Was the US war in Iraq/Afghan preventable?

[overtone]

 

I guess I don't accept your paraphrase, but I think that is probably to be expected.

You cannot, however, point to a single specific aspect of my paraphrase that does not fairly and accurately represent what you posted. I was completely explicit, above, in describing exactly where and how and why I paraphrased as I did - you have plenty of material for actual objections and specific error, if any. Whether you "accept" what you said when it is laid out clearly, without your built in confusions and with those "redundant" adjectives put in place, is hardly the point, eh?

 

I can sympathisize with your reluctance - you have been posting some pretty silly stuff, koolaid from the goofiest of the warmongering of ten years ago and excuse pandering of every year since - but it's not my job to bail you out.

 

No, again... anyone who doesn't know that islam is a theism is unable to process the plain meaning of english words.

That's a lie, about what I posted. I said nothing about theism, and you know that.

 

It's the third or fourth lie of that form, twisting words - the one I really noticed was your attempt to banish "invasion" and replace it with "liberation", a Frank Luntz/Newt Gingrich propaganda move that brought your entire body of posting into sudden focus for me.

 

I expected to sooner or later find the FOX comment. The accusation that it was my worldview.

Another lie. I said nothing about your worldview, and you know that. Whether your worldview can be inferred from your posting tactics would be speculation, and in your case we have several possibilities and not much evidence.

 

As far as the Fox Frame term for the questions and phrasing - that's just a label, a handy way to specify the nature of your lack of integrity and avoidance of discussion. Everybody knows what a Fox Frame is by now, regardless of where the perp learned the trick.

 

But... I get it. I understand your bias better than you understand your own worldview.

Here I will cut you some slack - you don't. Your continual flailing misses at describing my views have been merely irrelevancies posted in lieu of responses, employments of Fox tactics in lieu of argument etc, and not the truly contemptible lies they would be if you actually had much of a clue regarding my worldview etc.

 

 

I'm positive we can't successfully communicate.

So? Actual communication with anyone is not why you're here, and communicating with you would be a waste of my time.

 

My point so far is that the Iraq War was obviously preventable, and should have been prevented - the political factions attempting to stop W&Co from launching it failed, were defeated in the US media arena, is all. The warmongering propaganda won the day, and the US citizenry will be paying the price for a generation at least.

[redshift1100]

 

It has been stated by many that the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal wars.

 

What could have ordinary citizens who didn't want war done to prevent the US-led war?

 

What was it that fueled the wars? Was it 9/11? Fear of nuclear weapons or desire for oil?

 

What could have ordinary Iraqis, Afghans and Americans done to make sure war did not take place?

 

What could the UN have done?

 

 

It has now been confirmed that the wars were a big mistake.

 

Very good question! As an American living in the New York area and seeing the C5's flying over head starting a full month before the war had actually started, it became quickly apparent that the war was most certainly inevitable. This was apparent to me, but "not" to George Tenet and the CIA. The US under the neo-con mindset was on a roll and it was one heck of a roll at that; I have read several books on this subject and have even written to the local paper stating that this war was going to roll forward largely due to the fearmongering etc.. To exemplify the climate here, I had family, normally sane people angry at me over my comments, there was tremendous Anti-Bill Clinton scandal anti-dem, pro-neocon, pro strong Republican military climate. I had folks at work CONVINCED that Saddam had Nukes and that the "16 words" uttered out of our POTUS were true. After all it's so "easy" to make a nuclear bomb. For God sakes even the NY Times played dead (like they did before Viet Nam) and even worse played sucker as Cheney used them to "echo". I whole heartedly disagreed with all of it, and I turned out to be right. So where's my award? LOL

 

Getting to your point, there was nothing that could have stopped the US war machine. The neocon White house pressured the UN heavily, we threw out Hans Blix's facts and pulled him out of Iraq. We arm twisted nations which didn't go well but qwelled oppostion enough. We exploited good will and sympathy to achieve this. When the towers dropped, the adminstration didn't even want to mess with Afganistan, they brought up Iraq FIRST, because they saw it as an opportunity to install a viable pro-west and cheap oil regime. Perhaps maybe even push the region in a new "direction". Lets face it, if Iraq was a cabbage supplier, I doubt we would have even cared about Saddam and his daily street hangings and gold machine guns. In fact, we generally supported dictators when it fitted our cold war policy against the USSR etc., funding Saddam against the Iranians suring up oil supplies, etc.. As I saw this all unfold, I KNEW it was just a matter of time before the bombs dropped over Bhangdad, Saddam agreed, releasing thousands of prisoners and hoping for a Viet Nam style resistance. No matter what this war was going to happpen.

