Leaked Pentagon papers showed in early April that the U.S. is allegedly following the inner workings of Russias intelligence operations and is alsospying on Ukraine, adding a new dimension to the United States involvement in the Ukraine war.
While the U.S. hasnot actually declared waragainst Russia, the documents show that it continues to support Ukraine withmilitary intelligenceas well asmoney and weaponsagainst the Russian invasion.
There isno end in sightto the war between Ukraine and Russia nor to U.S. involvement. While it is far from the first time that the U.S. became a third party to war, this scenario brings the Iraq War, in particular, to mind.
I am ascholar of international relations and an expert on international conflicts. A comparison with the Iraq War, I believe, offers a useful way to look at the case of Ukraine.
The Iraq and Ukraine wars have notable differences from a U.S. foreign policy perspective chiefly, thousands of American soldiers died fighting in Iraq, while the U.S. does not have any ground troops in Ukraine. But assessing the Iraq War, and its long aftermath, can still help articulate concerns about the United States getting involved in intense violence in another faraway place.
Here are three key points to understand.
1. Intervention doesnt guarantee success
Around the time former President George W Bush announced the U.S. would invade Iraq in 2003, Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi Arabian Islamist who orchestrated the Sept 11, 2001, attacks,remained at large. While not obviously connected, the fact that bin Laden continued to evade the U.S. contributed to a general sense of anger at hostile regimes. In particular, Saddam Hussein defied the U.S. and its allies.
The Iraqi dictatorcontinued to evade inspectionsby the United Nations watchdog group the International Atomic Energy Agency, giving the impression that he had weapons of mass destruction. This proved maddening to the U.S. and its allies asthe cat and mouse game dragged on.
Bush reportedly had intense concerns aboutwhether Saddam could use alleged weaponsof mass destruction to attack the U.S., causing even more harm than 9/11 did.
A U.S.-led coalition of countries that included the United Kingdom and Australia invaded Iraq in March 2003. The coalition of the willing, as it became known,won a quick victoryand toppled Saddams regime.
Bush initially enjoyed aspike in public supportimmediately after the invasion, but his polls shortly after experienced adownward trajectoryas the war dragged on.
However, the U.S. showed very little understanding of the politics, society and other important aspects of the country that it had taken the lead in occupying and then trying to rebuild.
Many decisions, most notablydisbanding of the Iraqi Armyin May 2003, revealed poor judgment and even outright ignorance because, with the sudden removal of Iraqi security forces, intense civildisorder ensued.
Disbanding the army caused insurgent militant forces to come out into the open. The fighting intensified among different Iraqi groups and escalated intoa civil war, which ended in 2017.
Today, Iraq continues to be politically unstable and isnot any closerto becoming a democracy than it was before the invasion.
2. Personal vendettas cannot justify a war
During his 24-year regime, Saddamlived an extravagant lifestylecoupled with oppression of civilians andpolitical opponents. He engaged ingenocide of Kurdish peoplein Iraq. Saddam was finallyexecuted by his own people in 2006, after U.S. forces captured him.
Putin is equally notorious and even more dangerous. He has a long track record ofviolent oppressionagainst his people and has benefited from leading one of the worldsmost corrupt governments.
He also actually possesses weapons of mass destruction and hasthreatened multiple times to use themon foreign countries.Saddamand Putin have also both been thedirect targetsof U.S. political leaders,who displayed a fixationon toppling these foreign adversaries, whichwas evident long beforethe U.S. actually became involved in the Iraq and Ukraine wars.
The United States support for Ukraine is understandable because that country is fighting a defensive war withhorrific civilian casualties. Backing Ukraine also makes sense from the standpoint of U.S. national security it helps push back against an expansionist Russia that increasinglyis aligned with China.
At the same time, I believe that it is important to keep U.S. involvement in this war within limits that reflect national interests.
3. It can divide the country
The Iraq War resulted in a rise in intensepartisanship in the U.S. over foreign policy. In addition, recent opinion polls about the Iraq Warshow that most Americans do not think that the invasionmade the U.S. any safer.
Now, the U.S. faces rising public skepticism about getting involved in the Ukraine war, anotherexpensive overseas commitment.
Polls released in January 2023 show that the percentage of Americans whothink the U.S. is providing too much aidto Ukraine has grown in recent months. About 26% of American adults said in late 2022 that the U.S. isgiving too muchto the Ukraine war, according to Pew Research Group. But three-fourths of those polled still supported the U.S. engagement.
The average Americanknows little to nothingabout Iraq or Ukraine. Patience obviously can grow thin when U.S. support for foreign wars becomes ever more expensive and the threat of retaliation, even by way of tactical nuclear weapons, remains in the realm of possibility. Aid to Ukraine is likely to become embroiled in the rapidly escalating conflict in Washington over the debt ceiling.
On the flip side, if the U.S. does not offer sufficient support for Ukraine to fend of Russian attacks and maintain its independence, adversaries such as Russia, China and Iran may feel encouraged to be aggressive in other places.
I believe that the comparison between the wars in Iraq and Ukraine makes it clear that U.S. leadership should clearly identify the underlying goals of its national security to the American public while determining the amount and type of support that it will give to Ukraine.
While many people believe that Ukraine deserves support against Russian aggression, current policy should not ignore past experience, and the Iraq War tells a cautionary tale.
Patrick James is a professor of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
More:
What the Iraq War can teach U.S. about avoiding a quagmire in ... - Japan Today