Well, we did take down Saddam in 2003, not 1991 and, contrary to what Cheney envisioned, it was replaced with a central Republic. This was contrary to the recommendation of the State Department and several think tanks for a federated republic as Cheney discusses. The weak central parliament of the federation Cheney speaks of would have dealt with the international issues Cheney mentioned. But you must appreciate the difference between 1991 and 2003. Cheney is is commenting on the force agreements of the 1990 UN resolution which did not specify removing Saddam, taking over Iraq or basing any troops long term in the country. All being different from the 2003 invasion the 1991 invasion is not comparable with the 2003 invasion. Different requirements, objectives, resources and end states.
In their own development almost all western governments were first a federation of states before a central republic was established. Iraq is post-tribal. It was not stable or responsible to replace one central government republic with another when the society was just exiting tribalism. But this is what the Shia and Sunni PMs wanted when the Iraq’s government form was being debated in 2005. Likely believing they’re prevail in a winner-take-all contest for power. So this is where it’s gotten them in 2014. Their having their big fight for power but it’s affecting more than just them. Only the State Department, some US think tanks and the Kurds agreed to a federation of states. Unfortunately, GWB decided for the majority Sunni-Shia desires not appreciating that each intended to dominate the government after eliminating their opponents.
So we’re back to 2005 except with vastly reduced US troops and a vastly larger insurgency. Neither GWB or Obama could do much when 85% of the Iraqi leadership wanted the US out of the country so they could wrest control of Iraq for themselves. If anyone made a mistake it was GWB for accepting the will of the 85% who simply wanted to kick each others’ assess rather than the recommendation of the analysts for a much more sustainable form of government. When all the power and wealth is controlled by a central government there’s going to be fighting.
So now it ‘devolves’ to the sustainable political structure of federated states. And this is one of the main reasons it was recommended, because they are an outgrowth of their tribes and are stable, cohesive and more responsible to their people.
Lastly don’t discount the influence and respect of US troops by all sides in Iraq. Most of them will trust a US-brokered agreement but not each other if nothing else for the sheer fact we had the power to enforce agreements and prosecute violations.
In the near future we will likely obtain basing agreements from the Kurds. After that perhaps a SOFA and basing agreements with the Shia. When the Sunni state solidifies post-ISIS they will likely request us there too to enforce and protect their position considering our influence with the other 2 groups. Particularly wrt the Sunnis choosing to continue prosecuting an insurgency where they’d be subject to Kurdish and Shia-based US forces attacking them.s government form was being debated in 2005. Likely believing they
Sure -- the U.S. military campaign was a great "success," and Iraq was a strong and stable nation after 2007.
Don't make me laugh. After Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government was toppled, Iraq was never any more stable than Vietnam was in 1973. All that's missing now is the helicopters lifting off from the roof of the U.S. embassy.