the blame starts with this guy.
2006-07-21 09:58:10 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
"primarily responsible for the current conditions in Iraq', yeah he is...
2006-07-21 10:20:38 · update #1
some real scholars here let me tell you... wow!
2006-07-21 11:47:27 · update #2
who the ***** is paul bremmer? i take it he is in the media. why do you think he is the cause of the war? be a little more descriptive. and who gives a sh-it about him.
2006-07-21 11:08:52 · answer #1 · answered by doc 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um, no.
Paul Bremmer was sent to Iraq in 2003. That's well after the invasion began. And the invasion of Iraq was based on Congressional resolutions adopted in the 1990s.
Trying to blame one person for "the Iraq debacle" is like trying to blame one person for all of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. It's irrational from a logical standpoint, and only serves political ends.
The current status in Iraq is the result of decades of activity by the former regime, and a decade of pressure by the US, leading to the US invasion. Bremmer was sent in well after the country had already been blown apart, and was told to fix it. That's like walking into Chernobyl after it had melted down and being told to clean it up. Easier said than done.
Whether Bremmer did the best possible job or not, is irrelevant to anything other than whether he should be hired to do a similar job in the future. Iraq is a huge mess, that nobody knows how to fix. Even if Bremmer was the best administrator ever seen, the task was still impossible given the resources available.
That all being said, I have no idea how good or bad a job Bremmer did. But I reject your premise that he's solely or even primarily responsible for the current conditions in Iraq.
2006-07-21 10:01:03 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you kidding....he was but one straw in the bail... Iraq has been a problem for a long time...I first remember hearing about it in the 70's when they where constantly at war with Iran...
Reagan did little to help the situation,
George Bush (senior) did the right thing by going in after Iraq invaded Kuwait, but I think he may have pulled out to soon....
Clinton kept the UN arms inspectors on the job checking to make sure that they did not violate the terms that were set..which included the "No fly zone" between the 2 parrallels.
George W. ..hmm ..well he really screwed things up now, didn't he ... after the arms inspectors repeatedly said over and over that Iraq had no WMD's and could not possibly be a threat...he lied and said that they did... and you know the rest of the story...thousands of americans dead and thousands of others dead...
So do you really think Paul B is to blame.....I think not.
2006-07-21 10:25:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it doesn't. Unfortunately the Eisenhower Administration is unavailable for comment...
Don't look for scapegoats (like that there above was, but at least some questions get answered there), they get fired and come right back in 10-20 years or go golf out retirement or keep playing the game via the same old hobbies (a la Carlyle)..
2006-07-21 10:21:15 · answer #4 · answered by stereogrammetric mutoscope 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How do you figgure?
2006-07-21 10:18:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