds of articles and books, and spoken with many people who say they are experts on the war. So, what can the average person say, when asked about whether there were strategic mistakes made.
Often, the very first thing mentioned by the “experts” about the outset of the war in 2003, was that the “U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was launched under false pretenses of WMDs and al-Qaeda links.” I say this was no strategic mistake.
The premise is wrong about Iraq not having WMDs. Iraq did have them, specifically they possessed and used weaponized chemicals (Sarin and Mustard) on both Iranian troops (1983-88) and on Kurdish civilians in the north (1988 Halabja). As well, post-invasion, American troops discovered large stockpiles of chemical weapons, plus some chemical warheads were used as IEDs (unknowingly perhaps, but still used).
The idea that al-Qaeda was not involved in pre-invasion Iraq was just as ridiculous. Here are a few of the post-invasion documented attacks.
- Aug 2003: UN HQ Baghdad bombing, 23 killed.
- Aug 2003: Najaf mosque bombing, killed Ayatollah Al Hakim.
- Feb 2004: Irbil twin suicides, 100+ Kurds killed.
- Feb 2005: Hillah car bomb, 125 killed.
- Nov 2005: Amman hotels bombings, 60 killed.
- Feb 2006: Samarra Golden Mosque bombing.
- Aug 2007: Yazidi villages truck bombings, 500+ killed.
- 2009: Baghdad attacks, 480+ killed.
Pre-war, Al-Qaeda’s affiliation with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is regularly rejected by these same experts. While there were informal links between al-Qaeda (Sunni) and Saddam’s Ba’athist regime (Sunni), to conclude there were no ties at all simply does not pass the smell test.
We regularly hear that there was faulty Intelligence used as a pre-text for the 2003 invasion. “The Bush administration promoted uncorroborated claims of Iraqi WMDs and ties to al-Qaeda, despite weak evidence.” Those responsible, we are told, were: President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Of course, the conclusion has to be that this created a dishonest basis for war. I disagree for those reasons I already mentioned.
But were there early strategic mistakes made? The answer is yes. And here are a few of them.
Pre-Invasion:
- Lack of a sound Policy Process: No National Security Council debate or a thorough study of invasion feasibility.
- Insufficient Post-War Planning: Ignored State Department studies on occupation challenges.
Post Invasion:
- Inadequate Troop Levels: Deployed too few forces for securing Iraq post-invasion.
- Failure to Prevent Looting: No plan to restore order after Baghdad’s fall.
- Disbanding Iraqi Army: Dissolved army, sending 400,000 armed men into unemployment and fueling insurgency.
- De-Ba’athification: Purged Ba’ath Party members from government, alienating Sunnis.
- Poor Detainee Handling: No clear guidelines, leading to abuses like Abu Ghraib.
- Failure to Adapt: Ignored early insurgency signs, under-resourced stability operations.
- Alienating Allies: Antagonized UN and Europe, limiting international support.
These mistakes caused sectarian violence, ISIS rise, and massive casualties.
Should the war have been fought, despite these strategic mistakes? I believe the answer has to be yes. Iraq was a dangerous enemy of the United States. Whether they had ties to al-Qaeda or WMDs matters little. The strategic mistakes only matter in that more people died as a result.
The fact that the invasion and subsequent occupation led to a more stable and a less-aggressive Iraq is proof that the invasion worked. This is grand strategy, and it was correct.
————
Please read my books:
Thank you sir, for the reminders of this war and that we can learn from the past. Too many folks have yet to understand that.
Sir, best wishes. I sincerely hope that you expand on this and make another series out of what were the strategic and operational successes and failures, and most importantly, WHY. And how does this relate to any subsequent wars, and did we learn anything?
This article offers a refreshing, contrarian view on the Iraq War, in effect, challenging mainstream narratives on WMDs and al-Qaeda ties with historical evidence. It clearly outlines strategic errors while affirming the invasion’s long-term success in stabilizing Iraq, making it a thought-provoking read for history enthusiasts. Well done!
The article’s defense of the Iraq War as justified ignores the overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration exaggerated WMD threats and fabricated al-Qaeda connections to justify an illegal invasion driven by neoconservative imperialism. By downplaying the absence of active WMD programs and dismissing intelligence failures, it perpetuates right-wing revisionism that whitewashes the human cost of over a million Iraqi deaths and trillions in U.S. taxpayer waste. Claiming the war stabilized Iraq is delusional, as it directly fueled sectarian chaos, the rise of ISIS, and ongoing regional instability that liberals have long warned against. The so-called “strategic mistakes” listed are not mere oversights but symptoms of arrogant unilateralism that alienated allies and violated international law. Ultimately, this contrarian view serves to absolve war criminals like Bush and Cheney, undermining efforts for accountability and peace that a leftist perspective demands.
Seattle Sally, lots of the same discredited liberal bias here. Respectfully, your use of “overwhelming evidence” is just wrong. Be more specific. Show that these strategic mistakes were not made. A better argument is needed other than typical liberal talking points.
Sally, consider another line of work. The Marxist mind-virus infects your thinking ability.
Thank you, sir. I am hoping you continue to write about the Iraq War and the lessons we learned, and maybe how it applies to the newest war with Iran.