Quote:
|
Originally Posted by milo
And i never suggested the joy at seeing saddam fall wasn't heartfelt, the iraqi resistance was inevitable the us/uk as well as the un were seen as being complicit in saddam's rule.
|
No, AN Iraqi resistance, to some degree was inevitable. There would certainly be a portion of the population, likely the former Baathists who were opposed to the US presence and the US deposing of HGussein, and of them a portion would have been violently opposed.
However, the lack of any coherent plan, and in fact the decisions taken by Bush Jr directly in oposition to the advice of all post-war planners (see Clarke and Woodward's books) led to a situation that was FAR worse than it might have been.
There is not one resistance in Iraq, there are dozens. Some are opposed to the US presence, others care about the US presence only tangentially. There are resistances along religious grounds, geographic, tribal and practical. Some exist and have grown unabated as a direct result of the US administration's incompetence in the region.
Oh, and by the way, had the Nazis stuck to their plan for longterm peaceful occupation, the French resistance WOULD have been significantly smaller. If the Soviets had not gotten into the habit of 'erasing' villages with ties to suspected resistance groups, the Afghan Mujahadin would have been far more managable. To imply there is no link with the actions of the liberator/ occupier and the actions of the liberated/ occupied is incredibly naive.