Iraq needed Saddam?
I'm not sure if Iraq ever needed Sadam, But the U. S. certainly did. Sadam's belligerence gave the US a virtual hegemony in the middle east. I once had a brilliant professor of medieval history who taught that the golden rule of who got to rule is "I protect. Therefore I rule." As long as Sadam's neighbors were scared to death of him and looked to the US for protection, the US could set the limits and control the actions of what happened throughout the middle east. And in doing so we were admired by most of the world for holding the moral high ground. Unfortunately, the geniuses in the white-house have thrown that all away. I'm quite sure that Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld were convinced the the US would win the war quickly and cheaply (in which they were correct), and that Bush would be carried through the streets of Bagdad on the shoulders of a grateful Iraqi citizenry (which was a little wide of the mark). What the US has lost in lives, international influence, self-confidenced, and even economic stability is incalculable. And this at the hands of the conservative republicans who were most respected for their understanding of and ability to deal with international affairs. Those republicans who screamed for Clinton to provide an exit strategy whenever he tried to deal forcefully with international situations are not even mentioning exit strategy to Bush. They know there is no exit strategy. They know there is no exit.
™ Version 4.2
