Iraq: Bush Jr's toxic legacy or Obama's rebuilding failure?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
9,444
8,853
136
a little of both.
Obama had 6yrs to rebuild Iraq. he failed.
he failed to set up a stable system in place.

but I still blame Bush Jr more for getting us in that mess in the 1st place

Some train wrecks are beyond repair, and Iraq is one such train wreck. Two totally incompetent engineers have guaranteed complete and utter failure at nation building.

And though we never got a drop of oil from Iraq (as eluded to by fuck up#1) our gas prices are going up due to events in Iraq.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
That's quite the claim too
Anything to back that up?

Afghanistan in the 1950s and 60s

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the-1950s-and-60s/100544/
Boy, is my face red! Forget the endless times Afghanistan invaded and was invaded by every neighbor, the endless massacres, the wars of rebellion and consolidation, the tribes raiding each other for women and sheep, the honor killings - for a time, burqas were optional! How could the United States destroy such an idyllic Islamic paradise?

Even your link refers to this as "a brief, relatively peaceful era" before "a series of bloody coups, invasions, and civil wars began, continuing to this day, reversing almost all of the steps toward modernization taken in the 50s and 60s." "A brief, relatively peaceful era" connotes two important things here. First, "brief" implies not "always until the Great Satan made us violent", but just that, a brief interruption of the normal. Second, "relatively peaceful" clearly refers to Afghanistan's unusual amount of violence. Otherwise there would be no need for any qualifier. One would not for example refer to "a brief, relatively peaceful era" in reference to any other nation except perhaps some of Islamic and/or African nations.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Boy, is my face red! Forget the endless times Afghanistan invaded and was invaded by every neighbor, the endless massacres, the wars of rebellion and consolidation, the tribes raiding each other for women and sheep, the honor killings - for a time, burqas were optional! How could the United States destroy such an idyllic Islamic paradise?

Even your link refers to this as "a brief, relatively peaceful era" before "a series of bloody coups, invasions, and civil wars began, continuing to this day, reversing almost all of the steps toward modernization taken in the 50s and 60s." "A brief, relatively peaceful era" connotes two important things here. First, "brief" implies not "always until the Great Satan made us violent", but just that, a brief interruption of the normal. Second, "relatively peaceful" clearly refers to Afghanistan's unusual amount of violence. Otherwise there would be no need for any qualifier. One would not for example refer to "a brief, relatively peaceful era" in reference to any other nation except perhaps some of Islamic and/or African nations.

I can see most of your rant evolves around some *this is not the US's fault* reasoning, and a need to paint Afghanistan in the worse possible way you can

edit- also add in your hatred of Islam

the most violent, warlike nation on Earth.

But this is really not true
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Damn good read. This Iraq thing, and indeed our whole ME strategy, was never about the things we were told but "atomizing" ME to benefit of Israel. Obama is in on it too. It explains a lot. Leaving Libya utterly fucked in tribal warfare. Supporting Jihadis in Syria who are now making their own state. Our seemingly confusing strategies is not so confusing once you read this. It's all about destabilizing ... good old divide and conquer.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/06/17/iraq-will-the-neocons-get-away-with-it-again/

excerpt

that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors were living in trees?

The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who have advanced Israeli interests – at America’s expense – at every opportunity. In "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged to "break out" of Israel’s alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of "regime change" across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the exception of Iran – and that one’s still cooking on the back burner – this is precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic "victory" in Iraq, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these "rogue states" – Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party’s target list.

EDIT FTR everyone knows I'm a Zionist but not like this. Everyone has right to live in peace and prosperity and to their own liking.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Boy, is my face red! Forget the endless times Afghanistan invaded and was invaded by every neighbor, the endless massacres, the wars of rebellion and consolidation, the tribes raiding each other for women and sheep, the honor killings - for a time, burqas were optional! How could the United States destroy such an idyllic Islamic paradise?

