Actually was meant to throw Iraq into chaos which would strengthen Iran’s control of the region turning it into a super power. Why you ask? Simple, fearing that the Shiite Muslims will be turning into a super power; it will force Turkey (Sunni Muslims) to establish the caliphate. The two countries will be at odds with each other and eventually leading to a regional war. With this in mind, is Iraq such a failure?
2006-11-29 05:52:47 · 7 answers · asked by ? 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
While I gotta say it does sound like something our government would come up with, I see a problem. If we had deposed Saddam and left the Shiites and their oil fields would have gone to Iran. The Kurds, and their oil fields, would probably have gone with Turkey, which has a Large Kurdish population. That would leave the Iraqi Sunnis sitting in the desert with no oil fields, and no income, unless the Turks wanted them as well. When Turkey joined the E.U., which it's wanted for a while and could with no problem once it had half the Iraqi oil supply in it's pocket, there would be no clear advantage to the U.S. Maintaining a permanent presence in Iraq, like we did in Korea, is the only way our oil companies win over Europe's. Nobody wants a regional war that will stop the oil flow, least of all Iraq, they need that money, they just won't be selling to us.
2006-11-29 08:14:10 · answer #1 · answered by rich k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Man, KISS :) (Keep It Stupidly Simple)
Iraq war has started as a dream to have a strong foothold in the middle east (with 2nd most Oil reservoirs), thinking that Iraq would be progressing like UAE in the near future. What has gone wrong is that the mix there didn't fit for the recipe intended.
Turkey is already trying to join the EU so badly for years by now, What would the US benefit if your mentioned suggestion would have happened anyways ?, the outcomes anticipated from the your theory would still be "more control hoped to be gained after weakening the area, that's when any relatively "strong force" would dominate !.
The problem from all this is: would it have be like this after all, after only seeing that Iraq had this much trouble on its own ??(Iran/Turkey are not (Directly) involved yet !). IMO it'll be a very long shot, too much time/money and lives on to waste/already wasted.
2006-11-29 06:30:51 · answer #2 · answered by AMTV 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
adversarial to the Iraq conflict yet because we all started it we favor to end it. for sure there is the prospect that with Saddam in means we would have finally had to bypass to conflict in some unspecified time sooner or later. Who is conscious? I purely imagine the money might want to were better ideal spent in the rustic on significant different and little ones power progression. thoughts you, i'm no longer some fool who's blindly anti-conflict or anti-militia. until eventually easily everyone in the international ceases to be aggressive there'll continuously be a choose for a militia. see you later as international places compete for land and elements there'll be conflict. those who campaign to end all wars or eliminate the militia stay in a dreamworld.
2016-10-07 23:18:36 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very interesting concept, but I don't believe we went to war with Iraq to make Iran a super power. Or did you miss that we are at odds with Iran?
2006-11-29 07:18:54 · answer #4 · answered by Mikira 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although I don't believe that was the purpose, that does sound more plausible than going there so oil companies can make more money.
2006-11-29 05:57:10 · answer #5 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a new spin I haven't heard before but this does make one think.
2006-11-29 05:57:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There seem to be an awful lot of variables in that plan...
2006-11-29 06:00:49 · answer #7 · answered by Gerty 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