 

Now you state the the wars were a mistake, that is a hard thing to guage the terms to which you mean that. The long war may be a failure, but Iraq seems to have turned around largely due to dumb luck, some give the surge credit, I don't. Anyway that is my 2 cents. lol

Edited February 24, 2013 by redshift1100

[redshift1100]

America was spoiling for a fight (and revenge) after 9-11, but prudence and reason should have prevailed, and there were Americans (I being one of them) who should have spoken up more loudly about the ridiculousness of the Bush administration's claims for invading Iraq. At least Al Qaida was in Afghanistan.

 

I wish people would smarten up about this "desire for oil" mentality. Oil is wealth, and wealth is power. Period. You don't want a madman to have power, so yeah, you go in and take control of the oil away from him. And you also don't want the next random madman (or fanatical organization) to wander along and become the next dictator and controller of all that power, So all this whining about "we only went in there for the oil" (as if we only went in there to get cheap gasoline) is malarkey. I heard the same whining about why we supposedly went into Vietnam, and they produce between ¼ and ½ of 1 percent of the world's oil. Whoop-dee-doo.

 

Some of us did but it wouldn't have mattered, you are speaking with 20/20 hindsight, the US population was "on board". Period. Nothing would have turned over the information machine at that time. The biggest opposion was hippie cliche', basically "wars are bad in general", that wasn't going to provide logical insight on why to stop it.

 

Regarding your oil point, yes it was obnxious to hear people say it was JUST about oil, especially considering that the neo-cons were grumbling in the Senate about overthrowing Saddam in the late 90s. So no, oil wasn't the ONLY factor but it really greased the wheels because it meant that (1) they could pay for their own recovery (2) the US would gain a pro-west regime perhaps like Kuwait (3) It could help stablize the region (4) draw a line against the Shia cresent (5) encourage other mid-east nations to overthrow their dictatorships, (6) Oil for profit men in the White House, etc .etc.. Also, to illustrate their zealous feelings of "finishing" desert storm, they exploited 9/11, they expected this to be a repeat; go in decpitate the leadership, the oppressed people cheer in the streets we get a oil friendly regime within a year tops. Instead it ended up playing out like a worst case scenario with a high probability of failure. It also didn't hurt that Iraq had #2 most proven oil reseverses or something like that. So if Iraq sold cabbage, or nothing (like Afghanistan) we most like would have far less interested in overturning their govt. (see all of Africa for examples)..

Edited February 24, 2013 by redshift1100

[Iggy]

Regarding your oil point, yes it was obnxious to hear people say it was JUST about oil, especially considering that the neo-cons were grumbling in the Senate about overthrowing Saddam in the late 90s. So no, oil wasn't the ONLY factor but it really greased the wheels because it meant that (1) they could pay for their own recovery (2) the US would gain a pro-west regime perhaps like Kuwait (3) It could help stablize the region (4) draw a line against the Shia cresent (5) encourage other mid-east nations to overthrow their dictatorships, (6) Oil for profit men in the White House, etc .etc.. Also, to illustrate their zealous feelings of "finishing" desert storm, they exploited 9/11, they expected this to be a repeat; go in decpitate the leadership, the oppressed people cheer in the streets we get a oil friendly regime within a year tops. Instead it ended up playing out like a worst case scenario with a high probability of failure. It also didn't hurt that Iraq had #2 most proven oil reseverses or something like that. So if Iraq sold cabbage, or nothing (like Afghanistan) we most like would have far less interested in overturning their govt. (see all of Africa for examples)..

 

And don't forget that the only other option is to continue letting Iraq suffer under sanctions. The Iraqi people paid the price from '91 to '03. It was headed in the North Korea direction. Strangled by the international castration of its economy and a mad dictator. The people suffer immeasurably under that scenario and it's an indefinite downward trajectory.

 

There were no good options for Iraq. Now that it is a democracy and the market is open people should be willing to bet that the trajectory is good. That isn't dumb luck. That is hard fought and won.

[overtone]

 

Now that it is a democracy and the market is open people should be
willing to bet that the trajectory is good. That isn't dumb luck.

Now it is a fascist-leaning Islamic theocratic state muddling through the aftermath of one of the world's worst episodes of ethnic cleansing (exactly what somebody above claimed the war was launched to prevent, right?) - with elections, cue the trumpets, established through violent defiance of US pressure.

