Is Scott Ritter right in asserting that Iran and not Iraq was the primary objective of the Iraq adventure?

Question

and if so, does that mean the USA has lost the war, whatever might subsequently happen in Iraq?

Surely no US administration would now be foolish enough to proceed with an invasion of Iran now?

See Ritter's latest book
http://www.amazon.com/Target-Iran-Houses-Regime-Change/dp/1560259361/sr=1-1/qid=1168154786/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5070042-6112826?ie=UTF8&s=books

Answer 1

The question you posed is a difficult one....some may can nit pick because I am combing the Middle East colonial and post independence period to together.

If the USA invaded France and installed a pro USA puppet government over the Iraq dispute it would strengthen our pro American allies and frighten those not with us in the region.

When we took out the Iraqi regime we took down the biggest military power in the Middle East, that increased the regional power of Syria and Iran....Iraqi adversaries...so American action strengthen Iran's position.....not weakened it

When you take a regime by military means you stay involved for decades to guide them to replace their old system..because you have to build new institution to make sure the new systems takes hold....we still have troops in Japan...and only gave them the rest of their land back only in the mid 70's from WW2.....It was only in 1992 that we gave up allied rights to Germany from WW2

Being in Iraq offered military bases to the USA and a new pro-western Iraq to hold back Iran influence

What Mr Ritter does not say is why the Middle East has had constant conflicts for 90 years

90 years ago the Ottoman Empire crumbled after ruling the Middle East for centuries.......this destroyed the regional balance...the trade routes and centers that had been around for centuries

It would be like all the states west of the Mississippi became an independent country....passport needed to visit...maybe the east side of the USA bans the west side of the USA computers so they can sell and make their own......and the Olympics would be interesting...the NFL, baseball, basketball leagues divided by country.....some people would want the old unified USA back.

After the Roman Empire collapsed it took 1500 years to get a regional stable organization; the European Union. Until WW2 European nations fought for 500 years to rule the land mass and replace the old Roman system....

The Soviet threat caused the western European nation to side with America....and quit their regional conflicts....and cooperate regionally and form the economic and political union.

When the Soviet Union dissolved....it went smoothly...because the European Union offered a regional template....if the East European did not try to settle old animosities, change to a market economy and accept democratic rule they could join....it prevent many old problems.....Yugoslavia outside the Soviet orbit fell into conflict because they did not have a template to stop the old feuds...and had many conflicts...so we bombed and help divide the country with other European countries

The Middle East is still adjusting from the fall of the Ottoman Empire...it will be decades maybe centuries for a new power structure to work out...it why Syria will not leave Lebanon alone...in the old Ottoman rule Syria controlled Lebanon but Britain divided it into two countries in the 1920's....Syria wants it old status and trade routes back...Jordan only gave up its claim to Palestine in 1974 and to Israel in 1994

When the Ottoman Empire fell the League of Nations offered the Kurds their own homeland.......the Arab tribes refuses so the land went to Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. BTW the Kurds are largest ethnic group in the world without a homeland

As the Middle east countries jockey around for their old status under the Ottoman Empire they use Kurds in the neighbors land to cause discontent or insurgent operations to keep their neighbor weak or distracted with internal discontent.....this why the Middle East is so unstable.....plus you have the Palestinian/Israel issue...the issue of modern western ideas of democracies. capital markets against the old system of clan rule

When we invaded Iraq we had the 20%Kurds population on our side...but not the Shiite south which is 60% of the population.... and their religious headquarter is in Iran (Qom)....guess what Iran did......took the high oil prices money and funded the Shiite insurgency to prevent a return of Sunni 20% population to rule in Iran....because Sunni ruled Iraq fought Shiite Iran for eight years in the 80's..............

The only true solution is to solve the Kurd dispute in the region, get Syria to give up their desire for Lebanon...and let the Palestinian and Israel settle their........

Answer 2

If the republicans keep control of the WhiteHouse, Scott Ritter will be proved right! I believe the only reason we are not there already is because of the election coming up. As soon as McCain is seen as the "selected", candidate to win, the S*#t will hit the fan in a big way, with the draft re-instated, and a war time economy will be in placed! This will proubaly happen before he gets sweared in, so he won't have to take so much heat if and when it goes bad.

Answer 3

I don't think that is why we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, but you could make that argument. If we are able to stabilize both places we would have Iran covered on both sides, which would be an obvious advantage. And no, the US has not lost the war.

It would not be a good idea to attack Iran while we are still tied up in Iraq, this is one of the reason any military action with Iran is still a few years off.

Answer 4

No, that's not correct. Iran was not an issue when the war in Iraq started. Iran came to the forefront in the past year and a half. They may be an issue now, but the reason the US invaded Iraq was to oust Saddam Hussein.

Answer 5

Absolutely he was not right . Iraq was the objective not Iran which its oil is going to be vanish in few years while Iraq has the second oil reserve in the world . And because represent the real threat to Israel not Iran who share US by maintaining its security.

Answer 6

Everything that Scott Ritter has said about Iraq has been proven to be true.

Everything Chicken George (aka George Bush) and others in the whorehouse - oops, white house - said about Iraq has been proven to be false, even by their own admission.

When it comes to Iran, whose track record should one believe? If one is intelligent and honest, Ritter; if one is mentally retarded and fascist, Curious George.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter
http://nysoundposse.com/2006/10/event-seymour-hersh-and-scott-ritter.html?wikipedia
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/16/144204


.

Answer 7

First responder is basically correct; Iran was not an issue. The concern was Iraq's weapons, which it was known to have, and in the wrong hands (guess whose?) could have caused a lot of trouble. (The weapons material was moved to Syria in June 2002.)

Answer 8

The primary reason for going to war with Iraq was failure to comply with U.N. security resolutions. At the heart of it was my request to remove Saddam Hussein from power to deter other countries from harboring terrorists. Basically it is one aspect of the war on terror that Osam started.

Answer 9

Do I look interested? You probably guessed it when you said Nah!!!