I agreed with his actions in the Middle East, as far as nation building went, but the execution phase of "Iraqi Freedom" has been less then stellar in my opinion.
The only real way to end terrorism in the Middle East is to give people (especially the poor Muslims, which Al Qaeda and terror networks tend to recruit as cannon fodder and foot soldiers) is to give people in that region a sense of hope. I agreed that Saddam was a person in the region who not only caused the bordering nations to be fearful, but he is also a man who attacked Kuwait, gassed the Kurds (I know, our weapons, but that is like holding gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of the people who buy the weapons), fired missiles at American Aircraft which patrolled the no fly zone, tried to assassinate President Bush 41.
So, while I think getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, and we were generally received well by the Iraqis initially, there were issues that have lead to this operation pretty much being unsuccessful. I'll give you my top five, in no particular order, and my feelings on whether Bush was responsible.
1. Abu Ghraib- PR disaster. As a "security" force we were supposed to be getting rid of a guy who, with his sons, brutally tortured Iraqi prisoners. As a "security" force, we then not only go out, and torture these people, but actually document the entirety of these incidents. Stupid. This was a precursor to the eventual troubles we'd have, but I think this moment was probably the changing point in the majority of Iraqi minds about our intent there. The trial took too long. Punishment should have been swift and severe. This really isn't Bush's fault, as a couple of complete and total morons did this pretty much on their own. I blame them, and the C/Os.
2. Fallujah- Military disaster, PR train wreck. When the "civilian contractors" were brutally murdered by the terrorists within the city of Fallujah, there should have been swift and severe repercussions. I'd hate to say it, but it should have been on a level that deterred any future actions from the terrorists. Bush, scared of the ramifications of an assault on the city on the 2004 elections allowed that festering shit hole to continue to operate as a terrorist safe haven. Not only did this encourage the terrorists, it actually led to them gaining some sort of legitimacy as an insurgency. This action was the most counter productive measure of the entire war, and while keeping casualties to a minimum, at the time, has only further encouraged the blood bath. The explanation I would get out of some people in the right wing is "there was something important happening there, but I can't say anything about it". It there was a reason we waited so long, I'd REALLY like to know why.
3. Paul Bremer- Any military actions need soldiers. The so called insurgency in Iraq got many of its troops from the decision of L. Paul Bremer to completely and totally disband the entire Iraqi army as the interim leader of Iraq. So, basically, you have people who may or may not like you, but are serving under you, and you turn them completely loose, with out any jobs, on the country side. As an added bonus, these people are trained to kill. If the "insurgency" is fire, then this is the wood that was used to let it burn. I've got to believe that at some point, firing the entire Iraqi army was put past Bush in some form. Why he felt this was a good idea, I don't know... but it shows a complete detachment from reality.
no subject
The only real way to end terrorism in the Middle East is to give people (especially the poor Muslims, which Al Qaeda and terror networks tend to recruit as cannon fodder and foot soldiers) is to give people in that region a sense of hope. I agreed that Saddam was a person in the region who not only caused the bordering nations to be fearful, but he is also a man who attacked Kuwait, gassed the Kurds (I know, our weapons, but that is like holding gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of the people who buy the weapons), fired missiles at American Aircraft which patrolled the no fly zone, tried to assassinate President Bush 41.
So, while I think getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, and we were generally received well by the Iraqis initially, there were issues that have lead to this operation pretty much being unsuccessful. I'll give you my top five, in no particular order, and my feelings on whether Bush was responsible.
1. Abu Ghraib- PR disaster. As a "security" force we were supposed to be getting rid of a guy who, with his sons, brutally tortured Iraqi prisoners. As a "security" force, we then not only go out, and torture these people, but actually document the entirety of these incidents. Stupid. This was a precursor to the eventual troubles we'd have, but I think this moment was probably the changing point in the majority of Iraqi minds about our intent there. The trial took too long. Punishment should have been swift and severe. This really isn't Bush's fault, as a couple of complete and total morons did this pretty much on their own. I blame them, and the C/Os.
2. Fallujah- Military disaster, PR train wreck. When the "civilian contractors" were brutally murdered by the terrorists within the city of Fallujah, there should have been swift and severe repercussions. I'd hate to say it, but it should have been on a level that deterred any future actions from the terrorists. Bush, scared of the ramifications of an assault on the city on the 2004 elections allowed that festering shit hole to continue to operate as a terrorist safe haven. Not only did this encourage the terrorists, it actually led to them gaining some sort of legitimacy as an insurgency. This action was the most counter productive measure of the entire war, and while keeping casualties to a minimum, at the time, has only further encouraged the blood bath. The explanation I would get out of some people in the right wing is "there was something important happening there, but I can't say anything about it". It there was a reason we waited so long, I'd REALLY like to know why.
3. Paul Bremer- Any military actions need soldiers. The so called insurgency in Iraq got many of its troops from the decision of L. Paul Bremer to completely and totally disband the entire Iraqi army as the interim leader of Iraq. So, basically, you have people who may or may not like you, but are serving under you, and you turn them completely loose, with out any jobs, on the country side. As an added bonus, these people are trained to kill. If the "insurgency" is fire, then this is the wood that was used to let it burn. I've got to believe that at some point, firing the entire Iraqi army was put past Bush in some form. Why he felt this was a good idea, I don't know... but it shows a complete detachment from reality.