>> U.S. warships and planes launched the opening salvo of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

>> You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want.

[ Crowd cheering ] ♪♪ >> Hello and welcome to "GZERO World."

I'm Ian Bremmer.

And today we are examining the dark and complicated legacy of the Iraq War on the 20th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion.

Two decades later, the Iraq War is widely regarded as the biggest American foreign policy disaster of the 21st century.

The Bush administration sold the war to the public and the world on false pretenses, leading to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.

Is Iraq and indeed is the United States better off today?

To find out, I'm talking with U.S.

Senator Tammy Duckworth and NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel.

But first, a word from the folks who help us keep the lights on.

>> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by... >> It began 20 years ago with shock and awe and an address from then President George W. Bush.

>> At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

>> Operation Iraqi Freedom got underway in the early hours of March 19, 2003.

Two weeks later, a statue of Saddam Hussein fell in Baghdad.

And four weeks after that, this happened.

>> Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

>> But that wasn't the truth.

Almost nothing during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq went as planned.

The story America pitched about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction?

Wrong.

Some say it was a deliberate lie.

Vice President Cheney's insistence that... >> I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.

>> Painfully inaccurate.

America had no plan for a violent insurgency.

The war dragged on until 2011, 8 years later, killing more than 4,600 U.S. troops and as many as 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians.

It also shattered America's credibility in the region and along with it, its place as a singular superpower in the world.

For those of us old enough to remember in 2003, France, Germany, and, yes, Russia were united together against the Iraq war.

But it didn't matter.

America said, "Sorry, actually not sorry."

Renamed French fries freedom fries, something we don't do anymore thankfully, and carried on in a unilateral war that very few allies supported.

Flash-forward to today where the United States needs every ally it can get.

It needs unity with Europe on Russian sanctions and military support for Ukraine for any hope of continued support against Putin's invasion.

And in 2023, China is a global power strengthening its military and diplomatic ties while pitching developing nations on a counter narrative to Western dominance.

The United States has spent the last year trying to convince the world to support Ukraine because Russia went to war on false pretenses, true.

But developing countries led by China are saying, "Hmm, sounds awfully familiar."

So with 20 years of hindsight, can we say the world is better off after the invasion of Iraq?

And indeed, is Iraq itself better off?

It's not black and white.

Saddam Hussein is gone.

Most Iraqis are very glad to know that.

But the war also paved the way for the creation of ISIS, which went to war with Baghdad for three years, beginning in 2014.

There are still near daily Islamic State attacks in the north, and Iraq is reeling from massive protests against corruption and political sectarianism.

There's also the Kurds, an ethnic group native to northern Iraq, about 20% of the total population, fighting with the Iraqi government for decades over the creation of an independent state.

Not to mention women and LGBT people continue to experience extreme violence, skyrocketing unemployment in the country, and the fact that American troops are still actually there on the ground.

So what lessons can we take from the invasion to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past?

We begin our conversation today with Tammy Duckworth.

She's a woman who almost paid the ultimate price in Iraq and continues serving her country as a U.S. senator from Illinois.

Senator Tammy Duckworth, thanks so much for joining us on "GZERO World."

>> It's good to be on.

Thanks for having me.

>> So we're talking about the 20th anniversary of the Iraq war, something you experienced very personally.

It was back on November 12, 2004, when an RPG pierced the plexiglass floor of a Black Hawk that you were piloting, exploding next to your legs and changing your life.

Today, you sit as a senator on the U.S. Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee.

I want to ask you, how do you think about Iraq, your experience and your life 20 years later?

>> Obviously it was a turning point in my life.

I wouldn't be on this path to public service here in the United States Senate were it not for me being wounded and ending up in the hospital at Walter Reed and meeting a newly elected senator from Illinois by the name of Barack Obama... [ Laughs ] ...who had only been in office -- I think he was elected November 6th and I was injured November 12th.

And meeting him and he was on the Veteran's Affairs Committee and developing a relationship with him and Senator Durbin, which led to me eventually running for office.

But at this point, 20 years from when the war started, I feel that Iraq is somewhat unfinished business for what I hope for the country, which is to one day be a friend and ally to the United States in the way that we have developed relationships with countries like Japan and Korea and Germany.

We're very good in the United States of turning former adversaries into allies and long-term friends.

And I think we're on still a very long path for that with Iraq, but I hope for them to develop and grow their democracy.

