The Iraq War’s failure forced Bush to abandon regime-change plans and adopt counterinsurgency

Evidence

The “clash of civilizations” rhetoric therefore became dominant in the aftermath of 9/11 and was the ideological basis for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the targeting of the racial Muslim domestically (see Chapter 6). For a time it appeared that the neocons were unstoppable—but they overplayed their hand. During its first term, the Bush administration built a “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq, rejecting criticisms from allies it derogatorily labeled “old Europe.” The Bush administration planned to carry out rolling regime changes throughout the region to install quisling governments obedient to Washington’s dictates. One senior British official close to the administration captured this imperial plan in a characteristic masculinist pose16 of the era: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” The war on Iraq, however, did not go the way the neocons wanted it to. Instead of greeting US forces as liberators, the Iraqi people resisted and rejected US hegemony. The plan to carry out regime change in Iran and Syria was halted; if anything, Iran was strengthened by US actions. Not only was the neocon vision of a new Middle East in jeopardy, but the United States had alienated its former allies in Europe and strengthened China (as well as Russia and Venezuela). All of this led retired General William Odom to call the Iraq War “the greatest strategic disaster in US history.” This prompted an about-face in the Bush administration’s policies, which moved toward the use of more multilateral tactics. Additionally, the administration moved away from “hard” power (such as the use of coercion and bribery) and toward winning “hearts and minds,” as represented in the counterinsurgency strategy championed by its military commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 501

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

Related

• The Iraq War’s failure forced a rhetorical shift from unilateral coercion to counterinsurgency (similarity 0.94)
• The Bush administration planned rolling regime change across the Middle East (similarity 0.84)
• The Iraq War backfired by strengthening Iran and alienating European allies (similarity 0.83)
• Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric ideologically legitimized both foreign wars and domestic attacks (similarity 0.82)
• The War on Terror was ideologically framed as a civilizational clash (similarity 0.80)
• The Bush administration’s Iraq war justifications rested on three anti-Muslim stereotypes (similarity 0.80)
• Failed counterinsurgency forced Obama back to counterterrorism and drone warfare (similarity 0.80)
• Bush to Obama was a rhetorical shift masking unchanged imperial fundamentals. (similarity 0.79)
• The War on Terror was a globalized crusade recruiting nations for domestic political gain (similarity 0.79)
• Iraqi resistance forced US strategy from conquest to counterinsurgency hearts-and-minds tactics (similarity 0.79)
• Bush and Clinton administrations resisted the neocon anti-Islamic-terrorism agenda (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Iraqi resistance forced US strategy from conquest to counterinsurgency hearts-and-minds tactics #corroborates (0.95) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 501