Even your link refers to this as "a brief, relatively peaceful era" before "a series of bloody coups, invasions, and civil wars began, continuing to this day, reversing almost all of the steps toward modernization taken in the 50s and 60s." "A brief, relatively peaceful era" connotes two important things here. First, "brief" implies not "always until the Great Satan made us violent", but just that, a brief interruption of the normal. Second, "relatively peaceful" clearly refers to Afghanistan's unusual amount of violence. Otherwise there would be no need for any qualifier. One would not for example refer to "a brief, relatively peaceful era" in reference to any other nation except perhaps some of Islamic and/or African nations.

Obviously, indoctrinating, arming & training the Mujahedin with help from Saudi Wahhabists had no effect on that, did it?
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Obviously, indoctrinating, arming & training the Mujahedin with help from Saudi Wahhabists had no effect on that, did it?

His claim is that Afghanistan has always been even more violent and warlike then it is today.
The worst country in the world ever
 

Mide

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,547
0
71
Bush of course. He was the one who wanted to push for war. WMD my ass.

Obama doesn't know shit about foreign policy but he did what he said he would do and that was withdraw and let the cards fall where they may. Sucks that without some outside involvement, Iraq stumbles into the situation they are in right now, but whatever. Let them sort out their country.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Holy crap flipping channels now and it's like nobody can stand Obama doing nothing. They got all these interventionist experts on saying Obama needs to do X Obama needs to do Y and now. Media are seriously war mongers, until SHTF then they whine like little bitches and blame the guy who went in forgetting thier complicity.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
16,015
8,605
136
Holy crap flipping channels now and it's like nobody can stand Obama doing nothing. They got all these interventionist experts on saying Obama needs to do X Obama needs to do Y and now. Media are seriously war mongers, until SHTF then they whine like little bitches and blame the guy who went in forgetting thier complicity.

We need one of those "what they said then and what they're saying now" hypocrite exposing, debunking segments to bring to light what's going on with these folks.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
We need one of those "what they said then and what they're saying now" hypocrite exposing, debunking segments to bring to light what's going on with these folks.

Daily show had a good as segment on this the other day. I guess what is completely shocking is that the media (esp Sunday shows) are foolish in putting them back up there without much challenge.

Obama should not be bullied by them. Time and time again had proven they will just attack him regardless of what he does, even if it was the foolish thing they were asking him to do.

In some ways I think he is the one actually delivering what the people want. We want out of Iraq, permanently, and out of these other conflicts. No more overseas bases, no more occupation, no more coming crying to us when your shitty govt has lead it's people poorly and need us to save you from your sectarian civil war, again.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Obviously, indoctrinating, arming & training the Mujahedin with help from Saudi Wahhabists had no effect on that, did it?
There was no indoctrination; they believe today what they have believed for the last several hundred years.

His claim is that Afghanistan has always been even more violent and warlike then it is today.
The worst country in the world ever
No, my claim is that Afghanistan has always been violent and warlike, specifically countering your claim implying that Afghanistan was a progressive and peaceful nation until evil America began sending in radical Islamic materials.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
There was no indoctrination; they believe today what they have believed for the last several hundred years.


No, my claim is that Afghanistan has always been violent and warlike, specifically countering your claim implying that Afghanistan was a progressive and peaceful nation until evil America began sending in radical Islamic materials.

Sigh
First you claimed that the journalists did not know what they were talking about, and did not know how to write learned articles
Then you claimed this

lol No, actually not. I did however know even before the Soviets invaded that Afghanistan was probably the most violent, warlike nation on Earth.

I did not claim Afghanistan was a progressive and peaceful nation until evil America began sending in radical Islamic materials

Anyone can look at the thread and see this.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
There was no indoctrination; they believe today what they have believed for the last several hundred years.

Not exactly. Saudi Wahhabis were our partners along with Pakistan in forging the Mujahedin into a fighting force to oppose the Soviets. In that, the Saudis financed the most radical elements, and we funded Pakistan who also funded the most radical elements.

