2007-12-08 02:44:58 · 7 answers · asked by Edge Caliber 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
strictly_militant how does sending hundreds of thousands of people home with no job to return with their weapons a good idea?
2007-12-08 03:09:59 · update #1
I think so. And even at the time it was a tough call. The call fell on the side of "ideals" instead of practicality.
However, I think history will show that we didn't think we had the ability to allow it to be done and monitor them close enough to prevent international outrage on the atrocities that surely would be committed by them from time to time. IOW, that was probably a major part of the consideration.
I think we were kidding ourselves by pretending not to be an occupying force and watching the citizens vandalize their own country (government institutions) and doing nothing. If we would have stopped it early-on and then later backed off, it would have went much smoother.
We should have said, "We are here occupying your country and we are not going to put up with much until we can see who is good and who is bad." Instead we had the attitude, "All the government is bad and all the people are good." All that taught them is that we were stupid, not lenient, compassionate and understanding.
2007-12-08 02:56:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think so. We weren't sure how loyal the Iraqi army was to Saddam, and it's not safe to let people with questionable loyalty have guns.
I believe the biggest mistake post-Saddam was expecting the military to address as many of social, economic, and political problems facing post-Saddam Iraq. The military is designed to take things apart. We should have sent more civilian specialists to help put things back together.
2007-12-08 10:50:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
People who make this claim have little understanding of the military and political background of Iraq. How could a secular Baathist army coexist with a US installed sectarian Shi'ite regime?
2007-12-08 11:00:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, the biggest mistake was not trying that pig for war crimes when the 1991 coalition was outside his doorstep. The UN should have done the job that America is doing now.
2007-12-08 10:57:36 · answer #4 · answered by tugar357 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
with the benefit of hindsight, I believe that we should have found Saddam not guilty and restated him as president of Iraq. It seems he could deal with those people better than we can, whether we like his methods or not.
2007-12-08 10:54:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I guess it's a good thing that they are still alive today!
2007-12-08 12:18:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it was disbanding the police force.
2007-12-08 13:19:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