A classic military aftermath mistake is not to consolidate your position with your military after you conquer it. You leave the space wide open, and as soon as you leave, the enemy will take the area back. (hell yeah you left, so why would your local neighbourhood terrorist not take it back?) So all the American billions of weapons and tanks you spend on some disloyal Iraqi army has now fallen into terrorist, they simply "gave it away" to them, because they want America to fall, they want those ethnic races that they belong to, to come into power in Iraq. This is why the idea of "oh let the Iraqi forces defend themselves" is a laughable idea. However this is not a laughing manner. America should immediately mobilize its army, conquer back Iraq, and then consolidate its position with permanent military force. This should be done under the guidance of a competent American general, who will oversee ( solidified with a great strategic plan) to reconquer the area's that American soldiers have given their lives for, and this time NOT to simply hand it back to the ISA terrorist group. Clearly the Iraqi government and its army are incompetent and unwilling to stop these ideological terrorists from killing hundreds of people and stealing billions of American equipment. This is intolerable and must be stopped immediately.
Much of the equipment from Iraq was moved for use in Afghanistan. The problem was not leaving Iraq.. It was attacking Iraq in the first place and opening power to Iran. Iraq was not a threat... Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of sanctions and war. Why don't you study British history in Iraq..........
no, invading Iraq was a wrong move. we cannot be expected to occupy Iraq forever. we had to eventually leave and let them face their fate.
Wow ! We Agree On Somethin' . Hey All, Look at any nation where a Baathist was overthrown. All of them are less healthy for "living" than under the mean old Baathist. Witnessing all the tribal and sectarian civil wars; I appreciate the Baathist "Arab Nationalism" position more. It didn't make much sense before. Now we witness how they held their diverse nations together. No Baathist has left a power vacuum filled by Islamist, democratically or otherwise. Forever, a mutual hatred was in effect between the Baathist and the Royals except when it came to the Muslim Brotherhood. Now with the Baathist gone . . . Islamist Spring ! I have not witnessed such bad bipartisan State Department policies since buying into George Kennan's assertions that the Communist were one big happy Red Family that had to be contained less the dominoes fall. Someones did not appreciate the stability Baathist brought to their nations and the world. Moi r > g No
So the U.S. should have stayed in Iraq PERMANENTLY. I assume that you believe that the U.S. should stay in Afghanistan permanently also. Are there any other countries that we should invade and occupy permanently?
The biggest mistake we made in Iraq was the most basic misunderstanding of their tribal society. Just as we are doing in Afghanistan!!! We tried to impose a western-style democracy on a society that for millennium has never had anything but obeisance to local oligarchs. Iraq was, is, and always will be a made-up country with three [or four counting the Marsh Arabs] distinct cultures and political beliefs; If we were to push anything, it should have been a form of federation with a triumvirate ruling body. In other words, three presidents or prime ministers working in unison based upon input from their respective constituents. The loya jirga of Afghanistan is a good example of how Iraq should be ruled. Nothing will change there until we - the West - realizes that we cannot impose our forms of government upon them!
