? There were
massive movements against the war in Iraq, including I thin the largest protests in all of history on Jan 15 2003 around the world, 100's of thousands of people in major cities.
That there were antagonisms between pro/against doesn't mean Americans were not empathetic one way or another, and the 'pro war' were as maligned by other side just as well i.e. 'war monger' etc..
While the popular justification for war was exaggerated, Iraq did have WMD, but more importantly, the geostrategic consideration for removing Saddam just isn't something that can be used in a populist context. You can't say "We failed to complete the mission in 1993, Saddam is operating a rogue regime" etc..
Remember that there was a 'no fly zone' over Iraq for a decade to keep the Iraqi Air Force down - this is arguably an untenable position.
If the 'post invasion' process were to have been better prepared for and planned and less direct political failure etc. I suggest people would look at it as a 'success'. My point being - the 'motives' are very tied to 'execution' in terms of our understanding of whether or not it was a good thing.
Most poignantly - the US wasn't trying to create a vassal, just the opposite. None of the Iraqi Oil contracts even when to American firms, during the occupational period US had considerable influence but would actually rather not. The US spent gazillions of dollars trying to 'get some kind of civil framework' going, which they accomplished, just barely so.
In hindsight it was a hugely bad decision, but it were to have been less chaotic than arguably it might not have been a bad decision.
Putin's decision to invade Ukraine is purely Imperialist, his objective is to 'erase' Ukraine.
If Ukraine had capitulated, sure, there would be less bloodshed, but you'd also see a nation evaporate, and, another 10's of millions of people living in another Russian Vassal s*thole.
