Shins said:
If Iraq ends in a state of rule via fairly brutal dictatorship, what was gained?
edit: mAcOdIn? nevermind
How far back are you familiar with Saddam? He was of course a dictator, he did of course come to power through harsh and cruel means, but until the Iraq-Iran war I don't think you would have recognized it if you saw or read about Iraq in that time period. Yes, under Saddam.
You make it sound like all these people, that theoretically should have exterminated each other decades ago just magically arrived in the country post Saddam. The whole reason this situation exists is because of the shitty fucking job that Bush and Co did right at the beginning. I mean what would happen if you just got rid of all the police one day in a country being invaded? Fucking seriously? What would America look like if that happened to us?
I think it's completely ignoring certain parts of history if you think that Iraqi's just have to have an ethnic cleansing.
Edit: Basically I'm saying that if power had been kept at the government and laws enforced the whole time, it should have been completely possible to place a new government and keep law and order. Of course, yes, there's always that possibility that 2 elections down the line a mad man would get in power and just kill off one group, how can any piece of paper stop that? But it would have been a much better situation than what we have or what they had if they at least were under a more democratic state that was heavy on the policing. I mean, France could get a leader that decides to exterminate a whole group for all we know, the US could, it's not like there's any way to immunize society from that outside of actually killing everyone but one group off.
Edit: And to not dodge your question, absolutely nothing would be gained to trade one dictator for another, just as nothing would be gained by getting a democracy of flowers and love built on the bodies of all the other ethnicities of Iraq.