Armchair Generals in the power.

[Redleg]

I focused on what I feel are the important points of where one is trying to head, ie. the goals. Whether the starting point is one of a formal colony, protectorate, or whatever, is less important in my view. The main aims of decolonisation - gradually letting a territory go without it going to hell from internal or external pressure, and preferably without the former colonials turning on you - are the salient points. If starting point is so important, what's the difference between starting with Iraq as a colony and starting with Iraq as a mandate, as it effectively is? Both cases, and in the even more particular case of Iraq, start out with you taking over the administration of the region, and preparing to let go under ideal conditions.

Then you really need to look into what determines Nation Building. Since once again the concept of Nation Building is what Afganstan is definitely defined as, and Iraq is in a similiar situation. Both countries had the ruling regime removed and a new government established, both are being rebuilt by outside resources, and both have plans for the eventual withdraw of foreign forces and aid. Both have a similiar end result - a nation that is viable and friendly.

I will leave it at that since your so determined to argue for a decolonization aspect but you have not provided any detail into that arguement, one that shows the difference between the two concepts, one that points out where decolonization is a more valid definition of what is eventual hopeful end result for Iraq. BTW you will find that both have very similiar end points.

Hang on. The ability of the Coalition to present a united front was purely because of the limited and almost universally agreed to be just aim of expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Schwarzkopf made it pretty clear that, if he went any further beyond that, that united front will be no more, and then the political scene would be as it is now, with a vacuum in Saddam-less Iraq and the neighbours itching to get in on the action. How would things be significantly different?

you wanted a reason for the current immersion into Iraq - you got it but you don't like the answer that is self-evident, based upon history. The United States has been in conflict with Iraq under Sadaam since 1990. I more then understand why we did not continue past the agreed upon conditions and in fact I agreed with them at the time, and as I stated Hind sight is always 20/20. However I did answer your initial comment.

Now why it got started in the first place was because of Oil, the key reason for Sadaams invasion of Kuwait. Or do you want to delve deeper into history then the last 20 years?

Now how would things be different. The primary one being that the United States honored its word to the Shite in Basara. Or are you forgetting that little bit of history, where the United States stated a few promises to those people in that area of Iraq? Would that lessen the impact of some of the extremists - who knows for sure, but I would think that honoring one's word would have had a significan impact, and would of done some good in the long run. Would the other groups still have used violence against the establishment of a new government - most likely, but then again at least two of the groups would have had a significant amount of trust toward the United States given that we honored a committment that we initially implied toward them.