Surprise! There was an enormous upswing in Islamic fundamentalism with an emphasis on Jihad. Foreign Idealists were more than welcome, particularly if they brought money & fighters, which is what Bin Laden did.

And when the Soviets left & their internal power struggles subsided, we looked around at the mess, pretty much said "sucks to be you" & proceeded to vilify & isolate our former allies until we invaded ourselves. That's what happened. Then we set up an ineffective & corrupt govt, continued with ham handed military methods, & here we are.

Which is merely another US foreign policy failure running parallel to that in Iraq. Both share a common feature- invasion & occupation. Who dreamed that up?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Not exactly. Saudi Wahhabis were our partners along with Pakistan in forging the Mujahedin into a fighting force to oppose the Soviets. In that, the Saudis financed the most radical elements, and we funded Pakistan who also funded the most radical elements.

Surprise! There was an enormous upswing in Islamic fundamentalism with an emphasis on Jihad. Foreign Idealists were more than welcome, particularly if they brought money & fighters, which is what Bin Laden did.

And when the Soviets left & their internal power struggles subsided, we looked around at the mess, pretty much said "sucks to be you" & proceeded to vilify & isolate our former allies until we invaded ourselves. That's what happened. Then we set up an ineffective & corrupt govt, continued with ham handed military methods, & here we are.

Which is merely another US foreign policy failure running parallel to that in Iraq. Both share a common feature- invasion & occupation. Who dreamed that up?
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/russia_invasion_afghanistan.htm
Afghanistan hit the world's headlines in 1979. Afghanistan seemed to perfectly summarise the Cold War. From the west's point of view, Berlin, Korea, Hungary and Cuba had shown the way communism wanted to proceed. Afghanistan was a continuation of this.

In Christmas 1979, Russian paratroopers landed in Kabal, the capital of Afghanistan. The country was already in the grip of a civil war. The prime minister, Hazifullah Amin, tried to sweep aside Muslim tradition within the nation and he wanted a more western slant to Afghanistan. This outraged the majority of those in Afghanistan as a strong tradition of Muslim belief was common in the country.

Thousands of Muslim leaders had been arrested and many more had fled the capital and gone to the mountains to escape Amin's police. Amin also lead a communist based government - a belief that rejects religion and this was another reason for such obvious discontent with his government.

Thousands of Afghanistan Muslims joined the Mujahdeen - a guerilla force on a holy mission for Allah. They wanted the overthrow of the Amin government. The Mujahdeen declared a jihad - a holy war - on the supporters of Amin. This was also extended to the Russians who were now in Afghanistan trying to maintain the power of the Amin government. The Russians claimed that they had been invited in by the Amin government and that they were not invading the country. They claimed that their task was to support a legitimate government and that the Mujahdeen were no more than terrorists.

On December 27th, 1979, Amin was shot by the Russians and he was replaced by Babrak Kamal. His position as head of the Afghan government depended entirely on the fact that he needed Russian military support to keep him in power. Many Afghan soldiers had deserted to the Mujahdeen and the Kamal government needed 85,000 Russian soldiers to keep him in power.

The Mujahdeen proved to be a formidable opponent. They were equipped with old rifles but had a knowledge of the mountains around Kabal and the weather conditions that would be encountered there. The Russians resorted to using napalm, poison gas and helicopter gun ships against the Mujahdeen - but they experienced exactly the same military scenario the Americans had done in Vietnam.

By 1982, the Mujahdeen controlled 75% of Afghanistan despite fighting the might of the world's second most powerful military power. Young conscript Russian soldiers were no match against men fuelled by their religious belief. Though the Russian army had a reputation, the war in Afghanistan showed the world just how poor it was outside of military displays. Army boots lasted no more than 10 days before falling to bits in the harsh environment of the Afghanistan mountains. Many Russian soldiers deserted to the Mujahdeen. Russian tanks were of little use in the mountain passes.

