I agree with that, but it makes me feel like a racist, Holier than Thou, Little Brown Brother jerk.
I understand your feeling. If it hadn’t been borne out time after time, it wouldn’t be my observation. If the primary means of fighting an enemy is to carry out terrorist attacks against the innocent, it speaks volumes as to their bravery. These guys make the French (or Italians or whoever is being bashed at the moment) look like ferocious warriors.
I believe it was mainly to enrich Halliburton.
I’ve heard that theory before. Surely, though, there are cheaper ways one might have enriched Halliburton or another of the military contractors. For one thing, the intelligence agencies spend something like $20 billion each year on black programs that see no oversight by Congress. Hell, had the US just handed $50 billion over to Halliburton, they would have been enriched and we would have saved trillions and many, many lives.
Don’t forget about the French. France & the UK basically divided the whole Middle East between them after the Ottomans fell.
After the Brits promised the Arabs their own countries if they would rebel against the Ottoman Empire in WW I.
“Fact vs. Fiction: True Cost of Iraq War”
I doubt money had anything to do with it; political ambition is a much more important cause of war than making a profit on it.
The fact was that Hussein was a tyrant. Many who had influence in the Bush administration felt he deserved to be taken down and Democracy set up in its place. It would help oil prices, but more importantly, it would free the Iraqi people.
However, those who pushed for war assumed that we would end up with a democratically elected Iraq. That was a pipe dream in a country that had no history of democracy. While it isn’t impossible,* it certainly has never worked out in the Middle East. The various factions were not committed to any sort of democratic process.
Back when the invasion began, I said that, yes, we would overthrow Hussein, but in ten years Iraq would end up so that we’d fervently wish that Hussein were still in power.
*See Namibia, which went from being a colony of South Africa to a functioning democracy (it’s basically a one-party state, but that one party stays in power through free elections, where opposition parties run freely and the votes are counted honestly).
Early in the Iraq War, I heard that those in the Bush administration advocating the war were unaware of the differences between the Sunni and the Shiites and how these differences would make it difficult to establish a functioning democracy. Any truth to that?
Of course it does. People don’t look at the USA and ask if it has been a paragon of virtue in spreading democracy around the world; we in the USA are the only people who behave like that. The other nations ask: “What can the USA do for us?”
No nation can stomach that another nation has certain advantages over itself. People will not change their opinion of the USA because of the Iraq thing. You are taking too narrow an approach.
That is the same as saying that our butting into the Ukraine thing is to enrich the company that Biden’s son is tied up with.
Probably not. The State Department has a jillion experts on each nation in the world. That sort of fumble may have happened up till the 60s (tho probably not), but, not after. Also, preparing for the wars, their are different people lobbying etc… for all interest groups within the belligerent nations, who will give more than enough info.
Please disregard this post. The OP has nothing to do with the Ukraine or with Biden. Sorry about that.
It doesn’t matter what your experts say if you don’t listen to them. After General Shinseki, then Chief of Staff of the Army, testified that it might take hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy Iraq after we invaded, he was ridiculed by the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who said that there was little evidence that sectarian violence would be a problem.
But… but… but… this was the country whose army was such a threat to the region, and even to the US, that Bush had no choice but to invade.
Moved MPSIMS --> GD.
Suicide bombers don’t have the strength of conviction of western people… is what you’re saying.
Is it? I think I’m just saying that they aren’t warriors. Something in their culture prompts flight rather than fight. I’m not saying that it’s not the best thing to do in the interests of self preservation, but self preservation seems to be the prime mover in that culture. It’s just a different way of thinking about things, and one of a whole potful of cultural things in that part of the world that we still don’t seem to be able to grasp. We just seem to keep sinking into the morass that is the Middle East, believing that we can impose our way of thinking and acting on a people who invented obstinacy.