The invasion was a cake walk.
Where did it say the occupation would be?
Given that Bush has many of the same advisors as his father (who studiously chose to avoid the invasion), including Kenneth Pollack, what makes you think that no one in the administration anticipated the difficulties of keeping Iraq together? Ironically, this is why the smaller footprint (smaller occupation force) was deemed the way to go as they did not want to inflame Iraqi sensibilities.
Oil. The simpleton’s reply. Yes, it was about oil. Oil revenues give these tinpot dictators the weapons and money to act above their station. But it is not as presented about “controlling” Iraq’s oil otherwise if that were the case, why not the liberal shrieks about the pisspoor job we have done about taking control in any way shape or form over this resource?
All this sniping over the US action is nearly immoral on so many levels.
Was Saddam a bad person?
Did Saddam obey or respect international law?
Was Saddam one of the worst tyrants of the 20th century?
Was Saddam reformable?
Was Saddam a threat to his people and his neighbors?
Did Saddam have the plan and intent to build wmds?
Is Iraq and its stability in the interests of some of its neighbors but especially the West?
Is the US effort in Iraq contributing to this stability?
Is the US effort in Iraq to be supported in terms of humanitarian interests?
Once all these questions are answered, it becomes bewildering to me why so many are so interested in bashing the US and Bush. Again, if international law is your thing, then consider this…
While the US led effort did NOT receive the UN sanction, and is therefore NOT legal, it neither received UN condemnation and therefore technically is NOT illegal. Once the US led invasion had taken place, the UN voted to grant the US occupation authority. Ergo, a precedent similar to those in Bosnia and Kosovo and the first Gulf War had been set.
AND given that the US led effort had to invade to stop Saddam because sanctions were not, we have to examine why those sanctions were not working. In this regard, in addition to the neighboring countries, we have most notably France, China and Russia as those nations consisently flouting International Law and the resolutions enacted by the UN (all binding) and thus what are we to make of their “principled” opposition to the invasion. I mean if this is all about international law and such, why then not even more oppobrium heaped on these nations for contributing to the collapse of sanctions particularly when these actions were clearly ILLEGAL? Why more for the US action which was not legal but certainly not illegal?
We now have the EU and in particular Germany as the No. 1 trading partner of the mullahs in Iran. We have been told that this time negotiations not force will be the preferred and better option. How’s that working out? Not so well? Gee color me fucking suprised.
While it is cute that many people here have no end of opinions and that is their luxury and right to do so, the simple fact is that very few of these are realistically going to be enacted into any kind of policy. Discussing these in that context then takes on the interesting invective of heated barstool conversations. May pass the time, but a futile effort nonetheless.
