MSimon wrote:Depends on the orders they were given:
Rebuild the country with those imbued in the old politics or a fresh start?
I have always felt that when dealing with Nazis (the Baath Party - you can look it up) a fresh start is the best - even if it costs.
What was the objective? Replace Saddam? Or try to start the ME on the way to self government?
Which is to say you are not taking grand strategy into account.
It is difficult to weigh costs vs benefits when the costs are the lives of your countrymen. Would we have ever lost so many lives to terrorism?
Apart from that, my initial perception of the peoples of Iraq is that the shite's are dumber and less capable than the sunnis, and that is why the smaller number of sunnis were running the country in the first place. So far I have seen nothing to change that initial assessment.
If that is indeed the case, then the Sunnis are going to be running everything eventually anyways, so why not start working with them from the beginning and avoid all the bloodshed?
And again, I perceived at the time (and history appears to exonerate my thinking on this) that it was far more important to the long term stability of this nation and the world to prevent the Democrats from getting into power in this country. Likewise, the threat that Iran poses.
Had the peace been secured right after the war, it would have seriously mitigated the hatred aimed at Bush, and likewise the spendthrifyness of the Republican congress. It would have further enhanced the credibility of those who say that Iran cannot be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon, as well as the resolve of this nation to do something about it.
I would suggest that my perception of the grand strategy is not lacking, but instead that it just differs from what others see. I say the grand strategy would have been served far better by not picking an unnecessary fight with those whom we need to actually bring stability to Iraq.
