I fail to see, Karen, how doing as they promised everyone, which is to, immediately, make life better for the Iraqis fits with this level of lack of planning for the aftermath. It's not right/left; it's simply a failure. And one they are not about to confess to. Shuttle Garner out and Bremer in. No comment. That seems to be the style.
All this gives some credence to the argument, whomsoever makes it, that the only thing that saves the Bush folk these days is a superbly performing military. They promise to make life better for the Afghan population. Nope. They promise to make life better for the Iraqi population. Nope. In both cases, the only argument that's viable is that getting rid of the previous regime made life better. But that wasn't the promise. The promise was they would do positive things to make life better. Not simply get rid of the previous regime.
As for the comment about spending more tax dollars, I don't recall the Bush folk caring about that argument when it came to whipping up interest in the invasion proper. And they did say, don't worry, we are going to do a terrific job of post invasion Iraq. Not to worry. And I don't recall them saying, we'll do as much as we can but remember we don't have many tax dollars.
My own guess is that they got caught with their "we don't do nation building" pants up and no one seriously planned. That everyone chose not to listen to the various groups, governmental agencies, and the like which said the after invasion part is more difficult than the invasion part. And here we are. And the Bushies are caught between staying there long enough to do the after invasion stuff right, which is what they promised; and knowing the longer they stay the more the US folk in Iraq are read as "occupiers" and likely to be attacked as such.
They were warned. Let's see how they handle it. |