So I don't think the work is quite done yet, but the work of the military is certainly done there.

>> Do you see the Iraqi people today as significantly better off than they were when you were fighting on the ground?

>> I do see that they're significantly better off than they were when we were fighting on the ground, but also significantly better off than they were under Saddam Hussein.

I do think that there's still a much needed room for improvement in investments.

The young people of Iraq have a huge unemployment rate, and this is a country that is very young.

You also see malign influence from Iran, Iran-backed factions within Iraq, including within the Iraqi government itself that we need to be very careful of.

And you still have issues up north in the Kurdistan region where you see the Kurds who are attempting to really run their autonomous area in a very responsible way, but still being under the negative influence, negative oversight from the government in Baghdad, cutting off their oil revenues and the like, for example.

>> You've talked a little bit about the fact that you believe that America's military role, at least on the ground in regime change in Iraq, is over, so too in Afghanistan.

You've said the U.S. should have a greater economic role than it presently does in the region.

I'm wondering what you think about its diplomatic role, in particular the idea that the United States promotes and exports democracy.

What do you think about American promotion of democracy both in the region and more broadly?

>> Well, I think when there's true democracy in a region, you also have -- economic prosperity does follow with that, and so I think that promoting democracy is also good for peace and prosperity in the region.

I don't apologize for wanting to spread democracy around the world because it is the one that most benefits everyday, hardworking people and doesn't allow just the elites to prosper as an authoritarian regime would.

But I do think that it requires a lot of hard work.

It means that you have to consistently have free and democratic elections.

And it does mean that you have to listen to all parties and all of those things.

And we don't always do that well here in the United States ourselves, but certainly we need to continue to strive for that robust democracy.

But it is hard work every single day, every single election.

>> When President Biden says that the world today is a battle of democracies versus autocracies, is that a view -- is that a world view that you find yourself identifying with?

>> I don't know that it's a battle, but I certainly do think that those are the two opposing ideas and ideologies.

And certainly I know that the PRC and their leader has the idea that autocracy, authoritarian regimes are the ones that are going to be the most effective.

Well, let's see about that.

I do think that democracy is still the best form of government and that with it we can bring real economic prosperity to a nation, to a region.

So, I'm always still going to be making sure that we stand up for democracy and democratic norms around the world.

>> I asked you that, Senator, in part because when you look at the Middle East, there aren't a lot of democracies.

The Arab Spring, of course, did not end up the way that a lot had perhaps hoped, including young people on the streets in Egypt, even in Tunisia.

Israel is a democracy, but even that increasingly is having some challenges on the ground.

And we've seen that with the massive demonstrations in Tel Aviv over the past weeks.

If it's democracy versus autocracy in a region like the Middle East, does that just mean that the United States is going to play less of a role?

>> I don't think so.

I think we continue to bring pressure to bear.

I think we have to field a team and be there and talk about the fact that, hey, you know what?

These are the things that we expect.

And I think we are also an economic powerhouse and that people do want to do business with us and they know that when they do business with America, we don't come in with a debt trap the way the PRC-government-run programs do, and that we can be true partners.

But that means that they have to be more democratic.

And I think we just need to continue to stay the course and push for the role of democracy in all of these countries with whom we want to engage.

>> What are the lessons you think that Americans, perhaps especially young Americans, should learn, should think about after we pass this date?

>> That democracy takes a lot of investments.

I sort of had a similar conversation but not aimed at young Americans.

I was in Indonesia recently talking with some folks there and I said, "Listen, remember that over 100 years after our nation's founding, we had a civil war where we killed tens of thousands of Americans, and that was almost 100 years after we had become a country."

So let's be very clear about how hard the work of democracy is.

I'm not saying that these other countries are going to have civil wars, but just that even American democracy has faced some significant challenges well into our ninth decade of being a democracy.

And all that should teach us is that we have to put in the work every single day.

>> Is the state of democracy today -- I mean, if you were up there giving the State of the Union, Senator, state of democracy strong in the United States right now?

>> Yes, I do think it's strong because you see all of these activist groups and all these folks, whether or not you agree with them, speaking out, stepping up.

I was just on a call with a group that supports access to reproductive rights and reproductive healthcare.

Not necessarily just abortion, but just all reproductive healthcare.