The United Nations had condemned the invasion as early as January 1980 but a Security Council motion calling for the withdrawal of Russian forces had been vetoed......by Russia.

America put a ban on the export of grain to Russia, ended the SALT talks taking place then and boycotted the Olympic Games due to be held in Moscow in 1980. Other than that, America did nothing. Why ? They knew that Russia had got itself into their own Vietnam and it also provided American Intelligence with an opportunity to acquire any new Russian military hardware that could be used in Afghanistan. Mujhadeen fighters were given access to American surface-to-air missiles - though not through direct sales by America.

Mikhail Gorbachev took Russia out of the Afghanistan fiasco when he realised what many Russian leaders had been too scared to admit in public - that Russia could not win the war and the cost of maintaining such a vast force in Afghanistan was crippling Russia's already weak economy.

By the end of the 1980's, the Mujahdeen was at war with itself in Afghanistan with hard line Taliban fighters taking a stronger grip over the whole nation and imposing very strict Muslim law on the Afghanistan population.
Some interesting facts here for both you and Earl. First, the nation was in a civil war before the Russians invaded, as the Russian-backed communist prime minister attempted to fight off the hardline Islamic fundamentalist majority. Note that this is the Carter era, in which the CIA's attempts to defeat encroaching communism had been largely defanged in favor of Carter's "be nice to them and hope for the best" policy. We still had a strong interest in Pakistan as a counter to Soviet-leaning India, but virtually no interest in Afghanistan. American reaction was limited to boycotting the 1980 Olympic games, curtailing our very limited commerce, and introducing sharply (for the UN) UN resolutions.

Second, note that the Afghan mujahdeen by 1982 controlled 75% of the nation. Our CIA intervention effectively began in mid-1981 as Reagan began rebuilding the CIA's intervention capabilities. Prior to Reagan, Carter had allowed only non-lethal aid such as food, medicine and radios. The real turning point was when we began training and equipping mujahdeen with the Stinger air defense missile - which only entered production in 1981 and if memory serves was not provided to the mujahdeen until 1984-1985. However, once again we need to remember that the mujahdeen already controlled most of the country. Being Soviet-trained and equipped, most of the soldiers who defected to the mujahdeen (which was most of the soldiers) took with them their small arms and more portable crew-served weapons, especially mortars which by dint of their very high trajectories are more useful in mountainous terrain than is artillery anyway. http://www.academia.edu/2897792/Ope...the_U.S._Involvement_in_the_Soviet-Afghan_War

Let us also not forget that the Soviets had counted Afghanistan as their satellite (countering our counter of India with Pakistan) since the fifties.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/soviet-invasion-afghanistan
In the summer of 1973, Mohammed Daoud, the former Afghan Prime Minister, launched a successful coup against King Zahir. Although Daoud himself was more nationalist than socialist, his coup was dependent on pro-Soviet military and political factions. Since 1955 Moscow had provided military training and materiel to Afghanistan; by 1973, a third of active troops had trained on Soviet soil. Additionally, Daoud enjoyed the support of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), founded in 1965 upon Marxist ideology and allegiance to Moscow. In 1967 the PDPA split into two factions: the Parchamists, led by Babrak Karmal (who supported Daoud), and the “Khalqis” led by Noor Taraki. For the next five years, Daoud attempted the impossible task of governing Afganistan’s Islamic tribal regions, while also struggling to reconcile the PDPA split. But the more radical Khalq faction never fully recognized Daoud’s leadership, while Karmal viewed the coup largely as a means to consolidate his own power. In response, Daoud hoped to mitigate both of these threats by steering Afghanistan away from Soviet influence and improving U.S. relations, while decreasing the influence of radical elements in the government and military.

