Yes, I agree there. With hindsight, it really does seem as though the “management” aspects of running a military operation was so locked in to an optimal window timeframe that the Coalition painted themselves into a dreadful corner and lost the most vital ingredient - namely - a European wide commitment to aiding the Coalition in an Iraqi stabilisation and rebuilding program post war.
That the USA can militarily whip any nations arse is largely inarguable these days. But the post war nation building obviously is 10 times as hard in terms of cost and manpower - especially if you’re trying to sow seeds in non-fertile soil.
IIRC, the phrase ‘hearts and minds’ confused me as a young man during the Cold War as well. The choice is* not *between Saddam and the US, the choice now is between independence and occupation – Saddam has long since left the building.
As such and once just a smidgeon of stability is in place (the police and a rudimentary court system), I don’t really see a choice and I don’t see that there is anything that can be ‘won’.
Thus, ‘hearts and minds’ is a Western misnomer that conveniently re-presents the actual reality as some implicitly noble taming-the-savages-type media-friendly baloney: ‘They’ll get the hang of it, poor things. We’ll just hang around and help them re-learn’
It’s occupation pure and simple. And occupation of a Muslim country while the development of infrastructure, services and maintenance in the new Iraq is so tied (contracted) to USA.Inc that the US creams off oil revenue monies - directly and indirectly - for the foreseeable.
And even then the US military can’t leave because, now Saudi’s left the Protectorate, the US needs the supply from the oil fields to be totally secure.
To do otherwise is literally anti-American given the full-blown, all-consuming, Borg-like capitalism meets vacuum context - IMHO and until proven otherwise.
