Putting Israel aside for the moment, Iraq was absolutely nowhere approaching nuclear capability and so the reason you offer for the invasion is just nonsensical to me -- if you want nukes you go where nuke capability and materials already exist -- the former Soviet Union, Pakistan and North Korea for example. Whatever our reason for invading, our method of invading was deeply flawed. And whatever our method of invading, our occupation has been catastrophic.
In my view there was no urgency to invade, no basis for doing it alone, and no capability to achieve the constantly shifting objectives as WMDs failed to materialize and "democratic nation building" became our rallying cry.
To put it bluntly -- we lied, we miscalculated, we launched an invasion with a cloud over the mission and constantly redefined the mission to fit Washington's political requirements, and then we just plain outright failed. We had choices, we made bad ones -- few good options remain. Getting out will reveal the stupidity of invading -- so many lives lost and so many resources squandered. But staying does not look like it will accomplish much of anything. Iraq is unlikely to survive as a country. The breakup of Iraq, with or without civil war, will destabilize the region and create remarkable opportunities for terror to take deeper root bloom in the entire region, not to mention the likelihood of nuclear proliferation and various forms of war with Israel -- welcome to the real consequences of this invasion. |
