2 ms·

You forgot step 0: ban every member of the Ba'ath party from participating in the government, thus ensuring a large supply of insurgents with military experienc

You forgot step 0: ban every member of the Ba'ath party from participating in the government, thus ensuring a large supply of insurgents with military experience and access to weapons depots we didn't bother to secure.

lostlogin 5y ago
Additionally, “With us or against us” isn’t an ideal stance in a region as old and complicated. Oversimplification of complex issues seemed the method of dealing with allies and enemies.
DSingularity 5y ago
Thank you! Paul Brennan will go down in history as a malicious individual who wanted above all to destroy Iraq and it back centuries. Of course, he also wanted to setup the US to profit nicely from the rebuilding efforts but that is a secondary pain.
- SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
  It's a case study in shock doctrine. Make money destroying the place then make money rebuilding it
- meepmorp 5y ago
  Bremner, not Brennan; which is odd, because I thought it was Brennan, too. Also, I forgot that he disbanded the army separately from the general de-baathification of the government. Genius moves all around, the guy was obviously playing 0.3D chess.
baybal2 5y ago
Banning Baath was a very correct decision, were they let them stay, Iraq would've exploded, and boiled over earlier, and more violently. What was wrong was them failing to deal with Baathists themselves, not the party. Without Baathists question being ever given a final solution, it came to bit them back. While USA was struggling with rebranded Baathist remnants, actual Saudi backed extremists, and Iranian militias sneaked in, some times even with US own backing, ensuring far bigger troubles to come. Lastly, what I forgot to mention was US finally look every bit of face, and any rapport it had left with Iraqi population. US wasn't able to talk to people of Iraq with a straight face at a after around 2007-2008. Then, they resorted to pitting Shia vs. Sunni. It was not a bright idea, and I have no idea why they even came up with it.

lostlogin 5y ago

Additionally, “With us or against us” isn’t an ideal stance in a region as old and complicated. Oversimplification of complex issues seemed the method of dealing with allies and enemies.

DSingularity 5y ago

Thank you! Paul Brennan will go down in history as a malicious individual who wanted above all to destroy Iraq and it back centuries. Of course, he also wanted to setup the US to profit nicely from the rebuilding efforts but that is a secondary pain.

SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
It's a case study in shock doctrine. Make money destroying the place then make money rebuilding it
meepmorp 5y ago
Bremner, not Brennan; which is odd, because I thought it was Brennan, too. Also, I forgot that he disbanded the army separately from the general de-baathification of the government. Genius moves all around, the guy was obviously playing 0.3D chess.

baybal2 5y ago

Banning Baath was a very correct decision, were they let them stay, Iraq would've exploded, and boiled over earlier, and more violently. What was wrong was them failing to deal with Baathists themselves, not the party. Without Baathists question being ever given a final solution, it came to bit them back. While USA was struggling with rebranded Baathist remnants, actual Saudi backed extremists, and Iranian militias sneaked in, some times even with US own backing, ensuring far bigger troubles to come. Lastly, what I forgot to mention was US finally look every bit of face, and any rapport it had left with Iraqi population. US wasn't able to talk to people of Iraq with a straight face at a after around 2007-2008. Then, they resorted to pitting Shia vs. Sunni. It was not a bright idea, and I have no idea why they even came up with it.