 

Every sign of hope in Iraq right now is from defiance of the original US agenda.

 

That kind of trajectory being good is of course a damning indictment of what the US brought upon the place, both by success and failure. Take the "open" (undefended) market: Even a market open to the financial pirates of the world is better than the strongman "transtional" state the US attempted to establish (another Saddam, only more compliant with Chevron's interests).

 

And don't forget that the only other option is to continue letting Iraq suffer under sanctions.

The evil that men like Cheney do is not the freaking weather - there's nothing inevitable about it. Just as the invading US did not have to bomb the sewer systems and power plants (and journalist's hotels), set up torture interrogation prisons, and allow the burning of the great library of Baghdad, so the sanctions did not have to include medical supplies and civil infrastructure machinery.

 

Getting to your point, there was nothing that could have stopped the US war machine.

They could have been voted out of office, impeached, prosecuted. The NYT could have done its job. The people rigging the "intelligence" could have been subpoenaed and questioned under oath by a diligent Congress. And so forth.

 

The entire war effort depended on its corporate backers not having to pay for it, for another example - simply filibustering the W tax cuts in the Senate under the justification of having to pay for a war would have killed it in the cradle (its backers weren't idiots). Just one possibility.

 

 

So all this whining about "we only went in there for the oil" (as if we only went in there to get cheap gasoline) is malarkey.

The US government went in there primarily for backing corporate interests's control of the oil fields, secondarily for their pirate/colonial access to the Iraq economy; and that was pointed out well in advance by intelligent, well-informed, and well-reasoned people - including some of the more "intellectual" promoters of the debacle. Rewriting that perfectly sound and subsequently well-supported position as "whining" about where's our cheap gas by hippies who think all war is bad is corrupted, talk radio level, Murdoch press caliber excuse mongering and hiding from what happened. It's slander, of a particularly corrosive and ugly bent.

 

The opposition to the war was made up of people like Molly Ivins and Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman and the like, both popular and ivory tower. These people were not describing the motivation of the war launchers as cheap gas for regular American citizens, or any other benefit for American citizens.

[Iggy]

Now it is a fascist-leaning Islamic theocratic state muddling through the aftermath of one of the world's worst episodes of ethnic cleansing (exactly what somebody above claimed the war was launched to prevent, right?) - with elections, cue the trumpets, established through violent defiance of US pressure.

 

Every sign of hope in Iraq right now is from defiance of the original US agenda.

 

That kind of trajectory being good is of course a damning indictment of what the US brought upon the place, both by success and failure. Take the "open" (undefended) market: Even a market open to the financial pirates of the world is better than the strongman "transtional" state the US attempted to establish (another Saddam, only more compliant with Chevron's interests).

 

I probably wasn't clear enough. When I earlier said "fair enough and all that"... what I meant was "please stop talking to me because you are 100% cliched and boring". I appreciate that you might have 'insights' on whatever else whoever else might have to say. But, please, I am not that guy. Your comments don't interest me, and I'm not talking to you...and you are responding to comments not directed to you... so... please.. from my perspective... go the frack away!

 

With sugar on top. Stop responding to my comments directed 100% away from you. Please.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Iggy

[redshift1100]

And don't forget that the only other option is to continue letting Iraq suffer under sanctions. The Iraqi people paid the price from '91 to '03. It was headed in the North Korea direction. Strangled by the international castration of its economy and a mad dictator. The people suffer immeasurably under that scenario and it's an indefinite downward trajectory.

 

There were no good options for Iraq. Now that it is a democracy and the market is open people should be willing to bet that the trajectory is good. That isn't dumb luck. That is hard fought and won.

 

Sure, an argument could be made that this has been the best option for the Iraqi people, to unilaterally remove Saddam from power. However, that defense for the war was ancillary to the unilateral and concerted effort to claim Saddam was an immediate military threat, that the US has to shoulder the lions share of the burden to handle this immediate threat. Well I shouldn't say the US shouldered most of it, this was a tremendous toll on the Iraqi people, and could have gone either way. I do not believe that the surge was what caused the sea change but petraeus did some brillant things. I'm not saying it was total dumb luck but this really could have gone either way, right before the surge everyone was scratching their heads, at least from what I could tell, and I was pretty heavily following the details of the war. There was a HUGE concern that if we knocked down the Sadr's of Iraq, we would be essentially creating power vacums and chaos The backlash for the war was high, Al Qaeda in Iraq could have dug in deeper, we had very hostile forces in every direction and little support from the rest of the world. Hence, this was not the best option for overthrowing Saddam, nor was it for altristic reasons. Think of the pile of countries we could help out, why Iraq? Why at such a cost to American foriegn policy, post 9-11 good will, and so forth. Iraq sucked all of the oxygen out of the room and relegated US foreign policy to just that. So many things were left on the cutting room floor, and other nations even exploited the situation. Plus, we looked like the liars which we were. It green-lighted loose terrorist groups to strike out whereever possible, perhaps not in the US but they picked closer and or softer targets. This was not a good use of American power, or global good will, to shoulder such a huge undertaking alone was due to a gross underestimation and hubris by the previous Administration.

