I find your PI analogy just a bit problematic,
The US killed 100s of thousands of locals during that insurgency, they adopted scorched earth tactics in many areas and they engaged in mass reprisals and torture of locals on a large scale.
And, the PI wasn't declared "independent" until what, 1947?
I don't think that an operation ostensibly undertaken to "liberate" the Iraqis can really be considered a success if it involves killing 100s of thousands of them.
Of course the US military can win on the battlefield in Iraq, but that doesn't turn the country into a democracy.
The military objective was achieved in April 2003, the problem is now political, and I don't think the White House has any idea of how to deal with this...
For ideological reasons they discarded the State Department plan for the post-war phase and tried to turn Iraq into some sort of playground for all of the various programs they have been unable to get through congress here...
As usual the GIs get stuck dealing with the mess created by the politicians.
I really think that if Powell was SecDef rather than Rumsfeld, this invasion and occupation would have been handled much better.
In my mind they needed way more troops to provide post-invasion security--400-500,000
They also needed to immediately declare a date for elections--90-120 days or something (and who gives a shit if saddam was still at large, he woudln't have been able to claim that he was "the elected leader of Iraq" once that election went down. This would have made it impossible for people like Sadr to create a constituency because only well-known figures would have had a chance in that short a time period.
Nobody that had been out of Iraq for 30 years--like Chalabi--should have been placed into political power over there...
All construction projects should have gone to local firms or the lowest bidder rather than these no-bid deals.
And, they should have spent ALL that 20 billion for reconstruction by now even if they just had to give every Iraqi a check for $500 or something.
I find your PI analogy just a bit problematic,
The US killed 100s of thousands of locals during that insurgency, they adopted scorched earth tactics in many areas and they engaged in mass reprisals and torture of locals on a large scale.
And, the PI wasn't declared "independent" until what, 1947?
I don't think that an operation ostensibly undertaken to "liberate" the Iraqis can really be considered a success if it involves killing 100s of thousands of them.
Of course the US military can win on the battlefield in Iraq, but that doesn't turn the country into a democracy.
The military objective was achieved in April 2003, the problem is now political, and I don't think the White House has any idea of how to deal with this...
For ideological reasons they discarded the State Department plan for the post-war phase and tried to turn Iraq into some sort of playground for all of the various programs they have been unable to get through congress here...
As usual the GIs get stuck dealing with the mess created by the politicians.
I really think that if Powell was SecDef rather than Rumsfeld, this invasion and occupation would have been handled much better.
In my mind they needed way more troops to provide post-invasion security--400-500,000
They also needed to immediately declare a date for elections--90-120 days or something (and who gives a shit if saddam was still at large, he woudln't have been able to claim that he was "the elected leader of Iraq" once that election went down. This would have made it impossible for people like Sadr to create a constituency because only well-known figures would have had a chance in that short a time period.
Nobody that had been out of Iraq for 30 years--like Chalabi--should have been placed into political power over there...
All construction projects should have gone to local firms or the lowest bidder rather than these no-bid deals.
And, they should have spent ALL that 20 billion for reconstruction by now even if they just had to give every Iraqi a check for $500 or something.