I don't know... there aren't many wars which were entered into as obviously, voluntarily and with as little need or urgency as Iraq. It's the difference between accidentally stepping in a puddle and deliberately leaping into an expanse of water... even if you get equally wet, one action is more culpable.
Slapping a wasp nest is stupid, but it's especially stupid if you have to go and seek out the nest first, travel a long way to do so, and pack no antitoxin on the grounds that you've got a really strong first slap...
In the US's case, the Civil War was hardly planned or wished. Vietnam looked important in a way that Iraq just did not (as witness the disagreements on SI, even at the time and still less now). A lack of readiness before Pearl Harbour does not make a moronic war, nor a weak plan of attack. And you need to distinguish a battle from a war, also.
More generally, you might argue that Napoleon's or Hitler's invasions of Russia were failures - but they were campaigns within wars, not entire wars. And both of those also nearly worked. And there were obvious gains to be made if either worked, and an obvious threat if Russia was left hostile, undefeated and bordering.
None of these are the case for Iraq; IMO, you miss the point. A bad war is a war that never needed to be fought at all. This really does make US vs Iraq one of the worst. |
