Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang  But the Iraqi demand for withdrawal makes it clear that the Bush administration was not really in control of events in Iraq, and that Shi'ite political opposition and Iranian diplomacy could trump US military power. Full article - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG12Ak01.html
This is not the sort of stuff that makes our mainstream Press Headlines, but if the gist of the article proves correct it signals the total strategic failure of the whole Iraqi invasion and occupation. Not only does the US fail to gain a sizable military presence in Iraq/ the Middle East as planned- this being one of the fundamental reasons to invade in the first place, but Iraq (thanks to the invasion) effectively becomes part of the Iranian sphere of influence, with a Shiite dominated government that listens to Iran. This already seems the case. Add to that the financial cost of the excercise and the human casualties, and this spells one massive blunder by the Neo-cons.
If they had envisaged this, I reckon they would have preferred to keep Saddam in charge.  |
That's exactly the way it appears to be panning out. The Yanks are not the only ones who can switch sides and change strategy in their own national interests.
I believe the original Neocon plan Iraq was to oust Saddam and set up a pseudo democratic puppet government, de-nationalize the oil industry, break from OPEC, and occupy the country indefinitely to ensure control. It doesn't seem to working out as planned though.