WOW!
Reader comment on item: Tempering Ambitions [in Iraq]

Submitted by Blackspeare (United States), Nov 12, 2006 at 10:07

Wow, what a bunch or morose, bellicose commenters so far----so let me add my two cents.

I agree that bringing down Saddam Hussein was a good move. However, the way the US did it was poor. Rumsfeld and the neocon cabal wanted to do the deed on the cheap by employing as few troops as possible. It worked initially, but there was not enough troops to keep the peace and stabilize the country including the borders. A military force of let's say 500,000 would have easily secured and stabilized the country allowing the fledgling government to gain control and prevent the development of sectarian militias. Also, the country's infra-structure would also have been restored to a much higher degree than it is today----ain't hindsight wonderful?!

Anyway, we come to today and what to do. The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are unmistakeable though there are a few differences, but they get clouded in the rhetoric. The big problem for Bush and company is how to extract the US from Iraq so that the impact is positive for the Republicans in the 2008 elections. It will be interesting to see the recommendations of the Baker commission. And speaking of the Baker commission, it looks like Bush is digging up all the fossils from his father's regime and like I say, "It's Ahead to the Past!"

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.