Was invading Iraq really the worst decision in the history of U.S. foreign policy?

[Wakinyan]

But the USA could not, alone, have stopped Hitler. The western European powers (France and UK) also would need to be strong, too.But the USA could not, alone, have stopped Hitler. The western European powers (France and UK) also would need to be strong, too.

Nitpick perhaps, but didn’t the Red Army had something to do with the fall of the Third Reich?

[griffin1977]

@Wakinyan

Nitpick perhaps, but didn’t the Red Army had something to do with the fall of the Third Reich?

The point was about US policy prior to the start of WW2. The soviet union was not involved in the confrontation with Hitler at this point. In fact in immediately prior to the start of WW2 (after August 1939) they were allied with Hitler.

[Ryan_Liam]

@Pochacco

The problem is that the oil isn’t evenly distributed throughout the country. Most of the production is in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. So the Sunni middle has a strong incentive to fight tooth and nail to wreck a partition. Add to this Turkey’s violent opposition to an independent Kurdistan, and the fact that an independent Shiite state will probably wind up as an appendage of Iran and a partition looks even worse.

At this point I think the BEST we can hope for a brutally repressive strongman to seize power and restore order before the chaos spreads to the entire region.

Why not hope for a solution in which Iraqi politicians form a governing coalition to push out the extremists and strengthen the moderates. I’m getting pretty tired of the old ‘partition the country’ cliche that’s banged around the board here, it’s as if to say they have absolutely no vested interests in wanting to maintain a unified state, besides, who would of thought 25 years ago Lebanons political and religious factions would still be together in one unified (more or less) entity?

With the exception of the Kurds, I see Iraqi society polarising, but I don’t see that translating into an actual formation of seperate independent states.

As for the OP, neither Vietnam or Iraq come into it, I think the support of the Khmer Rouge, just to spite Hanoi comes in at number one. Well they did execute a quarter of the population. That and the support of Muhajihideen in Afghanistan, and leaving it as a backwater for Jihadists after the Soviets left.

[RickJay]

Wow, the positive outcome would be… Lebanon? A broken puppet state and a haven for terrorists?

Tee-riffic.

[Ryan_Liam]

@RickJay

Wow, the positive outcome would be… Lebanon? A broken puppet state and a haven for terrorists?

Tee-riffic.

I’m pointing out that Lebanon with all it’s sectarianism between the groups, hasn’t come to a point where those groups want to set up independent states of there own, just like many Iraqis wouldn’t either, with the exception of the Kurdish.

[LouisB]

At this point I think the BEST we can hope for a brutally repressive strongman to seize power and restore order before the chaos spreads to the entire region.

Maybe the Iraquis will offer Dick Cheney the job; he can live in an undisclosed place of safety and farm out the details to Haliburton. George Bush can teach the newly formed Iraqui airforce troops how to fly. In his spare time, he can instruct in the art of vacations.

[TV_time]

Reconstruction following the Civil War was exceedingly badly done, but I suppose Northerners would probably argue it was not a “foreign” policy error. Southerners might say it was and we Westerners well, we just don’t have any idea.

I think most would agree that it was it took around a century to get over (maybe more).

Still, I suppose everything to do with civil wars does.