|
Problem is, the US went in without any real notion of what to do to insure the ultimate outcome would not be to their disadvantage. Was Saddam a risk to the US? Not really. Did Bush need a boogieman to push his agenda forward? Yup!
The world community never bought into the whole rationale behind the war - that is why it was almost universally condemned and opposed.
The BS continues. The folks who are blowing up infrastructure and picking off American soldiers are supposed to be "Saddam loyalists" . Give yer head a shake! Who stands to gain by stirring the pot, preventing a return to normalcy, and killing enough American servicemen that the US public eventually gets disgusted and demands their boys come home? Who ses the UN as a threat to their agenda? Ain't Saddam, baby - he ain't making a comeback. The Bushites are going to invoke Saddam until the US leaves ( likely sooner than later) then throw up their hands when the fundamentalists take over and say " Well who could have known?"
The same thing happened in Iran, the fundamentalists were the best organized group and they moved into the power vacuum left behind by the Shah and coopted the revolution. The TAliban took over Afghanistan after the smoke cleared and the Russians were evicted. There was anarchy and they were the best organized to take advantage of the situation. See any parallels to what is going on now in Afghanistan. See it shaping up in Iraq?
This is an old pattern - the Reds did the same in 1917. If you don't learn your history....
|