Edited February 25, 2013 by redshift1100

[ParanoiA]

...deleted...wrong forum

Edited February 26, 2013 by ParanoiA

[Iggy]

Sure, an argument could be made that this has been the best option for the Iraqi people, to unilaterally remove Saddam from power. However, that defense for the war was ancillary to the unilateral and concerted effort to claim Saddam was an immediate military threat, that the US has to shoulder the lions share of the burden to handle this immediate threat. Well I shouldn't say the US shouldered most of it, this was a tremendous toll on the Iraqi people, and could have gone either way. I do not believe that the surge was what caused the sea change but petraeus did some brillant things. I'm not saying it was total dumb luck but this really could have gone either way, right before the surge everyone was scratching their heads, at least from what I could tell, and I was pretty heavily following the details of the war. There was a HUGE concern that if we knocked down the Sadr's of Iraq, we would be essentially creating power vacums and chaos The backlash for the war was high, Al Qaeda in Iraq could have dug in deeper, we had very hostile forces in every direction and little support from the rest of the world. Hence, this was not the best option for overthrowing Saddam, nor was it for altristic reasons. Think of the pile of countries we could help out, why Iraq? Why at such a cost to American foriegn policy, post 9-11 good will, and so forth. Iraq sucked all of the oxygen out of the room and relegated US foreign policy to just that. So many things were left on the cutting room floor, and other nations even exploited the situation. Plus, we looked like the liars which we were. It green-lighted loose terrorist groups to strike out whereever possible, perhaps not in the US but they picked closer and or softer targets. This was not a good use of American power, or global good will, to shoulder such a huge undertaking alone was due to a gross underestimation and hubris by the previous Administration.

 

I understand what you mean. I simultaneously want to object to the word 'unilateral' because it immediately rules out a lot of groups (like the Kurds) -- they certainly had a stake in excising the baath party -- but, at the same time I don't mind America getting labeled unilateral in doing this. The US led the '91 war. We decided to encourage the people to overthrow Saddam, and we left them there to pay the price at its conclusion. We owed a debt that was being paid every day by the Iraqi people.

 

Trying to fix that is morally correct, and I don't know besides a war how one fixes Saddam.

[overtone]

Sure, an argument could be made that this has been the best

option for the Iraqi people, to unilaterally remove Saddam from power.

I've never seen that actually argued, at least not honestly (without the propaganda "facts"). It is often asserted, but without basis in evidence or genuine argument.

I do not believe that the surge was what caused the sea

change but petraeus did some brillant things. I'm not saying it was

total dumb luck but this really could have gone either way,

The "surge" consisted of bribing certain Islamic and tribal forces, the worst of which we had invited into Iraq and provided with motivated recruits, to quit killing US soldiers. http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html You sound as it you think it turned out better than it might have. What realistic possibilities do you think were worse than this situation?

 

There was a HUGE concern that if we knocked down the Sadr's of Iraq, we

would be essentially creating power vacums and chaos The backlash for

the war was high, Al Qaeda in Iraq could have dug in deeper,

Your implication that AQ was present in Iraq before the US invasion badly misleads - only a few "AQ" (Saudi) associated groups, in small corners protected by US airpower (partly for their role in attacking Iran) had ever had any foothold in Iraq.

 

The US led the '91 war. We decided to encourage the people to

overthrow Saddam, and we left them there to pay the price at its

conclusion. We owed a debt that was being paid every day by the Iraqi

people.

 

Trying to fix that is morally correct, and I don't know besides a war how one fixes Saddam.

We also encouraged the 91 war, with an oil industry associated President who had been head of the CIA deftly manipulating the situation to open the door for the US military - which has been stuck there ever since, draining and corrupting both countries.

