TallDave wrote:However, the way he managed the post invasion period was down right stupid.
The disastrous light footprint strategy was no more or less than the conventional wisdom of the time. Everyone thought the Iraqis could self-govern and that our major responsibility was not to be too overbearing (hence the great effort to, for instance, allow Iraqis to write their own Constitution rather than imposing one as we did in Germany and Japan). As it turned out, the pathology of the Baathists had so eroded basic civility and liberal institutions that ethnosectarian thugs quickly emerged as the new power centers.
Nevertheless, the Petraeus "population first" strategy and the evolving competence of the U.S.-trained Iraqi Army eventually turned things around and now Iraq is the closest thing to a major Arab liberal democracy the region has ever seen, a staggering achievement at relatively small cost by historical standards. Life is better for Iraqis
by virtually every measure of liberty and prosperity.
And Iraq has wide implications. People in Iran are noticing that Iraq has real elections. The Syrian border tribes are becoming more defiant towards Damascus (46 years of "emergency powers?" really?). The new Iraqi government doesn't seem interested in fomenting or funding Palestinian violence.
There is no disputing that the overall strategy was salvaged by a large infusion of blood, treasure, and time. I do believe, however, that it could have been done earlier and at far less cost in blood and treasure, and this is saying nothing of the political damage the initial screw up did to THIS country.
Had it not been for the idiocy of Paul Bremer (and I'm Certain, George W. Bush) the Fiasco of the Democrats getting into power would have been avoided. I would argue that the collapse of Iraq is far less significant to the well being of this nation than is the damage wrought by allowing evil idiots into power in our nation.
The Two most obvious and most serious missteps Paul Bremer made in Iraq were the announcement that No member of the Bath Party would be allowed to keep their Government jobs, and that the entire Iraqi Army would be disbanded.
This effectively put thousands (millions?) of men out of work, and made them realize that we were the greatest threat to their future. Not only that, but these were the MOST dangerous men in Iraq. The people who knew where the guns and explosives were kept, and the people who now had a reason to hate us. Apart from everything else, it was rightly seen as unfair. In Saddam's Iraq, you HAD to be a member of the Bath party to work in ANY government job. Many people were Bath party members because you couldn't work otherwise.
Contrast this with the methodology used in the Aftermath of World War II. The word went out, that people (Nazi party members) should continue their Official duties as before. After a Period of investigation, if it was determined that they had committed no war crimes, nothing would be done to them. If on the Other hand, it was determined that they HAD committed war crimes, they would be removed from their position of authority and put on trial.
It is my opinion that the Methodology of World War II was greatly superior to the Ad Hoc schemes cooked up on the fly by Paul Bremer and George w. Bush. No doubt, they assumed they had totally conquered the country, rather than simply defeat it's army. If we had taken in Ten times the number of forces we brought, Bremer might have been able to make his diktats stick, but with a force only sufficient for conquering an army, you are a fool to attempt to subjugate a populace that is 200 times larger. It can be done, but you have to use Mongol tactics. Wipe out entire populations, and you can make them obey. That, however was not a tactic available to US.
If we had gained the Cooperation of the Bathists in the first place, much unnecessary blood shed and suffering could have been avoided. As it turned out, we didn't resolve the crisis in Iraq until we DID make accommodations with the Sunni Bathists.
They may have not been as much a victim of Saddam as the Shites were, but they WERE victims as well. I personally think they were the smarter of the two groups and would have cooperated with the US in turning Iraq into a Democracy. (once they realized we weren't their enemy.)