The Great Mistake?

Question

During Desert Storm the world was on our side, including most Muslim people, when we and the UN went into Kuwait to win it back from a foreign invader.

After 9-11 the world was on our side, including most Muslin people, when we went into Afghanistan after Osama and those actually responsible for the Twin Towers attacks.

When we had Osama cornered and surrounded our President suddenly decided to pull back, leaving Osama’s capture in the hands of local war lords, and decided to focus on Saddam. At the time Saddam was not a serious threat to us or the world. He was just another piss ant little dictator in another little country. The terrorists were the ones we should have stayed on the trail of.

Still, we all but deserted catching Osama so that we could invade Iraq.

Now, much of the world has turned against us, including most Muslims.

Why can’t some understand that we went after the wrong bad guy at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons?

Answer 1

we certainly DID go wrong... and WAY WRONG-
in fact we HELPed Osama by doing for him something he couldn't do-

- turn Iraq into a terrorist haven of fundamentalists. I'm sure he is laughing and saying "Thank You" to Mr. W.

the Shiites wanted to vote and they voted NOT for democracy, but for Islamic Nationalism-

Women in irag USED to be able to walk around like normal people, but now they gotta cover up completely or risk being stoned to death just like in America's sister nation of Arabia, you know, the AUE, the ones who now run our US Ports, ok, so only the major ones- but back at home in Arabic kingdom, the burn, stone and break thier women-

I though it was more a symbol of strength to show compassion,
thats what MY religion taught me...'hmmm
maybe that's not what Jesus would do, eh? guess i was wrong...

"shoot first, ask question to someone else" that's my America nowadays

Answer 2

The first thing that occurs to me is that NOBODY here on Yahoo Answers has access to 1/1000th of the information that decision-makers in Washington have had. Every opinion expressed here has been shaped, tweaked, manipulated and formed by the media.

If anyone here disagrees with that...then tell me, where did YOU get your information?

The bottom line is that most of those here trust the media more than they trust their government. That's sad.

Dr. Watson, your question is a pretty clear recap of what happened in the past. Not to trivialize what you say, but someone once aptly said that "hindsight is 20-20". The real issue is how to make policy going forward with the information CURRENTLY available (flawed though it may be).

At the time that we decided to open a second front and go after Saddam Hussein, EVERYONE (including the UN Security Council) was condemning Saddam for refusing to divulge what happened to his WMD's. The condemnation came from the public, from other countries, from our media, from the political right AND from the fair-weather left.

It's a convenient cop-out (born of political expediency) to say that the intelligence was "manipulated". But at the time, everyone on the congressional intelligence committees (Democrats and Republicans) saw the same information and drew the same conclusions.

That conclusion was that Saddam had to be stopped because he was a likely threat to provide WMD's to terrorists. He HATED America and would have gladly helped anyone who wanted to destroy us.

THAT WAS THE PREVAILING OPINION AT THAT TIME!

Since that time, the media has done what the media does best... to cause people to second-guess the decisions of those in power. That's the media's job. But the job of the elected officials who run our country is to make the best decisions (at the time that those decisions need to be made) with the information that's CURRENTLY available.

That's what every Commander-in-Chief has done since George Washington. That's what they will continue to do, regardless of the rabble-rousing in the media and the self-serving criticisms emanating from the political opposition.

It's just an illustration of everyone doing what they're supposed to be doing. But mostly, it's about the president doing what he (or she?) is supposed to do, and that is to LEAD.

On one day, June 6, 1944, the U.S. casualties at Normandy Beach were 6,603. Franklin D. Roosevelt could have avoided those losses by waffling or by asking for a broader international consensus, had he been concerned about the world "turning against us".

But leadership is not about consensus. It's about making decisions. Hitler had never attacked America, but he was an imminent threat. Today they speak French, not German in France, because America stepped up to the plate and led.

Of course we’re looking back with over 60 years of perspective. I guess sometimes REALLY clear hindsight takes time to develop.

Answer 3

Not a doubt in my mind that Bush went to Iraq to unsettle an already fragile peace, we had no reason to attack Saddam so he made some up. When he caused unrest in the middle east it caused the price of oil to skyrocket. Profits were made. If you remember when Bush was first appointed he brought in all the CEO's of the major oil company's to set energy policy, this plan was probably hatched there.

Answer 4

We're not going after anybody. We're playing politics and using the working man's sons and daughters to feed the beast.

The Japanese attacked us in WWII because we cut off their energy supply. They were in a lose-lose situation. We also knew they were going to attack us. But our government wanted it to look like an unprovoked attack on our part.

War is always about natural resources and money. Never about instituting Democracy or saving the oppressed from a a wretched government. But you can't tell people to "come fight for me because I want their oil and land". But you can con people into fighting if they think they are doing a "Christian good deed" or protecting their country from invasion.

Answer 5

Oil. We went to war to control Iraq's Oil. That is the #1 reason we do anything in that part of the world.

Answer 6

We may be able to partially justify unilaterally invading Iraq to depose Saddam, when he hadn't attacked the US. Maybe.

But most of the rampant hatred for the US came when we stayed in Iraq years after "Mission Accomplished". Going in wasn't the fatal problem. Staying there was.

Answer 7

It's a wonder, isn't it?