 

Getting themselves into situations of moral depravity, with no morally or ethically defensible options available, is one of the problems bad people setting out to do wrong things regularly face. That does not make the degradation and horror of military invasion a reasonable option - certainly not under the laughable auspices of benefiting the Iraqi citizenry, or the equally laughable competencies of the US administration running that show.

 

The US could not "fix" Saddam - certainly not the US of the "rightwing military/industrial authoritarian" (we are not allowed to name this political faction) Bush family with its cadre of oil company and secret police and Saudi royal connections. The task was beyond its powers. Other people, other means, or Ecclesiastical time and chance, had to be relied on, waited for. Yes it was a bad scene. Invasion, conquest, occupation, and control was maybe the worst option, on grounds of reason as well as morality and ethics.

 

The Iraq War was sold with lies because the American people, a generally decent lot, would never have supported it honestly presented. And it is defended with lies and revisions of history and denials of fact because the simple facts of its launching and prosecution cannot be faced by its supporters without invoking major personal and political rehabilitation. And that means it was preventable, obviously - it si always possible to not lie to the American public, always possible to not manipulate them into doing very bad things they dont' want to do - and always possible for these people to see through such cons and avoid being swindled.

 

There was nothing inevitable about it. More than 100 Congressmen voted to deny W his war powers - had it been more than 200, the US would be several trillion dollars to the good and acting with a much clearer conscience as a public.

 

 

I probably wasn't clear enough. When I earlier said "fair enough and

all that"... what I meant was "please stop talking to me because you

are 100% cliched and boring".

So don't read my posts. I, after all, was perfectly clear to any honest reader - I explicitly stated that I was not attempting communication with you, and do not care what you think of my posting (if you ever did get around to actually addressing my posting, content and stuff like that) - your pretense of incomprehension there is yet another example of how I came to that understanding.

Edited February 27, 2013 by overtone

[Iggy]

 

I probably wasn't clear enough. When I earlier said "fair enough and

 

all that"... what I meant was "please stop talking to me because you

 

are 100% cliched and boring".

 

So don't read my posts.

 

So I'm to understand that you're going to follow me around shouting at me while I don't care what you have to say and I'm not talking to you? That's fantastic.

 

I don't know if you're capable of appreciating this, but most of the criminally insane and the mentally retarded are able to persuade themselves against that idea. Right now... to me... you are much worse company than the criminally insane and the mentally retarded. They are much better people in my view.

 

I know that right now you're looking for some literal mistake in what I just said and unable to grasp the message, but, that's ok....

 

...I think there is a way to fix this. I think there is an option to permanently 'ignore' a user so that one doesn't have to read their posts on this forum. I'm going to go find that so in the future while I'm ignoring you it's because I can't see or hear you. Thank you. I wish you all the luck.

[redshift1100]

I understand what you mean. I simultaneously want to object to the word 'unilateral' because it immediately rules out a lot of groups (like the Kurds) -- they certainly had a stake in excising the baath party -- but, at the same time I don't mind America getting labeled unilateral in doing this. The US led the '91 war. We decided to encourage the people to overthrow Saddam, and we left them there to pay the price at its conclusion. We owed a debt that was being paid every day by the Iraqi people.

 

Trying to fix that is morally correct, and I don't know besides a war how one fixes Saddam.

 

Sure, and I agree with you, in fact, one of my heros Chis Hitchens, agrees with you; we were previously isolating and financially strangling the population to help facilitate change. It's an old tactic, see DPRK, Cuba, etc. or example. Also, the success of this war seems obvious with 20/20 but there was a strong possibility for making things much worse. And still is.

 

However, I think you are putting only the positive spin on this and in doing so falsely diminishing the tremendous cost this was to millions of Iraqis, thousands of Americans, and the billions of dollars squandered; all for a policy which was dictacted, orchestrated, and executed poorly by the previous US administration.

Edited February 27, 2013 by redshift1100

[Iggy]

Sure, and I agree with you, in fact, one of my heros Chis Hitchens, agrees with you; we were previously isolating...

 

Ouch!

 

The Hitch publicly decried hero worship and demanded that interviewers not shorten his name to "Chris". If you treat your heroes this way I wonder... no... wait...

 

No, I'm sorry. I'm flattered enough by the comparison that I can't find myself forming any kind of counter-argument

 

If that was your plan you've succeeded brilliantly and I'm in a bit of awe!

