- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 10,101
- Reaction score
- 2,990
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I have to disagree to a large extent with the "revenge" theory. I know it's popular among the crowd critical of Bush (count me among them), but I think it's off base. I believe the wider agenda among the Neo-Cons was to take advantage of the opportunity to actually invade Iraq, unseat Saddam, and seat a government friendly to a U.S. influence in the region. It fit their strategy for rebuilding America's defenses perfectly. They just didn't really plan it out at all. It was a rush to war to seize and opportunity and Bush & Co. thought that it would be a cakewalk. They simply disregarded the geopolitical environment of Iraq, and to a large extent the entire Middle Eastern region, and went for it.
While Bush probably wanted revenge, the invasion was more motivated by a group strategy, and I don't think revenge was on their minds. I think "sphere of influence in an oil rich region" was.
Im not saying it was entirely correct, im saying it is one of the perceptions of US's actions.
I agree and look what has occured.
Im personally of the opinion that US screwed up the region, now fix it yourselves.
Bush had a wonderful climate, Americans were in fear of this new threat against them that threatened their way of life. I think they would have signed away their bill of rights straight after 9/11 if it guaranteed their safety.