Okay, a quick comment here.
Analytically it is imperative that we distinguish between types of warfare. In the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, we saw one of the worst types of warfare being practiced - you know this better than I do
. Afghanistan was a different type of operation and, while far from a "clean" war, it was and is a lot "cleaner" than that being practiced by the Taliban. Iraq is, in many ways, a much less "clean" war, and that IMHO probably has to do with idiocy at the top (i.e. the belief that everything would be great once Saddam was gone) than it does with the actions of coalition troops.
Too few troops, stupid policies like de-Baathification and disbanding the Iraqi army were just a recipe for disaster. We have maybe 2 -3 reports of coalition troops going
juramenado, and how many reports of supposedly "good Muslim" groups doing the same? 100? 1000? 10,000?
Were the Americans naive to assume that everything would be perfect with Saddam out of power? Of course, and no one believes that any more; I suspect most people never believed it to begin with. This is not the capture of Jerusalem, this is a series of bloody minded people evening old scores and outside extremists coming in to sir up the pot, and everyone blames the Americans (sorry, that really makes me mad).
Bookmarks