No, there are many more than two alternatives to the issue. Secondly, why was Iraq more important than Sudan (many more people dying per month there than in Iraq pre-invasion) Burma, Zimbabwe, etc.? This is to imply that the invasion was not based on liberation; in fact, it was the non-existent WMD that was the pivotal public reason if I remember correctly....?
Yes, but this is a fate they have bought upon themselves. They could have chosen to be isolationist, yet instead they chose to become involved in Korea 1950, Vietnam in the 1960's, Somalia, Yugoslavia etc. Out of all of the US's military adventures since WW2, only Somalia was for actual humanitarian reasons. That is why at the first sign of trouble they ran, there was nothing in it for them so at the first sign of losses they pulled the plug. They stuck around in the other episodes because they were all for strategic advantage.
To think that the US or any other country, does things like this for any other reason than strategic advantage is a little naive.
With the understanding that this action was for strategic advantage rather than some altruistic "liberating" reasons, no they are not damned if they don't. If this was the case, why isn't the world crying out for the US to invade Iran, DPRK, Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe, etc. Sure, there are voices that would like to see this happen, but the US is far from damned if they ignore them.
Sure, the country wasn't great to start with, but; Saddam and his violence was contained to the Sunni and Shia areas. The no fly zone over the north had protected the Kurds for 12 years, the largesse of Saddam's regime were a shadow of the pre-1991 days. Secondly, you disregard any information that says Iraq was better pre-war, yet you wholly and solely buy into all the stories of mass murder of his own people (such as Shia and Sunnis). If there is no real information coming in or out of the country, you cannot really believe one over the other.
There is much more to the weapons inspection situation than I think you are aware. After 1991, the US was caught red handed putting spies in the inspection team, this was cheating on the US part, not Saddam's, why should he allow them to stay? Secondly, the inspection team which was directed by the US, not the UN as it should have been WAS NOT THROWN OUT of the country the second time, they withdrew because the US started Desert Fox and bombed Baghdad. It is a common fallacy that Saddam threw them out. Australia was one of the countries helping Saddam skirt the sanctions, Australia was one of the countries supporting and involved in the invasion.
Hahahaha, come on mate, you have to pay closer attention to what's going on! The US is SCRAMBLING to find a way out of there as quick as possible right now, what do you think the whole Iraq Study Group with Baker and Hamilton was? Have a good look and you'll see that the goal posts have shifted. At first, success/pull out was based on a democratic, secular government which had full sovereignty over Iraq. Now, success/pull out is only a government that can take over the management of security.
-Gone is the pivotal "democratic government" from all presidential and prime ministerial statements....it went about 6-8 weeks ago when the civil war started to ramp up.
-Gone is the idea of Iraq retaining full sovereignty, they cannot stop the partitioning of the country now.
-Gone is the idea of secularism, they know that it will have a strong theocratic bent no matter who runs the joint.
-Gone is the fully functioning civil society, they now say that all that needs to happen is that the government of the day can field their own army and police force.
The Yanks know that they cannot win a war against an organised, trained and funded guerilla force. In short, they are not there to see the job through; they are now scrambling to find a way out that will cost them the least. They are well aware that the fight is over and it's all about saving what prestige they can. Looks to me that these other countries made the smarter strategic decision in the first place. Why should they a) have taken part in a risky venture that was only going to support American strategic interests and not their own? Why would anyone do that?! and B) help the US clean up a mess of their own making at great risk and no benefit to themselves? That would be even stupider than joining in a mission doomed for failure in the first place!
I agree. Unfortunately, the only strategy with any real chance of success is to put a further 200 000 troops on the ground.
Once again, I think the most important question, which Lopes has already raised, is; do you think saving the Iraqi people from a dictator (it pains me to even pretend that this was the pretence for the invasion) was worth destabilising the whole region, strengthening Iran/Ahmedinijad and pushing us closer to a cold war........along with creating another training ground for jihadists like Afghanistan was for the last 20 years?
Having Saddam on trial is a mere fly speck on the strategic map, it seriously means bugger all in the big scheme of things. Iraq is now in a worse state, the world is now in a worse state.
Those Iraqis had better bloody enjoy all that liberty we've given them after what it has cost both us and them!
