Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
What would be a sound plan? I'd say the mistake was going in as liberators rather than conqueror's but hindsight and all.
|
You might be right. If the US had gone in to Iraq with many more soldiers and replaced Saddam's iron rule with America's iron rule, there would have been less of a problem post invasion.
The way I see it, Iraq is just like the Balkans, where Tito = Saddam. Remove the iron fist that keeps the disparate factions from killing each other and you have chaos.
Had the US made the unpleasant decision to be the dictator that Iraq needed, the problems in Iraq would be less than they are today (maybe).
That said, it begs the question... Is that how the US sees itself? Is the US ready to be a colonial power, in an honest straightforward manner?
If the goal is to topple one despotic regime, is there any point if we are only replacing it with another? What example does this set for the other despots in the region other than, if you don't do as the US says, we will crush you?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
It would have been great to have more help, but they were too busy writing contracts with Saddam.
|
You are partially correct here but it doesn't change the fact that the incredible lack of diplomacy on display by Bush and his administration in the lead up to the invasion directly resulted in traditional allies such as Germany, France and Canada, saying they would not join the coalition (it should be noted that each of them did take part in Gulf War 1).
The US could always have taken out Saddam. They proved they could do this. It was the aftermath that was always going to take a long time and be costly in any number of ways. Had the Bush Administration made their case for invasion in a better manner )and this includes supporting initiatives like Kyoto that have nothing to do directly with Iraq but everything to do with building coalitions), they might have started off from a stronger position.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
How many nations have been invaded and fundamentally transformed without issue and so LITTLE loss of life. I think you fail to see the big picture here in that sure there have been a LOT of mistakes in Iraq, but its not as colossal a fuck up as you imply here. It can be saved and won, in fact I expect as soon as a democrat gets elected president we will start to see 'good things' stories from Iraq. New schools, new hope, blah blah. Really the way to make this a monumental fuck up is to throw up our hands and 'honorable redeploy' like so many on this board think is a good idea.
We've got a nation of 27 million people under our direct and indirect control, we need to make good on our promises. Not keeping them would be a true monumental fuck up.
|
I don't dispute that lives would have been lost. I simply feel that the US was never prepared for the long haul -- financially and emotionally. I am not even addressing the corruption, etc. that Dc_Dux lists above.
Not only did Bush need to build a better coalition, he needed to tell the US public the truth that any invasion was not just going to be a quick thing followed by a grateful Iraqi public showering the liberators in flowers. The truth is that it was going to necessarily be a long term commitment to successfully bring about change for the better.
Instead, they chose WMDs and fear of the Terrorism. Great for short term motivation but it has come to bite them in the ass in the long run.