Jim:
No my analysis is not wrong, it my view. You don’t like my view, fair enough. That is your view. I don’t like seeing American kids die for BS. Saddam did not attack America. Sorry. Again, Kim is killing political opponents by the thousands in North Korea, yet, do you suggest we invade North Korea? The US forces in South Korea are there to “prevent North Korea” from attacking the South, which is a totally different issue vs. Saddam killing political rivals in Iraq. When Saddam invaded another country, the US was correct in responding, when the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden attacked the US, the US was correct in responding.
No the Iraq war was not justified vs. Afghanistan. Iraq did not attack the United States, the Taliban in Afghanistan and is Al Qaeda allies did. Big difference. And as I said, Saddam after being pushed out of Kuwait was no different than dictators all over the world. Are you suggesting we attack all these dictators. You suggesting we invade Cuba again and try the Bay of Pigs thing again? You want to invade Venezuala and take out Chavez. You want to rid Sub-Saharan Africa of its dozens of dictators, who oppress citizens? How many damn wars do you suggest we fight?
The NeoCons sold a bill of goods what were lemons. Pat Buchanan had it correct, the United States sending its money and sons to fight other peoples wars is crap. Saddam could have been isolated. If the Iraqis wanted him gone, they could have spilled their own blood.
But give Saddam was taken out and now the crazies are running much of Iraq [ISIS], that is a different animal. They are attacking other countries and are a threat. Saddam after getting run out of Kuwait was not going to invade another country. He may have been a dictator, a brutal one, that killed political rivals, but he was not killing Christians for the mere fact they were Christian or other religious minorities.
I voted for Bush twice, but he and Chaney’s war on Iraq was FUBAR. And I am well aware we have troops stationed in Europe along with Korea, but they are there for defensive purposes. As for Vietnam, do you really think in hindsight that was a war the US should have fought. We are now trading with them for heaven’s sake. Ho Chi Min was a Marxist in terms of economics, but he was more of a Vietnamese Nationalist that wanted to unite Vietnam. He was not a Stalinist, sorry. 58,000 American boys fought bravely and I honor their service, but that was not a war that should have been fought, neither this last Iraq war.
I would have opposed the First Gulf War. I could care less about Kuwait, it was just another Arab Muslim country, why were they any of our business? We were there for the Saudis, who believe in keeping their friends close and their enemies even closer, and have been the biggest sponsors of terrorism, they just do a good job of pretending to be our friends.
Now, having said that. It was stupid not to take out Saddam once we did go over there. It just left him to plot his revenge. Would we have left Hitler in power in a similar situation. It just guaranteed we would have to go back in again, as Saddam would be even more radicalized than before.
Then stupidity #2 courtesy of the Bushes. You cannot simply go into a country in the Arab world, remove a leader, and leave. It would have required at 10-20 years of occupation, if you wanted to ensure that the country wouldn’t fall straight back to crap. And frankly I would have made Iraq a US protectorate, taken their oil, and told the Saudis to take a flying leap.
And that should have been made clear DAY ONE, that an invasion of Iraq was a done deal. If the will was not there to stay there for that length of time, it should have never been done.
As for the Bay of pigs. Had Kennedy been a real man instead of a fornicating fool and stood with the operation HE approved, called up the air power and sent in the Marines standing by, we would have avoided over seventy years of trouble with Castro and his Russian puppet masters. He was weak and a coward and it wasn't until the missal crisis that he showed any toughness north of the belt line.
As for the loss of men. Anytime we lose men in war it is tragedy. However, we must put that tragedy into context. We invaded a country of 24 million with the fourth largest army on the planet. Beats it's army's ass, toppled it's government, set up free and fair elections and settled into fighting an insurgent engagement and lost fewer than 5,000 men in six years. Also not one, NOT ONE of the men who fought in Iraq did so under duress. None where pressed into service via draft. They all volunteered. Most reenlisted willingly again and again. They knew what they were doing and wat they where fighting for.
That my friend is an amazing thing. Once the Surge took place we had fewer casualties in Iraq than shooting victims in Chicago and that is no bullshit. It was under these circumstances that Obama the idiot of all time decided to keep the one campaign promise that he kept. He left Iraq to the Islamists as a stage for World mayhem.
Any, and I mean ANY person of any historical and military knowledge would tell you that a counterinsurgency is a minimum of sixteen years commitment and usually a full generation. Stability in an unstable region takes time. We had all the time in the World to keep 15,000 - 20,000 troops. ONE DIVISION. In country to protect our multitrillion dollar investment in a forward operating base in the Middle East.
This is a dangerous World. We can no longer protect ourselves by hiding behind the oceans that bracket our continental nation. It is now significantly more dangerous because we allowed a jug eared fool to move our troops out of a pacified country that anyone with a brain could tell was only pacified because of our troops presence. No matter what you think, or Pat Buchanan thinks, we can not and will never be the isolationist empire we so much would like to be. We will be forced to reengage in Iraq and reconquer a country we already invaded and pacified just a couple years ago.
The next time if we lose twenty thousand we should consider ourselves lucky!