 

and financially strangling the population to help facilitate change. It's an old tactic, see DPRK, Cuba, etc. or example. Also, the success of this war seems obvious with 20/20 but there was a strong possibility for making things much worse. And still is.

 

However, I think you are putting only the positive spin on this and in doing so falsely diminishing the tremendous cost this was to millions of Iraqis, thousands of Americans, and the billions of dollars squandered; all for a policy which was dictacted, orchestrated, and executed poorly by the previous US administration.

 

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with the minimizing part. I have family that has been, and could again be, in Iraq and I have heard stories of this war that shouldn't be forgotten, or unheard, or minimized in any way. I mean to say, it's real to me. I don't want to be suspected otherwise.

 

I just don't know what other option there was. Giving you all that about being poorly executed and the money squandered (granting all that)... I just don't know what other option there was. I have to bet that it will succeed as a democracy. My sensitivities demand that I bet it will come out better as a federalized democracy than it would have as a totalitarian regime. If I can't believe that then I believe nothing.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Iggy

[overtone]

So I'm to understand that you're going to follow me around shouting at me

No. I will continue to respond to your arguments and posts as before, calmly and with forbearance as I see fit or take interest, and even attempting to bring your personal rant and slander around to thread relevance.

 

we were previously isolating and financially strangling the population

to help facilitate change. It's an old tactic, see DPRK, Cuba, etc. or

example. Also, the success of this war seems obvious with 20/20

The US was indeed managing the sanctions very badly, much to its own discredit and cost as well as hardship for the Iraqis, after manipulating Iraq into a war that failed to topple Saddam. But doubling down on that rolling atrocity with actual invasion was not the only possible response to having dug ourselves into that hole.

 

Meanwhile, the success of the Iraq War is hardly obvious - what are you talking about? As far as the US: the war has ballooned our debt, damaged our military, ruined our image of capability and destroyed our moral authority on the world stage, handed us thousands of dead and tens of thousands of badly injured soldiers in the prime of life just as our medical care setup is bidding to fall apart, saddled us with a gulag of torture prisons and a thoroughly corrupted foreign policy of secret police and political ignorance, set up the world's most critical oil field to be allied with Iran, driven Turkey closer to Russia in its struggles with the Kurds, provided AQ and other Islamic jihadists with a platform adjoining their major funding sources, etc etc etc.

 

As for Iraq: Saddam is gone, tried in a kangaroo court and hanged by a pack of Islamic fundies under US auspices, yay; the most Westernized Islamic country in the region has been set back a generation into Islamic theocracy (complete with burqas, Sharia law, and sectarian violence); its people have been subjected to murderous ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and political division into medieval tribal enclaves, its intellectual and cultural elite has been evicted and scattered and largely obliterated from the country, while its economic elite has been thoroughly coopted by the profiteering opportunities of the unbelievably corrupt US war effort; its economy has been handed over to a pirate class of carpetbagging foreigners and organized criminals backed by foreign armies; its infrastructure has been bombed back to pre-French levels; hundreds of thousands of its people are dead or missing; its military can no longer defend its borders; its oil fields even, the best protected and most carefully handled of its economic assets, remain far below their former production or capability; and so forth.

 

How it turned out? It hasn't, yet. It's not too late to improve, but the enemies of Iraq are on its borders and it's otherwise in very bad shape at the moment - the smart money would not be on a bright near term future. We wrecked the place. Now it's wrecked.

 

 

I just don't know what other option there was. Giving you all that

about being poorly executed and the money squandered (granting all

that)... I just don't know what other option there was

For the US, given its administration and history, there were no options - probably the only honorable course of action would have been to relax the sanctions on medical supplies and infrastructure parts, and otherwise do nothing except keep the British and Russians out - let non-perpetrators handle things. Maybe the Chinese.

 

The US would never have invaded Iraq if the situation ahd been presented honestly to the US public. So one option would have been presenting the situation honestly to the US public, and going from there - with no invasion possible, other avenues of endeavor would have a better chance.

 

Anything would have been better than what the US did - well, maybe not nukes. It's true we didn't nuke anybody.

 

 

My sensitivities demand that I bet it will come out better as a

federalized democracy than it would have as a totalitarian regime.

If it can establish a federalilzed democracy, which is not known yet, it will be an Islamic theocratic version entirely creditable to the violent defiance by the Iraqi Islamic fundies of the attempts of the US to impose strongman rule (Chalabi, etc). I'm not sure that should count as a benefit from the US invasion, even if it does turn out to have been a consequence.

Edited February 28, 2013 by overtone