Daoud’s middle course ended in disaster. On April 28, 1978, soldiers aligned with Taraki’s “Khalq” faction assaulted the presidential palace, where troops executed Daoud and his family. In the following days Taraki became the Prime Minister, and, in an attempt to end the PDPA’s divisions, Karmal became Deputy Prime Minister. In Washington, this Communist revolution was met with alarm. The Carter administration recognized that Taraki would undo Daoud’s attempt to steer Afghanistan away from Moscow, and it debated whether to cut ties with Afghanistan or recognize Taraki in the hopes that Soviet influence could be contained. Although the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs Zbigniew Brzezinski advocated the former course, Carter supported the Department of State’s advocacy of recognition. Shortly after the revolution, Washington recognized the new government and soon named Adolph Dubs its Ambassador to Afghanistan. Until his kidnapping and death at the hands of Afghan Shia dissidents in February 1979, Dubs strongly pursued good relations with the Taraki regime in the hopes that U.S. support would keep Soviet influence at bay.

Once again, the tumult of internal Afghan politics complicated both U.S. and Soviet jockeying. In the summer of 1979, Hafizullah Amin, a longtime ally of Taraki who became Deputy Prime Minister following the April Revolution, received word that Babrak Karmal (Daoud’s early supporter) was leading a Parcham plot to overthrow the Taraki regime. Amin took the opportunity to purge and execute many Parchamists and consolidate his own power. Complicating matters further, this internal strife damaged the Kabul Government’s major national program, namely, to bring the Communist revolution to the Islamic tribal areas beyond Kabul. By the winter of 1978, this program was met by armed revolt throughout the country. In response, Amin and Taraki traveled to Moscow to sign a friendship treaty which included a provision that would allow direct Soviet military assistance should the Islamic insurgency threaten the regime. This insurrection intensified over the next year and it became increasingly obvious to the Soviets that Taraki could not prevent all-out civil war and the prospect of a hostile Islamic government taking control. By mid-1979 Moscow was searching to replace Taraki and Amin, and dispatched combat troops to Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul. This move prompted the Carter administration to begin supplying non-lethal aid to Afghan mujahedeen, or Islamic insurgents. In August, a high-ranking Soviet military delegation arrived in Kabul to assess the situation. U.S. officials interpreted this mission as one last Soviet attempt to shore up the Taraki regime, and also an opportunity to devise a military takeover. Regarding the latter, most analysts in Washington believed that such a move remained possible but unlikely.

But this calculus was bound to change. Amin sensed the Soviet mission was designed to strengthen Taraki at his expense. In response, forces loyal to Amin executed Taraki in October—a move that infuriated Moscow, which began amassing combat units along its border. At this juncture Washington was still unsure how to interpret the Soviet maneuvers: was the Soviet Union planning a full takeover or did it remain committed to preserving the April Revolution? Analysts remained skeptical that Moscow would occupy the country given the political and economic costs. By the winter of 1979, faced with mutinies and an uncertain leadership, the Afghan Army was unable to provide basic security to the government against the onslaught of Islamic fighters nearing Kabul. By that point the Soviets were sending in motorized divisions and Special Forces. Washington demanded an explanation, which the Soviets ignored. Finally, on Christmas Eve, the invasion began. Soviet troops killed Amin and installed Babrak Karmal as the Soviet’s puppet head of government.

Although the Carter administration had closely watched this buildup from the outset, its reaction following the invasion revealed that, until the end, it clung to the hope that the Soviets would not invade, based on the unjustified assumption that Moscow would conclude that the costs of invasion were too high. In response, Carter wrote a sharply-worded letter to Brezhnev denouncing Soviet aggression, and during his State of the Union address he announced his own doctrine vowing to protect Middle Eastern oil supplies from encroaching Soviet power. The administration also enacted economic sanctions and trade embargoes against the Soviet Union, called for a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, and stepped up its aid to the Afghan insurgents. In sum, these actions were Washington’s collective attempt to make the Soviets’ “adventure” in Afghanistan as painful and brief as possible. Instead, it took ten years of grinding insurgency before Moscow finally withdrew, at the cost of millions of lives and billions of dollars. In their wake, the Soviets left a shattered country in which the Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist group, seized control, later providing Osama bin Laden with a training base from which to launch terrorist operations worldwide.
 

burninatortech4

Senior member
Jan 29, 2014
755
455
136
OMG...you still believe Saddam assisted Al Qaeda with 9/11? Really? That was proved to be a lie years ago. Do you believe Saddam had WMD as well?



