[mercurial]

> Whether or not that was the stated purpose that was the effect of the Iraq war. I would argue that excluding the real dollar cost it was probably one of the most successful wars in American history.

Wait, what? Al Qaeda was [surviving] "largely through the tacit support of the surrounding population" [of Iraq]? Saddam was not a major terror sponsor. But the net effect of this little experiment in nation-building is at the very least 100k dead civilians, and the build-up of insurgencies movements throughout the region, who have by now good weaponry and plenty of veterans. Oh, and fantastic PR for the western world, too.

[WesternStar]

I didn't discuss Saddam because he was largely irrelevant to our strategic goals. The supporter I'm referring to is the ordinary citizen who helps to facilitate and fund the jihadi. Those 100k civilians were the medium for the message.

If those insurgents are largely focused on local state control that is a net win for the United States in my opinion.

[mercurial]

There was no insurgency in Iraq before the invasion. The net result of which was triggering a bloody civil war, fuel hatred of the West for decades, destabilize the whole area and reinforce Iran. I don't see how this furthers the US' strategic goals. My understanding is that the only message that has been taken home is that the Bush administration had as little understanding of the country as it had regard for the rule of law.