The problem with "wars of choice"

In 2003, the US led an invasion of Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction as part of the post-9/11 global War on Terror. No WMDs were found, but the US was drawn into eight years of a brutal, costly war.

Richard Engel, NBC's chief foreign correspondent, was one of the few American TV journalists on the ground in Baghdad when the invasion began. In fact, he was there when Iraqis and US forces famously toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein. “I was right there, and watched it happen,” Engel recalled. People were cheering and excited, he said, but that sentiment only lasted “a little while.”

In a discussion on GZERO World three years ago, Ian Bremmer and Engel reflected on the lessons from the Iraq war. While many Iraqis expressed their joy that “Americans were coming in and getting rid of Saddam,” the situation deteriorated quickly. The Bush administration made a lot of mistakes, while lingering resentment among Iraq’s Sunni Muslim community gave way to animosity.

For Engel, the key takeaway is to avoid “a war of choice” and the long-term, unforeseen blowback it can unleash. “War truly must be the last resort.”

- YouTubeOver time, if you launch a war of choice you're going to have problems, says Richard Engel. Subscribe to GZERO on YouTube: ...