no, it's spelled Iraq.
basically, you have foreign forces (primarily US) attempting to prop up a government elected by Iraqis but using a system imposed for foreign powers (well, the US), and said Iraqi government seems unwilling/unable to take over security and other operations of its own.
You have "insurgents" or rebels, whichever term you prefer, that sees the foreign troop presence as a foreign occupying power, and is using guerilla tactics against them (generally not caring that some of their own also get hurt in the process, although less than those injured or killed by the original invasion).
So the foreign troops can either be (1) sitting ducks for guerilla attacks, or (2) act as a police force and ferret out enemy combatants who are generellay blended into the civilian population. But in the process of pursuing option 2, foreign forces create a lot of badwill by its policing style (nightime raids on civilian houses, questionable arrests and human rights abuses), and this helps fuel rebel/insurgent recruitment.
Then you have outside entities installed by the US (Blackwater, Halliburton, etc) whose presence further undermines the nature of the "liberation." (Blackwater gunning people down reflects on the US military; Halliburton cronyism and war profiteering demoralizes US troops and the public).
Oh, yeah... then there's oil, the reason for the whole debacle in the first place. If Saddam Hussein had ruled Samoa, no one would have ever cared.
2007-09-28 02:42:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by kent_shakespear 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Murder, corruption, chaos, oil grabbing, petro dollars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oPEfa9Lws
Watch this especially the last half you'll learn a lot.
2007-09-28 09:38:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