You see all of these young groups and young people very eager and actively participating, and I think that shows the strength of our democracy.

>> Before we close, I mean, I do want to ask you about veterans, a cause, of course, that's very personal for you, and there is an obligation, no question, to all the people that have been fighting and serving their country, many of whom didn't come home and many of whom that did come home have suffered greatly.

What does the United States have to get right when it comes to veterans services for our young men and women?

>> I think first American people have to understand that this is a cost of war, that the cost of going to war isn't just the tanks, the guns, the helicopters, and the ammunition during the period of actual conflict, that the cost of war goes on for many decades after the formal ending of those conflicts, and that cost of that war is the obligation we have to our veterans.

And that's the deal we made with veterans, right, up front, and so we have to honor that and we have to honor their service and their sacrifices.

So this is not a negotiable that, "Okay, maybe we will live up to our promises to our veterans."

No, it's nonnegotiable.

We have to live up to our veterans because we would never get folks who would step forward and volunteer and serve in the way that they have if we continue to break our promises to them.

How can someone kick down doors looking for the bad guys if they wonder whether or not they're going to be cared for when they get home and whether their families are going to be supported if they were killed in action?

And so we have to make sure that our troops can focus 100% on the task at hand, which is to hunt down and bring the fight to our enemies when we ask them to.

And they can't do that if they're worried about what happens after their time in service.

So it's really vitally important for us, not just because it's an honorable thing to do but it's also militarily the right thing to do for our military readiness.

>> Senator Tammy Duckworth, thank you for your service.

>> Thank you.

♪♪ >> And now my conversation with Richard Engel, chief foreign correspondent for NBC News, who was on the ground as a reporter in Baghdad back when the invasion began.

Richard Engel, welcome to the show.

>> It is a pleasure to be here.

I've not done this before.

I've known you for years, but I've never done your show.

>> Well, it's about time and I'm glad that we're doing it for a pretty important occasion, 20 years since the war in Iraq.

Feels like not that long ago.

You were there.

And I want you to start by telling us just a little bit, you're a young freelance journalist in the Middle East... >> Feels a long time ago.

>> ...and suddenly how do you end up in Baghdad?

Give us the story.

>> What happened was Saddam Hussein, obviously, was the entrenched dictator.

It was very hard to get access to Iraq.

And then as the war was approaching, it was getting more and more difficult.

Because the Iraqi government wanted to allow in a certain number of journalists, and to their credit, they weren't picking and choosing which networks and they weren't picking and choosing the names of reporters and correspondents, but what they were doing is limiting access.

So each news organization, depending on its size, got one or two reporting teams.

And as you rightfully said, I was a young, fresh-faced freelancer, didn't have any real deep established connections at major networks.

But I did know the region.

I had been already living in the region.

I did know Iraq.

I spoke Arabic.

I'd been to Iraq before and felt that this was a tremendously important story that I thought it was going to be a turning point in the Middle East.

So I ended up getting a human shield visa, the long and the short of it is.

Meaning I promised that I would be a human shield for Saddam Hussein and he was giving out visas or his government was giving out visas for this purpose to get preferably Americans, but really anybody who would go there and say, "Don't fight.

Let me chain myself to a power plant or an airfield" and be a peace activist.

It was a way to get in, it was a way to get the visa.

And then once I was in the country I never chained myself to anything.

>> How was it to be an American on the ground there as you're meeting with Iraqis, as the United States is bombing the country?

What was your experience and how different was it from what you might've expected when you showed up?

>> So, when the war began, I was very nervous that when the first bombs started falling, I'd be ripped to shreds or arrested or something terrible would happen.

It didn't happen that way.

Instead, the government went underground.

So a lot of the government officials who were assigned to watch me disappeared.

It was not that good of a dictatorship.

And the people who were regime loyalists kind of lost interest in that job too.

So the fear that I had of the regime didn't materialize.

The people were docile, pacified.

They'd been beaten down by so many years of dictatorship, they didn't act, and they just kind of waited it out.

And then when the invasion began, these people who'd been told their whole lives to be submissive didn't do anything.

So I didn't have any hostility from the government 'cause the government kind of was chasing its own tail at that stage.

The people didn't react.

And a lot of people were very happy, frankly, that the Americans were coming in and were getting rid of Saddam.

The more it seemed like it was likely that the regime was losing its grip, the more people came out of their shadow to celebrate, to cheer, to help me find stories.

