couldn't we have handled Iraq differently?

Answer 1

yeah. we COULD have. but bush wanted to play the game by his own rules...

Answer 2

Ok, we will play "Quantum Leap."
Saddam could have just played nice & let the inspectors do their thing & obeyed the sanctions & No fly zones.- he did not
Turkey could have let us send the 4th Infantry through Northern Iraq? - they did not

The Collational Provisional Authority could have been run alot better and the leadership different? - it was not

While many like to bash the Sec Def, the true authority in the war's course rest on the field commanders. Almost no generals has faced ANY critisim. Other than Brig Gen. Karpinski & the Prison affair, I can think of only 1 field commander relieved of their job. In Past wars, it was common. Lincoln went though like 7 commanders of his Army. - could have helped

Arab troops? - might have been a help to the collation. The ability to speak and deal with the locals is still lacking.

More troops?- Not really as much a help as people think. Remember, We beat their army rather easily. We used technology rather than manpower to win. As the insurgents reallised they cannot win in a gun fight, the fell back on the IED as the weapon of choice. That is something more manpower, will not solve.

Better PR?- would help alot. Stories about Americans raping 14yr girls and murdering & torchuring people do not help our cause.

Faster rebuilding plan? This is the biggest one. the slow pace of rebuilding has diluded the good will we had with the people. I think after 3 years, one would expect electricity to run 24 hours a day............ The lack of jobs is a big problem as well. IDLE HANDS ARE THE DEVILS WORK SHOP!!!! Young men with nothing to do get drawn into the insurgency. People with real jobs don't have time for getting in trouble.

Answer 3

Well this is how modern warfare is played out now ...... it use to be you went in and took over the country and no questions asked it was yours . But now you have to play by rules so I don't think it would have went down any other way . Our war started with Iraq because they were after Kuwait's oil hmmmm wonder if anyone remembers that because allot of people have forgot that and tend to have this wild belief that we want Iraq's oil . Its pretty simple Iraq invades Kuwait we defend there right to be there own nation and then we slap some sanctions on Iraq . And Saddam gets all pissy and tries to get his nasty Lil hands on WoMD . But then 911 happens and we have to start to wonder where our enemies are and bingo! The Ole count has his hands caught in the cookie jar . Well we could have said screw Kuwait and stayed at home just maybe some of the lazy **** U.N. members would have in a year or two realized what was happening and decided to bail Kuwait out hmmm

Answer 4

Oh sure. Fact is we should not have gone back at all. After '91 we did not leave Saddam a pot to pee in militarily speaking. We spent months building up remember? Gave away all advantage of surprise. I never believed there were WMD. The only reasons for going back was Bush senior had always been crictized for not taking Baghdad in '91 and a third of the worlds known oil was under Saddam's butt. Junior just could not resist, and 9/11 gave him the perfect excuse for jingoism. If we had put one third the effort we spent on invading Iraq into Afastigian in 2001-02, the war would be done and Osama dead. When Bush won in 2000, I said immediately, well in two years the economy will be down, energy will be high, and we will be at war in Iraq. Was I right?

Answer 5

Sure there are a million things we could have done but hind sight is 20/20.

*Why do people forget that the majority of the nation supported the war against Iraq (Saddam). People are fickle. Try and wash your hands if you want...

Answer 6

I don't think it would have mattered as we never had enough soldiers on hand to do a proper job. I also think that the very complex nature of tribal society would have made getting them all under one govt without a strongman is wishful thinking. It would of been better to assassinate Saddam and make it look like an inside faction did it. All the colonial powers had a strong man in their pocket to maintain order and backed him up when he got into trouble. To think we could do better was total folly.

Answer 7

The depends. Do we really have free will or is it an illusion? If we really do have free will, then, yes, we could've handled Iraq differently. However, if it is an illusion, that it was predestined the way it occured and there's nothing we could've done.

Answer 8

HI,MY friend when I watched our troops standing by and watching Iraqi people looting and destroying Iraqi government buildings,plus taking anything could out of hospitals.They left the hospitals destroyed.I said to myself what`s wrong with this picture? Who gave these soldiers the orders to let the people do this looting? I knew we were going to have trouble with Iraq! Especially when I heard we were going to rebuild Iraq.THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE IN TROUBLE!

Answer 9

we should be pumping the oil out for our use in payment of our arm forces being there. When the other countries ***** then the UN can send in a peace force. Best way to end terrorism is for the US to get off gas for cars and oil for heat. If needed we should use shale oil.

Answer 10

No, because Iraq is like making everyone in California the Crips, Bloods or Hells Angels and hope for peace.

Answer 11

Hind sight is always 20/20. If we had known then what we know now, we should have obliterated the entire country once and for all. Those people don't even know how to be civil to one another. They're gonna kill each other off anyway, we could have done it faster.