I think that the Iraq war seems unusual in that it was entirely proactive. Like, the war was not in response to a particular provocation, it was an entrepreneurial war aimed at preventing a future problem. In contrast, the wars in Korea, the Gulf, and (arguably) Vietnam were all responsive to active aggression.
I think the Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Panama were proactive. Vietnam too: the Gulf of Tonkin story kinda fell apart later, so did domino theory (the future problem they were trying to prevent), and anyway US military involvement in Vietnam started decades earlier, to prop up French colonial control.
Maybe to summarize my view, I think for a powerful country there’s a spectrum from “acting as police” to “acting as a bully”, and there have been many actions of the latter kind. Not that the US is unique in this, my home country (Russia) does its share too, as do others, when power permits.
Vietnam was different because it was an intervention on behalf of South Vietnam which was an American client state, even if the Gulf of Tonkin thing was totally fake. There was no “South Iraq” that wanted American soldiers.
There was no “South Iraq” that wanted American soldiers.
There basically was, though north not south. Kurdistan was functionally independent at the start of the Iraq War, but were under threat from the Saddam regime that previously waged some very brutal wars against them. Kurdistan very much wanted American soldiers, and the anniversary of American victory in Iraq is still a public holiday in Iraqi Kurdistan to this day.
And in fact south Iraq was and is dominantly Shiite (and thus also more susceptible to Iranian influence). They too revolted against Saddam after the first gulf war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings and were euphoric about his fall
I think that the Iraq war seems unusual in that it was entirely proactive. Like, the war was not in response to a particular provocation, it was an entrepreneurial war aimed at preventing a future problem. In contrast, the wars in Korea, the Gulf, and (arguably) Vietnam were all responsive to active aggression.
I think the Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Panama were proactive. Vietnam too: the Gulf of Tonkin story kinda fell apart later, so did domino theory (the future problem they were trying to prevent), and anyway US military involvement in Vietnam started decades earlier, to prop up French colonial control.
Maybe to summarize my view, I think for a powerful country there’s a spectrum from “acting as police” to “acting as a bully”, and there have been many actions of the latter kind. Not that the US is unique in this, my home country (Russia) does its share too, as do others, when power permits.
Vietnam was different because it was an intervention on behalf of South Vietnam which was an American client state, even if the Gulf of Tonkin thing was totally fake. There was no “South Iraq” that wanted American soldiers.
There basically was, though north not south. Kurdistan was functionally independent at the start of the Iraq War, but were under threat from the Saddam regime that previously waged some very brutal wars against them. Kurdistan very much wanted American soldiers, and the anniversary of American victory in Iraq is still a public holiday in Iraqi Kurdistan to this day.
And in fact south Iraq was and is dominantly Shiite (and thus also more susceptible to Iranian influence). They too revolted against Saddam after the first gulf war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings and were euphoric about his fall