Replies

It's certainly true that America should have prevented an Islamic constitution.

But even with that monumental failing - which I regard as a failure of civilisational confidence by the Bush administration - the people of Iraq still gained a voice in the process of government for the first time ever. Also: Iraq became a country which wasn't trying actively to destroy its neighbors.

Iraq didn't become a model democracy. It became a democracy. It became the least-worst state in a region filled with tyranny and theocratic crazies.

Iraq is a disaster today because Obama heavily funded extreme Jihadists in Syria while simultaneously abandoning Iraq. It doesn't even look like a mistake on his part: rather it looks like a deliberate act of establishing a head-chopping caliphate.

But yes I'm pretty sure that - while Saddam actively supported exactly the same flavor of Jihadists - he wouldn't have encouraged them to invade his own country. That's the exciting innovation that Obama brought to the Middle East.

If the leadership of Iran set out in 2003 to protect their interests and establish themselves as a dominant regional power, they couldn't have come up with a more effective plan than what the United States has done under the Bush and Obama administrations.

In fact, when you go back to the early 2000s and see the workings of the "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration and their minions in Iraq like Ahmed Chalabi in this context, there is stronger and stronger evidence that the foreign policy of the United States of America over the last couple of decades has been dictated by agents of Iran operating in the highest levels of the U.S. government.