Reply #33: For all of Hussein's faults, he managed to forge a relatively stable

[Old and In the Way]

and secular state. Wasn't that really in our best, long-term interests? To make Iraq more secular? We've increased the power of the RW religious fanatics who are marginalizing the moderate, sane middle. Sorta what's going on in our own society...abeit with a less physical violence. Long-term, I think Bush broke Iraq. It's going to be Balkanized; fractured geographically as client states for Iran, Turnkey, and Saudi Arabia. Regardless, our invasion and occupation destroyed Iraq's opportunity to transition from its current State, to a more moderate and secular, democratic voice.

If we really wanted Iraq to have a western style democracy, why did we destroy the infrastructure? We should have continued to squeeze Hussein until he was completely marginalized in the country. At the same time, we could have gone in with lots of $ to the Iraqi government and negotiated to repair the damage from DS1 and the embargo. That money would have had some strings, but look at the alternative investment we made....$300BB spent, 2100+ dead, facilitated Islamic Fundementalism's rise in Iraq and a country, region, world that hates and/or distrusts us.