May 20, 2003
Occupied Iraq (Permanently?)
Wow what a double edged sword. Signs increasingly point toward the neocons having no idea what they were getting themselves into. The Rumsfeld doctrine of fast, cheap and light troop commitments is getting disposed of quicker then an aged jim hat. I agree with Allbritton that at this moment this is actually better then fleeing the country ala Afghanistan. But unless the US is ready to drop the cash to really rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure there are no long term benefits.
Something that I haven't seen mentioned yet is how fragile Saddam's regime appears to have been. Could he have been toppled without mounting an invasion? We'll never know. But I have a feeling a well planned subtle long term plan could have gotten him out of power within a few years. Without the massive infrastructure collapse, and without exposing the Iraqis to the crude hands of US troops.Posted by Abe at May 20, 2003 03:04 PM