George Bush did the greatest thing for Iraq ever in its history by removing SADDAM from power. SADDAM since 1979 was been the largest killer of Iraqi's and is responsible for more unprovoked invasions and attacks in the region than any other leader in modern history. Iraq should be the richest country in the Middle East, but instead SADDAM used its riches for WAR.
Wrong. This decision to remove Saddam was the worst thing to happen. Iraq was a functioning society with Saddam, even amidst the terror he inflicted upon his own citizens.
Most of the ME actually needs Strong-Man political systems in order to function. This follows from the tribal political tradition which permeates their entire societies. Absent that strong-man, but with the tribal system retained, you get all-out tribal warfare, which is exactly what we're seeing breaking out all over the Middle East. Having one massive prick on the top of the whole pile keeping everyone in line does wonders for keeping those societies functioning.
."
What you fail to understand is that the decision to remove Saddam FIRST and formost was about Saddam's impact on the region outside of Iraq. Saddam's threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf. The United States and the rest of the world depends on the natural resources that come from this region and Saddam's wars against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and his refusal to comply with international resolutions passed against his country after the end of fighting created difficult conditions in Iraq throughout the 1990s.
The United States used sanctions, a weapons embargo, military air strikes and other means to try and contain Saddam from 1991 to 2003. But unfortunately, the Iraq's neighbors in many in the international community FAILED to continue to apply the sanctions and embargo against Iraq for their own financial gain and other reasons. The essential end of the sanctions and weapons embargo against Iraq meant that the only option for dealing with Saddam was regime change.
The decision to remove Saddam was about US national security interest in the region NOT the actual conditions in Iraq, regardless if you think Saddam was good or bad for those conditions inside Iraq. SADDAM had to go because of his past wars and continued threat to natural resources in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as the failure of the US containment strategy in the 1990s. Regime change was the only option left, since everything else had been tried and failed.
Its also interesting to note that it first became the policy of the United States to find a way to remove Saddam from power under the Clinton administration. Ultimately Bush took the only action capable of achieving that objective.
So to put it bluntly, you are missing the main reasons for US involvement in the region which involve the international lawlessness practiced by Saddam involving attacking and invading four different countries and annexing Kuwait wiping it off the map. The TYPE of government Iraq should be ruled by or country a or b should be ruled by is a distant secondary issue.
The George Bush administration did make mistakes after removing Saddam in rebuilding the country. Disbanding the military was one. Debathification was another. But these mistakes are things that can be fixed and things that the Bush administration was in the process of fixing when Barack Obama became President.
All of the mistakes made by Bush have a common root cause - he and his advisers didn't know jack about how the societies in the region function. They believed that they could graft an alien Western sensibility onto a tribal society.
If you misunderstand an issue at the very foundational level, then every decision you make is very likely to produce bad outcomes.
Not political loyalty, tribal allegiances. The higher up you ascend in a tribal society, the greater become your obligations to your fellow tribe members. If you're a leader of a bureaucracy, the notion of promoting a qualified member of an opposing tribe over promoting a member of your own tribe is a.) nonsensical and b.) a direct threat to your own power as leader because those under you see that you're failing in carrying out your leadership duties.
The Bush administration understood the issues, but they made mistakes which made the occupation more difficult than it had to be.
It usually takes several decades for a country that has always been ruled by a dictatorship to develop a fully functioning, successful democracy. Yes, the past tribal culture makes it more difficult but evolving from that tribal past to a more modern one is very common and something that has happened all over the world at some point. Iraq's tribal past does not make it immune to globalilization or democratic governance.
More importantly, despite the problems, the Iraqi democratic systems has actually had many success's. It has held multiple elections and help to increase oil production and distribute the profits all across Iraq which is vital to people standards of living. So far all its problems, the Iraqi government has had some successes. Unfortunately, Obama abandoned the nation building project long before it was complete. This abandonment weakened the Iraqi government, weakened Iraqi democracy, and weakened the Iraqi military over the past two years which heavily contributed to the problems we see in 2014.
The only responsible thing to do in forming a new government once Saddam was removed was to form a democratic government. Obviously, in a democracy, the Shia Arab's naturally have an advantage given that they are 60% of the country. This is the natural state of Iraq and it can work provided that the various groups learn to solve their difference through politics and respect the law and minority rights.
You're suffering from the same limited exposure to the cultures of the region that the Bush brain trust suffered.
Look, people can learn to sunbathe on the surface of the moon so long as they learn to live without oxygen and learn to live in a vacuum. Simple, right?
Using wishful thinking as the basis for political decision making always leads to failure. We do this regularly here in the US with education policies - NCLB mandated that ALL children WILL BE proficient by the end of the program. All that was needed to achieve universal proficiency was to have better teachers and schools. Simple, right?
Jokes and gross anti-Bush rhetoric are no substitutes for sound objective commentary and advise on issues of international relations.
Imposing a dictatorship on Iraq would not have worked better than the formation of a democratic government. Once Saddam's was removed, the United States needed to set up a new government to help create a stable environment. That's not wishful thinking, that's just a simple reality, a necessity for stability! You can criticize how that was done, but the need to do that is not debatable. Once Saddam's regime was gone, Iraq needed a new government. Imposing a new dictatorship would have caused far more problems than helping set up a democratic one.
The responsible thing for the United States to do now is to re-engage with Iraq with its military, economic, and diplomatic strength. The United States should be redeployed to Iraq in numbers large enough to support an air campaign against IS and to properly train, equip and advise the Iraqi military and Kurdish Pershmerga. Together with United States Air Power, the Iraqi Military, Kurdish forces, and as needed US troops on the ground, IS can be defeated in Iraq and eastern Syria and stability and security restored to this part of the region.
What is it about some people who continually push the same damn policy and after every failure they keep coming back with the same damn policy thinking that "this time it will work."
First you need to understand some historical facts that you seem to be ignorant of:
1. The United States successfully invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power
2. The United States successfully set up a new Iraqi government and military.
3. The new Iraqi government has successfully held 3 democratic Presidential elections and 3 state an local provincial elections over the past 8 years!
4. The United States successfully brought violence down with the Surge of US troops in 2007 and 2008.
5. By 2009, the Iraqi military was starting to take over security responsibilities from US troops and were succeeding in that role.
6. When Obama prematurely withdrew US forces in 2011, the Iraqi military was in charge of all security throughout the county was getting better at that role.
7. When Obama prematurely withdrew US forces in 2011, the Iraqi political factions were still cooperating with each other and sectarianism was being held down or non-existent.
So what you have here is an invasion, occupation and nation building project that was on the road to success, but one that Obama abandoned pre-maturely. The project started crumble when Obama abandoned it. That is what has led to the current crises. The solution to the current crises is to help the Iraqi government and military defeat the terrorist IS and re-establish control and stability in areas that have been lost to IS. The Iraqi military and government have taken a sharp blow and have been weakened by two years of Obama's disengagement from the region. But the United States does have the ability to reverse this set back and put Iraq back on he right course provided it is willing to use the right military resources to do so.
