This is one of those issues which has been beaten to death, and we will have to disagree. Saddam held Iraq together by force, and initially he did wonderful things with all that oil money- hospitals, schools, infrastructure. He worked very hard to create a unified state (with himself as the head of course), but Iraq had been created with little regard for the inhabitants- their religious differences or their tribalism, and the unity was superficial, particularly because Saddam's Sunni faction governed by extreme violence. Once he went to war with Iran, he drained the resources and everything fell apart. Even Saddam's iron grip was tenuous.
Iraq had never self-governed; the monarchy was nominal, and the following rulers rose and fell constantly. Finally with all that oil income, things got better in the 70s and it really looked up, but as usual you had assassinations and coups and strongarming. The tribes in outlying areas have never actually functioned as part of Iraq. So when Saddam was taken out, it left a void for a country whose inhabitants see themselves first as Sunni or Shia, and maybe then as Iraqi. A soccer team does not a country make. That's a temporary high based on international pride.
I find it just unbelievable the choices the admin made regarding their approach and follow up to this war. So many experts warned of exactly what was to come, and for whatever reasons they were ignored. This isn't even about whether we should or shouldn't, but about if we do, THEN what... |
