Iraq: Final Analysis

[Bush92]

Iraqi soldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in Mosul - CNN.com

Another example of the end result of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq from 2003-2010. Destabilization has only empowered the Iranians and other groups in the region. think this would have happened under Saddam? Hell no. That's why he kept his boot on the throats of the population there. That's why his removal by GW Bush and the neo-con's was folly.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Iraqi soldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in Mosul - CNN.com

Another example of the end result of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq from 2003-2010. Destabilization has only empowered the Iranians and other groups in the region. think this would have happened under Saddam? Hell no. That's why he kept his boot on the throats of the population there. That's why his removal by GW Bush and the neo-con's was folly.

Similarly, we should have left Mussolini in place in Italy in the 1940s.

He made the trains run on time, after all.

 

[g5000]

Iraqi soldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in Mosul - CNN.com

Another example of the end result of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq from 2003-2010. Destabilization has only empowered the Iranians and other groups in the region. think this would have happened under Saddam? Hell no. That's why he kept his boot on the throats of the population there. That's why his removal by GW Bush and the neo-con's was folly.

We were going to go to war with Hussein again, sooner or later. Better sooner.

No, the real fuck-up happened after the invasion succeeded. We demobilized the Iraqi Army. That is going to go down as the single dumbest thing done by America, ever. That is the root cause of every bad thing which followed in Iraq.

 

[bendog]

Iraqi soldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in Mosul - CNN.com

Another example of the end result of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq from 2003-2010. Destabilization has only empowered the Iranians and other groups in the region. think this would have happened under Saddam? Hell no. That's why he kept his boot on the throats of the population there. That's why his removal by GW Bush and the neo-con's was folly.

We were going to go to war with Hussein again, sooner or later. Better sooner.

No, the real fuck-up happened after the invasion succeeded. We demobilized the Iraqi Army. That is going to go down as the single dumbest thing done by America, ever. That is the root cause of every bad thing which followed in Iraq.

Demobilization ended the last best chance we had of seeing the sunnis who largely controlled the army forming a unity govt with the shiaa, who actually shared an interest in not being dominated by Iran.

However, I disagree IraqII was inevitable. The aims of both US attacks were not similar. Saddam posed no threat to the US, and we knew it. The aim was simple nation building. However, Saddam wasn't living forever. His insane sons were less capable than is young Assad, who actually seems pretty capable and non-insane, albeit a brutal mass murderer. There was still a relationship between sunni and shiaa of needing each other in certain senses.

Once we dismanteled the army, we freed the shiaa militas to wage a civil war while we guaranteed Iran would leave their boundaries alone. Had we just stayed the hell out, the shiaa would have needed the freaking army.

 

[georgephillip]

Iraqi soldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in Mosul - CNN.com

Another example of the end result of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq from 2003-2010. Destabilization has only empowered the Iranians and other groups in the region. think this would have happened under Saddam? Hell no. That's why he kept his boot on the throats of the population there. That's why his removal by GW Bush and the neo-con's was folly.

Maybe it's worth considering the possibility that the break up of Iraq we see today was part of the original plan?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/The%20Project%20for%20the%20New%20Middle%20East.jpg

"Note: The (above) map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

"Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

"This map of the 'New Middle East' seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.

"The map of the 'New Middle East' was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel’s book, Never Quit the Fight, which was released to the public on July 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882