>Are you overlooking the fact that the U.S. seemed to think the 'war' would be over in a week or two and the Iraqui people would welcome their saviours with open arms?
>

Not sure how that is germane to the point of whether 'democratizing' was a war aim, but ok :

I don't know who you mean by "the U.S. seemed to think". The Left insisted we would be "bogged down" in a "quagmire" in "another vietnam" and that this was a "war for oil" that would yield "100,000 U.S. casaulties" (interestingly the arguement was that the massive casualty rate would be because Saddam would use WMDs against the US invaders) The neo-cons were far more correct about how we could prevail militarily and disgustingly wrong on the postwar period.

Right up until the fall of Baghdad we were doing rather well - had we another 500,000 troops in place we probably could have put a lid on the Sunnis while at least having some supervision over the borders. But some very bad decisions and the lack of understanding of the self-destructive nature of that tribal society (see Arafat's old story about the scorpion who drowns after stinging the frog ferrying him across the river 'because it is my nature') made the postwar period the 'quagmire'.

But we didn't go in and take the oil. Through de-Baathification we made idealistic and totally stupid efforts to 'democratize' the country and generally botched the postwar period (mostly Rumsfield's doing) Iran and Syria have been nothing but negative contributors, but of course that is exactly what should have been expected and planned for.

Had the war been the cynical power grab it was portrayed to be it would have never happened - you don't overthrow a guy like Saddam who is keeping a lid on the kind of stuff we're dealing with now, you cut a deal with him, let him kill anybody he wants as long as oil is $10 a barrel. (which is pretty much what everyone did until 1990 and what Europe would have been happy to do right up until he backed up seizing his next neighbor with nuclear weapons.)

Postwar the cynical play would have been to grab the oilfields and let the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other in as large a number as could be arranged without our getting in the middle. (major policy blunder to not try to keep the Iran/Iraq war going another 100 years)

Probably should have just annexed the southern oil fields to Kuwait and the Mosul fields to the Kurds. the rest of the country really isn't worth the bones of a prussian grenedier.


>>In fairness, as boneheaded as the idea might have been Wolfwitz's white paper did in fact make a very strong case for 'democratizing' Iraq before the war and that thinking was definitely part of the mix.
>>
>>As to oil (which the left insisted was the primary motivation) - if that were the case this is in fact the most incompetant military victory in human history - gas here being twice what it was before the war-for-oil and Iraqi oil revenues not even going to rebuild Iraq (mostly from self-inflicted destruction) much less being carted off as the spoils of war (my first choice <s>)
>>
>>>>>>>It's painful to think of U.S. troops remaining there until these bozos get their act together. That could be forever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How much thought have you given to the consequences of succeeding in forming a democratic Iraq?
>>>>>
>>>>>That is not and never was the goal of the intervention.
>>>>
>>>>Oh?
>>>>
>>>>Who's idea was it to intervene?
>>>
>>>The U.S. never even mentioned 'liberating' or 'democratising' Iraq until they had to finally admit there were no WMDs. And they'll never admit that they want an unhindered supply of oil.