Support NeoGAF

[APF]

You're literally running around in circles arguing nothing. I can however provide references supporting the idea that the Bush Admin didn't want WMDs to get in the hands of terrorists, if you are really confused on that point.

 

[Freshmaker]

Explain. Do better than Mandark please.

The nation building plan never had a shot. They apparently knew this since they sent incompetent boobs over there to oversee the rebuilding, disband the army etc. If you want a friendly state created in the region, you can't simply kick over the anthill and call it a day.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I think it was probably a combination of

1. Nation building and having a second ally in the middle east - FAILED
2. Oil - PASSED
3. War is good for the economy - VICTOLY
4. Remove a possible terrorist haven and anti-US dictator in an unstable area - YET TO BE SEEN
5. WMDs? No? Well maybe there's WMDs that's a good enough reason - FAILURE
6. 9/11 sell to brain dead couch potatoes - COMPLETE

I think they wanted the war (obviously) and WMDs was an easy way to sell it to the American people, of course if they knew absolutely that there was no WMDs anywhere in Iraq for sure they wouldn't have said there were because of the foot in mouth egg on face issue they're going through now. I think I would've felt better if they were honest about wanting an ally in the middle east and the oil is good for us instead of trying to cover it up and go the whole "saddam was a bad dude" route. I don't like being lied to, makes me feel icky.

 

[APF]

The nation building plan never had a shot. They apparently knew this since they sent incompetent boobs over there to oversee the rebuilding, disband the army etc. If you want a friendly state created in the region, you can't simply kick over the anthill and call it a day.

Which belies the idea they wanted a stable, friendly oil supplier. So given your assumptions, which suggest it wasn't for their stated reasons, and it wasn't "for oil," what therefore was their reasoning?

 

[Mandark]

The nation building plan never had a shot. They apparently knew this since they sent incompetent boobs over there to oversee the rebuilding, disband the army etc. If you want a friendly state created in the region, you can't simply kick over the anthill and call it a day.

They put a lot of resources and focus into creating the conditions for a friendly regime in Iraq, though. They co-ordinated with certain exile groups (the INC, INA, SCIRI, etc.), gave seats to favored leaders when they created the Governing Council, etc. Plus they rewrote a bunch of laws and approved billions of dollars for rebuilding infrastructure.

They cocked it up mightily, but in the first few months, it was definitely a top priority, along with fighting pockets of Baathist insurgency.

 

[Freshmaker]

Which belies the idea they wanted a stable, friendly oil supplier.

Which takes us back to having no actual reason for invading Iraq. Given how much resources Iraq is currently consuming, I find that more than a little troubling.

So given your assumptions, which suggest it wasn't for their stated reasons, and it wasn't "for oil," what therefore was their reasoning?

My main point is that the talking points eliminate all the strategic reasons we're in Iraq. Apparently by the folks offering these talking points, having an actual reason to invade Iraq isn't requisite for invading Iraq.

I've already offered my theory. Iraq was a known lightweight. They knew they could blow in and topple Saddam with little effort. If what they claim is true, they simply expected to inherent the infrastructure, which would've left them with an instant US friendly country. Would've made an ideal ally to pressure Iran and fuel further US gains in the region with Iran being the next stop if their tiny army strategy proved viable.

So as I see it, Iraq is the result of someone in the civilian side of the administration decided that since we're way stronger tech wise, that'd offset the traditional need to have a troop supply capable of occupying a country. We could simply topple out of favor regimes and move on to the next. It was a horrible strategy that never had any chance of working in reality, but they rammed it trough in the wake of 9/11. Iraq was a petri dish for a stupid idea.

Mandark: Bremmer disbanded the Iraq army. Approving billions for reconstruction then appointing some twenty something political hack and his handful of buddies to oversee rebuilding the country's sewer systems doesn't result in actual rebuilding. Losing pallates of US currency etc has been par for the course in Iraq. Other than pumping money into contributor's coffers and giving party loyalists cushy jobs they were grossly unqualified for, the reconstruction was completely mismanaged from the start and it doomed the positive steps took to failure.

Set up a nice government? Great. Leave someone without power and a broken toilet, while you tell them you just did them a huge favor? That tends to breed resentment.

 

[rezuth]

That's good, because we went there to spread freedom.

Shame you failed.