And then when Saddam was actually driven from power and was on the run, there was a wonderful reception for about a year.

And then it got very, very ugly because of mistakes that were made by the local American administration there, because of lingering resentment by the basically Sunni Muslim community that felt they were pushed out of power and now had no future.

So the resentment began to settle in roughly a year into it, and then there was anger and animosity that made the place much more dangerous and changed the dynamic.

>> I mean, that was, of course -- you're talking a little bit about how the attitude changed and I mean, I remember of course when Vice President Cheney at the time said that the Americans would be welcomed as liberators.

Clearly we saw those images of the statue of Saddam Hussein that was toppled, and all of the people around that were -- >> I was standing under that statue; it almost fell on me.

I was on a balcony.

Some of those pictures you saw, I took with my own little Handycam.

I was right there and watched it happen.

They were cheering and they were excited.

And it lasted a little while.

It did last a little while.

But then when things didn't get better and the power didn't get put back on, and the promises that they were expecting, even if they weren't explicitly made, failed to materialize, and people who were not included and felt they had no path -- the Bush administration was calling them dead-enders.

Well, dead-enders, that's a problem.

When you have someone who's a dead-ender, that means they're desperate and they got no place to go and they're angry and it's their country and they know it better than you do.

>> What lessons, if any, did you learn from the war in Iraq that you would apply to what we see on the ground in Ukraine today?

>> Don't do a war of choice.

War truly must be the last resort.

Iraq was a war of choice, and it was perceived to be a reality because certain intelligence had been cherry-picked and the Bush administration believed it was some kind of reality, but it was a war of choice, and many within the administration, many in the intelligence agencies knew that.

And for Russia, Ukraine is a war of choice.

Although many in Russia don't believe that, and certainly Vladimir Putin doesn't believe that.

He believes it's an existential crisis.

And I think over time, if you launch a war of choice, you're going to have problems.

You're going to run into people who feel that you don't have the right to determine what happens in their homeland, and that happened in Iraq and I think that's happening in Ukraine.

So I think that's one lesson.

The other lesson is how different they are.

Iraq was -- It started out as a traditional war.

The United States military in uniforms went in, eliminated the Saddam government, 21 days, marching up from the south to reach Baghdad.

And then it became a more typical Middle Eastern war, Sunni versus Shia, Shia versus the United States, Kurds versus Arab, Arab versus Persian.

So many different layers to it that needed to be explained.

In Ukraine, you have both sides in uniform, trenches in between them, and a very clear narrative.

One country is trying to take over and occupy the other one in flat terrain, using tanks and artillery.

>> Get back to Iraq for a second.

20 years later, how are the Iraqi people doing?

I mean, to what extent can you talk about better-off, worse-off trajectory as a consequence of the country that has been so much, for good and for bad, shaped by the United States of America?

>> I wish there was an easy answer saying they're better off, they're worse off.

The people are freer.

The economy is connected to the world.

People who lived under Saddam's Iraq were not free in any possible way of imagining.

The children were reporting on their adults if they spoke about any kind of perceived seditious activity.

You couldn't go anywhere.

The best you could hope for was to be left alone, and that wasn't even easy.

So you had to toe the line and go out of your way to be left alone.

And there were drafts.

A million people were killed in the Iran-Iraqi war, more or less, for nothing.

So it was a very dangerous place to live and a horrible place to live if you were an Iraqi.

Then the Americans came and they gave them freedom, but they unleashed a civil war.

So that was also horrible to go through because what's the joy in being able to say what you want if somebody's going to come and cut your head off?

And that happened a lot.

There were assassination squads going around killing -- Sunnis killing Shias and Shias killing Sunnis and vice versa.

And now, the country is starting to emerge, but isn't quite accepted in the larger Middle East yet.

So I don't think they've landed yet.

The country's much safer.

They are much freer.

So they're better than they were under the civil war.

They're better than they were under Saddam.

But they haven't been embraced as a fully functioning country yet.

They are still half-Iran, half-Arab world, half-corrupt, half-semi-functional.

>> Richard Engel, thanks for sharing that.

>> My pleasure.

Thank you.

♪♪ >> That's our show this week.

Come back next week.

And if you like what you see or just want us to cover a different war, it doesn't have to be Iraqi, could be something else, why don't you check us out at gzeromedia.com?

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by...