Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
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?
|
Well if we went in as a conqueror I'm sure the same people complaining would be complaining we didn't go in as liberators, that they were ready to be free of Saddam and we used a heavy hand of oppression.
I think where I differ though is that we didn't have to be a colonial power. Germany and Japan we entered as conqueror's and left as liberators.
We did a poor job of securing Iraq, allowing to many malcontents to be let free and too many weapon caches left unguarded.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Again, Germany and Japan.
Quote:
|
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).
|
Our traditional allies were deeply involved, and while Canada was a great ally in WWII this isn't the same Canada today. Canada today is like inviting Poland, and I don't say that to be condescending, they just don't have the money, nor do I think the will. They pretty much were at their limit with Afghanistan. We really need not go into the France/Germany thing again, but 'allies' is a loose term.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I'll support your bad costly policy if you support mine eh? No, had the US supported Koyto, I don't think we would have had any more help. Honestly I don't think there is anything we could have done to make France or Germany actively help, both those countries internal Muslim issues and external money issues with Iraq would pretty much supersede anything. Plus I think you overvalue their importance for anything beyond show. We would still be footing most of the bill, we would still be doing most of the dying, it would just have a much better 'vibe'.
Quote:
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.
|
Dux's points are overblown and show a lack of historical reference. Refugees after a major invasion? Civil unrest? Young men with guns far from home doing bad things? Thats what the down side of war is, was, and always shall be. I think we have limited those better than most have in the past.
As for emotionally ready, well thats a double edged sword to draw here. I'm not sure what Bush could have done, in fact most of the administration as I recall said it wouldn't be easy, it was more the pundits and the 'vibe' that it would be. Its easy in hindsight to say what should have been done.
The double edge comes from those on the left who from day one were attempting to undermine the will of the American people for political gains. They were waiting with baited breath for the time that American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq were greater than the terror attacks in New York. They tell us its unwinable and we have the speaker of the house of representatives speak of a retreat while our men are still deployed. You tell me what that does to 'emotions'. We have things like the Iraqi death estimator where they claim well over 1 million Iraqi's have been killed due to the invasion (thats 1 in 27, and its quite insane), it even got published in a respected journal and later it was torn apart as very poorly set up but that too was done to demoralize the war effort.
The PR could have been done better, but would it have changed anything that mattered? Undoubtedly the Bush admin underestimated the insurgent side and while Rumsfield was right on how many men it would take to beat the army, he was wrong on how many men it would take to secure peacefully after.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Everyone was talking WMD's (see my sig) and fear of terrorism. Nothing wrong with that, and the threat still isn't over (can't wait for a nuclear armed Iran can you?).
But while we have talked about where the Bush admin screwed up, and some places very badly, there is blame to go around. We had two major allies with under the table deals, thwarting any UN action against Saddam, we have a segment of the country doing their best to undermine any military action from day one and they continue to do so. I really can't stress that enough.
If you were an insurgent in Iraq, and you heard the leader of the US house of representatives talk about a retreat in so many words, and you knew that most like a member of her party would be president soon, what would you be thinking?