One factor is that, like in Germany, we have maintained a military presence in the country for decades.
Iraq is a lot like Yugoslavia: A multinational state cobbled together out of former Ottoman provinces after WWI, with a lot of ethnic and religious hatreds that only a strongman government could hold down. When the lid was ripped off, the pot boiled over.
I don’t think that’s a factor at all, in the case of Japan or Germany.
In Japan’s case, I think a huge factor is that we nominally left the Emperor in charge, and there was already a lot of precedent for democratic rule, with the Diet that had been in place since the 1890s.
So for the average Japanese person, there was a lot more continuity than there was for the average Iraqi.
You anticipated my points.
After the division the Sunni Arab and the Shiite sections might still fight each other, the way Pakistan and India have had several wars, but at least they would not have chaotic governments.
I hope we learn from our misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq what we should have learned from the War in Vietnam: there are plenty of people in the world who do not want to adopt our system of government, our economy, and our culture in general.
One of the lessons to be learned is that we should not become involved in Syria.
To me, I have to ask what the point of Plan “A” is. What does America get out of it?
As for plan “B”, while I don’t think it would have turned Iraq into a paradise, I don’t think those actions had a particularly great effect on what we see today, except insofar as plan “B” didn’t seem to acknowledge that the U.S. was creating a power vacuum.
Why should America get anything out of it? What exactly is the goal you are shooting for after the invasion? Perhaps you should clarify what outcome you want. Most people in the thread are assuming that stability is the primary goal, and some people have gone further and assumed that a stable democracy is the goal, but if that’s not your goal, you should clarify.
Um, plan B is what America pretty much did. Of course those actions had a great effect on what we see today.
For the first, what political goal is achieved by replacing Saddam with another strongman?
I understand that Plan B is what we did, but my point was that the current mess is mostly the fault of our leaders being too chintzy with security.
Of course they did, that’s why they kept blowing up the oil pipelines. They very much cared that we not be allowed to steal it from them.
Not only that, but the vast majority of Sunnis and Shia aren’t actually at each others throats. The sectarian label is mainly one used by extremists to justify more political goals. I work with a lot of Iraqi refugees, and most of them had to flee not because of their sect but because of their social status, which became identified with sect.
Some reports indicate that until the 1970s Iraq was one of the most modern secular states in the region.
Saddam gone, a new regime that owes us in place, and favorable oil contracts from the new regime.
Remember, that worked in Iran . . . for a while . . .
I don’t know what sort of favors we’d get as far as oil is concerned. Perhaps preference given to American oil companies to provide production assistance.
Saddam was well contained. I guess, to be fair, they did think that Saddam had WMDs. They had no evidence, of course, but everybody “knew” he had them (and he was coy about it, probably to scare the Iranians).
[QUOTE=sweeteviljesus]
Saddam was well contained. I guess, to be fair, they did think that Saddam had WMDs. They had no evidence, of course, but everybody “knew” he had them (and he was coy about it, probably to scare the Iranians).
[/QUOTE]
Saddam was relatively well contained, but only so long as the sanctions were kept up. My WAG is that if we wouldn’t have invaded then Iraq still would have come crashing down in a similar manner that Syria is today. They would have had their version of Arab Spring there too, and unlike the Iranians they wouldn’t have been able to crush it so thoroughly. However, WE wouldn’t have been on the hook, wouldn’t have spent so much and cost so much in lives, and would be in a better position today to do something. As it is, we fucked ourselves and everyone else with our stupid invasion, and now there isn’t much we can do about how things are today without mucking it up more.
At any rate, I still think that we would have been better off allowing the country to split up. The suggestion to keep the old Iraqi army intact is also good…no idea what we were thinking in doing what we did (well, that’s not true…I don’t think Bush et al WERE doing a lot of thinking with their brains during this whole sad, sorry mess).
Reading this thread is reviving my feeling of being pissed-off all over again. Thanks, everyone. 
The point I keep hearing about with the latest violence is that the Sunnis were kept out of government roles and (predictably) were feeling victimized by the US-installed Shia government. Maybe if all political entities were allowed to share in governing power from the get-go we would not have this situation today.
I like the idea of paying people to not kill each other. It’s worked for years with Israel/Egypt. There was a thread around here a while ago about giving Iraqis TVs and refrigerators, 24 hour electricity, and clean water to keep them complacent while the country was rebuilt. It would have probably been cheaper than what we did and more effective than what we got.
700,000 dead men, women and children thank you for removing those WMD, and for creating this wonderful future.
Part of what was going on was this idea that we were going to wipe the slate clean and remake Iraq in our image (or at least what the neocons thought was our image). But then they mixed that in with the whole Government is Bad/The Free Market Solves Everything. So they wiped away all of the previous system they could, forbade the Iraqi occupation government to do anything to rebuild, rewrote the laws to be “business friendly”, then sat back and waited for the magical free market to solve everything. It didn’t.
As somebody said back then, they not only didn’t have a Plan B, they barely had a Plan A. They based their plans on the theory that they’d have to do almost nothing, that events would just naturally go the way they wanted without effort on their part. No need for worrying about the occupation, the Iraqis will just cheer us and throw flowers. No need to rebuild Iraq, the free market will handle it. No need to worry how to pay for it all, the oil money will make the war profitable.
There is likely no “us” or “we” given this issue. That is, multinational companies and a financial elite profit, the military gets its armaments, and citizens pay for the costs.
My guess is the people blowing up the pipelines were probably not the majority of Iraqis. Pony up a cite.
Ok, just step back here. You asked how we should have rebuilt Iraq. Yet, whenever someone outlines a suggestion, you then keep making comments about whether or not the invasion was necessary or justified in the first place. That is not what you asked in the OP.
Make up your mind what the thread is about. Most people in here gave you analysis based on the assumption that the invasion already happened. Stop hijacking your own thread.