Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: syriacus
If we left immediately after removing Saddam (he wasn't captured immediately) do you think Iraq would have remained a non-threat?

syriacus -- yes I do. Here's what would have happened. We would declare Iraq a no-fly zone and watch from the borders. There would have been years of in-fighting between the sunnis and shiites. The herd would be thinned. Something stable would emerge.

If it posed a direct threat to us, we would strike those targets from the air. And so on and so on. It was a clean victory. One we should be proud of.

44 posted on 04/30/2007 9:47:12 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: Sleeping Beauty
syriacus -- yes I do. Here's what would have happened. We would declare Iraq a no-fly zone and watch from the borders. There would have been years of in-fighting between the sunnis and shiites. The herd would be thinned. Something stable would emerge.

History argues the opposite. Take, for example, Afghanistan. There, with massive covert support from the US, the Soviet dictatorship was removed. Then, the US abandoned the region to sort itself out. This left a power vacuum that was filled by the Taliban and created the safe haven for Al Queda.

Politics, like Nature, abhors a vacuum, and out of chaos, it is rare that anything but a thug state emerges to make things stable. Given the history of Mesopotamia since the time of Abraham, what makes you think Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would be content to let things settle out in the strategic breadbasket of the Middle East?

49 posted on 04/30/2007 11:15:08 AM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson