Over the weekend, the final US troops left Iraq, marking the end of the 9 year US war in that country.
The original debate over Iraq was controversial in Latin America, with most countries opposing the US invasion. Mexico and Chile indicated they opposed the action at the UN Security Council. Once the initial invasion was over, hundreds of troops from the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador participated in the Multi-National Force (MNF-I). Contractors from numerous countries including Colombia and Peru also went over to Iraq to work for US firms there.
The bigger issues with Iraq and Latin America were indirect. The US invasion of another country, no matter how vile its dictator, was viewed negatively by a region wary of US intervention. The errors of pre-war intelligence continue to create doubt about other US statements. The photos of abuse from Abu Ghraib and elsewhere remain a black mark from the war that still stains the US reputation worldwide. The focus on conflicts in the Middle East over the past decade drew time, attention and resources away from the Western Hemisphere.
Those factors weren't discussed in the pre-war debate, but they should have been foreseen and they should serve as a warning for future wars of choice. A war like Iraq shouldn't just be debated on its merits in isolation (should Saddam be overthrown or not), but also in the context of tradeoffs for other priorities, both foreign and domestic.