As to the OP's question, Iraq has been screwed up since that whole region was arbitrarily dived up by Europe. Bush's mistake was to get involved in the first place. (Note that his dad was smart and didn't overthrow Saddam).



Obama had realistically no shot at changing anything, once we overthrew Saddam, it was pretty much destined to be this.


Can't agree more with this last paragraph. This was destined to be a big Charlie-Foxtrot as soon as we overthrew Saddam. As soon as we left it was only a matter of time before shit blew up. Obama's doing the best he can with a shit situation created by Bush and the Iraqi's themselves. The right can complain all they want about 'failed leadership' but they can't escape from the fact that their party is an entry in the dictionary next to 'hypocrit'.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/russia_invasion_afghanistan.htm

Some interesting facts here for both you and Earl. First, the nation was in a civil war before the Russians invaded, as the Russian-backed communist prime minister attempted to fight off the hardline Islamic fundamentalist majority. Note that this is the Carter era, in which the CIA's attempts to defeat encroaching communism had been largely defanged in favor of Carter's "be nice to them and hope for the best" policy. We still had a strong interest in Pakistan as a counter to Soviet-leaning India, but virtually no interest in Afghanistan. American reaction was limited to boycotting the 1980 Olympic games, curtailing our very limited commerce, and introducing sharply (for the UN) UN resolutions.

Second, note that the Afghan mujahdeen by 1982 controlled 75% of the nation. Our CIA intervention effectively began in mid-1981 as Reagan began rebuilding the CIA's intervention capabilities. Prior to Reagan, Carter had allowed only non-lethal aid such as food, medicine and radios. The real turning point was when we began training and equipping mujahdeen with the Stinger air defense missile - which only entered production in 1981 and if memory serves was not provided to the mujahdeen until 1984-1985. However, once again we need to remember that the mujahdeen already controlled most of the country. Being Soviet-trained and equipped, most of the soldiers who defected to the mujahdeen (which was most of the soldiers) took with them their small arms and more portable crew-served weapons, especially mortars which by dint of their very high trajectories are more useful in mountainous terrain than is artillery anyway. http://www.academia.edu/2897792/Ope...the_U.S._Involvement_in_the_Soviet-Afghan_War

Let us also not forget that the Soviets had counted Afghanistan as their satellite (countering our counter of India with Pakistan) since the fifties.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/soviet-invasion-afghanistan

Obfuscational wall o' text complete with extensive quotes from obscure sources. Standard procedure when confronted with simple facts.

You act like the Mujahedin had won by 1982, when it was merely beginning. The next 7 years say otherwise, a period of time when the US & the Saudis increasingly heaped resources on the Mujahedin & glorified Jihad in every training center & Madrassa in the tribal areas of Pakistan. That's part of the Reagan legacy & an enormous contributor to the resurgence of radical Sunni Islam. It also ravaged the countryside & destroyed years of work invested in infrastructure.

If you think that the Mujahedin could have defeated the Soviets w/o a tremendous amount of outside support, you're delusional. I'm sure you're not- you're rather a propagandist engaging in revisionist history. The Bush Admin mimicked every mistake of the Soviets in their handling of the occupation, creating a lovely quagmire handed off to the Obama Admin. Some things, once done, simply cannot be undone and that's what happened to us in Afghanistan. It's much the same wrt Iraq- we reap the fruits of arrogant greed & incompetence.