How did the US come to invade Iraq with no post-war plan for governing Iraq ?

Question

The crass stupidity and negligence of this administration is astounding...

Answer 1

Because of their Democrat enablers.

God bless the Bushevists. God bless the Democratic Party, the enablers and breeders of Bushevists. God bless the Democratic Party Bushevists. God bless them, as I am certain they believe they are blessed for theirs is the kingdom, the power and the glory. The scales of social justice, however, have a way of tipping the balance toward a social justice equilibrium. The people do not remain ignorant and docile forever. While the Bushevists swim in the opulence and luxury of their deluded God-given class, the flames of hell will consume them. The fat and pork of the ruling class burns well. While the barbecue may not be televised, it will take place before their rapture. Count on it.

The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few to ride them. -- Thomas Jefferson

Humanist its good to see you again, you know my answers by other names I have had, that have died on the altar of suspension.
Sorry but I no longer will align myself with either corrupt party.

Answer 2

As much as I hate to say anything positive about our present regime, I do think that everything in Iraq is going according to the pre-war plan. If they keep the country unstable they can justify building an embassy 10 times larger than any other american embassy on the planet. They can also justify the fact that Iraq continues to live under the rules of occupation established by Bremmer just after Saddam's government fell.

Yes. They have elected a government and written a constitution, but they are still ruled by Bush and co and the longer the country remains unstable, the more potential threats to U.S. control can be removed.

Cheney did answer the question he asked about who to put in charge if you remove Saddam from power. The answer is the U.S. government. The neocon pigs knew exactly what post-war Iraq would look like and they still get wood every time they think about it.

Answer 3

When, when, when will people realize that the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11???? Bush never even said that was his reason for the invasion!!!!

PNAC had already decided, and, in turn, informed our "Decider" that a Middle Eastern "war" was called for. 9/11 just made the average, non-thinking American a little more anxious to kill someone, anyone, from a Middle Eastern country--which, in turn, made taking out Saddam a little easier to swallow!

I guess when you understand little or nothing about a country, its people, its religions, its factions, and you think that you are the "best" and the "brightest", with the best form of government, you think that people would be happy to have the "gift" of democracy "given" to them----or forced down their throats, as the case may be! Why would we need a plan when the Iraqis would be jumping with joy??

Has it ever occured to some of you that Iraqis who were initially happy about the overthrow of Saddam, might now be weary of the US presence, which has brought so much death and destruction to their country? And that they may even be some of the new recruits to "terrorism"? Even those who had the most to gain by ousting the despotic dictator, have now lost members of their families, homes, the ability to worship as they once did, etc. etc.

The US has f__ed up their country, and we should be ashamed!

Answer 4

Part of the reason was ignorance of the country and its history. Another was the urgency that the Bush administration perceived before the UN inspectors finished their inspections. If the inspectors found no WMDs, that would have undermined the stated reason for invading.

The plan to invade Iraq had been advocated by the neocons for a long time but I think they really believed that that an invasion and continued occupation would be an easy sell to the Iraqi people and would be universally supported, based on what they had been told by a few Iraqis in exile. They didn’t think beyond that despite the various warnings from people who had expertise in Middle East issues, especially in Iraqi issues.

Answer 5

or was it a deliberate policy in keeping with the writings of Oded Yinon which called for a new strategy an essay which originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions) February 1982 and which called for a plan :

"The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel's satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation"

- so the 'plan' was and IS in place -just not the stated one!

The curent batch of neocons adovated a similar policy in the document "A Clean Break:A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", a 1996 policy recommendation report presented to Benyamin Netanyahu.

the follow the paper trial and all of a sudden it all starts to make sense.

Answer 6

Bush was getting advice from an Ex-Pat named Chalabi, who was later found to be a liar and a crook, with the Justice Department accusing him of spying for Iran.

There were Generals and others who advised Bush that more troops would be needed to be successful in Iraq. Just as he stubbornly refuses to listen to others now, he refused to listen then, even firing one General who was near retirement and who did not agree with Bush about the number of troops needed.

Bush botched it then, he is botching it now. It is a war built on lies and it was Oil they were after from Day One. Now, the troops have this new method of patrol....it's called Search and Avoid, meaning that they just don't patrol those dangerous streets that are peppered with IUD's. Who can blame them? Some of them are on their second and third tour of this hellhole.

Still, the NeoCons cling to their dream and Bush clings to his war, and seems to be itching to start another one. A majority of people are just counting the days until he is gone. Then, believe me, Change is in the cards.

Answer 7

i think the ill concieved motion was to build a us friendly country in the middle of a hot zone so that we could operate more effectively in the region in the event we needed.

as we are seeing, bad plan, bad exicution, we have gotten into one of those bogs, easy to fall into, almost impossible to get out of.

I was there, but i'm not sure we have any business losing lives if the iraqi people who elect officials to sit on the government do not have responsible enough people to not resign.

they do not understand, freedom is not free. also, if the people continue to practice islam, anything except a despot will not work

Answer 8

Well you have to remember that "liberating" and helping govern Iraq was only about the 16th reason given for the invasion.

All of the ones before that mentioned nothing about helping the people of Iraq.

Answer 9

but, but, but... , we didn't need a post war plan. in and out in six months at the most said donny rumsfeld. six months! why we need a post-war plan? go kill sadam (that whole arrest him thingy was problematic, needed to just pop him in the palace), install a quiky government, pack up, and we be outy. all carter's fault, or clinton, that's it, or, or, or somebody.

Answer 10

Ah, so you ADMIT America is winning!

The war in Iraq is not over, no one can know what plan, or lack of plan Bush may or may not have for the governing of Iraq.