You’re absolutely right. One good thing about Saddam, the Shah of Iran, and some of the other military dictators in the Mideast is that they recognized women had rights in society, that religious minorities deserved protection, and that Islamist extremism was a threat to them and could not be allowed to obtain power. Thus, it was idiotic that Cheney believed that Saddam was in cahoots with AlQaeda, they were far more of an immediate threat to him than to us. I don’t think GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or the lot of them here had the slightest appreciation for this and as usual, out touted CIA was a total flop; they relied on the opinions of exiled crooks like Ahmed Chalabi who had no public support in Iraq. The result was that a public opinion poll in Iraq a couple of years after the US invasion of Iraq showed that the US had all of 2 percent public approval for what it had done.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. had all the lessons of Vietnam right in front of them. LBJ also had tried to pacify a far-away Asian country, and failed.
Bush ignored those lessons, and repeated LBJ’s mistakes in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. Restrictive rules of engagement were put in place. Winning hearts-and-minds became the main priority, etc. Were Bush and company stupid? Or is it better explained by arrogance?
I remember reading about a Iraq strategy meeting chaired by Rumsfeld. It was held shortly before the invasion. An Air Force general suggested that plans be drawn up to counter any possible insurgency.
Rumsfeld said that the next person who mentioned a possible insurgency would be fired.
You’re absolutely right. One good thing about Saddam, the Shah of Iran, and some of the other military dictators in the Mideast is that they recognized women had rights in society, that religious minorities deserved protection, and that Islamist extremism was a threat to them ...