Format is my concept of the main element, followed by how I think it will go down in History. Note, I just recently located my first public proclamation of the US defeat in Iraq: April 28th, 2003. I have said since that maybe the US could pull it out. I think they have only proven my opinion correct.
1) Saddam was a bad man in need of removal.
Consensus on "yup he was"
2) The US had sufficient rationale to go to war, using existing issues and conflicts.
Consensus on reasons being there: Tyrant, failure of sanctions program (due to UN and others corrupting the effort), no fly zone violations, failure to abide by GW1 truce provisions, etc.
3) The reasons given by the US were "sexed up" to generate publicapprobation for the measure, a la "Downing Street memo".
Consensus on rationale being bogus - WMD, terror links, imminent threat to US etc. all exagerations, fabrications or apocryphal.
4) US Miltary spearheaded a classic military assault, demonstrating supreme excellence in demolishing an enemy military.
Consensus that the US military was, and is, the pre-eminant military force of our time.
5) US Military completely fails in the aftermath of the asault phase, the transition to occupation.
Consensus that the US failed this phase due to the inability of the military to release control to the State Department team prepared for it, AND due to the failure to adequately staff/prepare the aftermath. Shinseki was right 400,000 troops were needed.
6) Occupation was a failure due in large part to letting the people running the occupation bunker up in the "Green Zone", AND in allowing sectarian division to go unchecked - due in large part to understaffing of the occupation force.
Consensus that this phase was an utter failure. Massive failure of planning, and vision on the part of the leadership of the US government. A "bad" war.
The result will likely be civil war, with theocratic genocide as a primary problem. Another massive failure for the US, comparable to the Vietnam war. |
