I don't remember anyone predicting al-Qaeda and pals would flood into Iraq and that Iran would fund, arm, and support them. They did their level best to start a war between Sunni and Shia in Iraq by killing people and destroying religious symbols. They failed. There were lots of predictions on all sides about what would happen. As usual, most of them were wrong.
I respect the opinion that we should not have gone into Iraq. There are some good arguments why we should not have. I disagree and believe it was the right thing to do.
1. Al Qaeda didn't. Al Qaeda in Iraq was made up overwhelmingly of Iraqis who took the name. But if you type fly paper strategy, you will see some actually arguing that the Iraqi people should be the bait for bringing Al Qeada into their country. That's not exactly what happened, as I said, there was little of those connected to any group prior to taking up arms in Iraq. These were mostly Iraqis, and those coming into the country were mostly new recruits.
2. You can't start a war between people not already willing to fight each other. Anyone looking at the history ahd to know this was going to be a problem. The divisions are artificial and deep seeded.
3. I can't argue what you think any more than I can argue what I think. But I can argue that it wasn't a good idea, and here's why: a. It cost too much in terms of lives and money both, and for little to no real gain. b. At the end of the day, it favors Iran. At best, it allows for more friendly relations between the two nations. At worse, Iraq eventually alines with Iran. c. It ebenfitted our enemy by helping with recruitment, adding to their status (being important enough to have such a powerful nation openly decalre war agains thems), and hurt our reputation everywhere.
It's absolutely true. al-Qaeda made Iraq a central battlefield. Thousands of jihadis came into Iraq after Saddam was toppled. They were soundly defeated.
Of course it matters who’s killing them and why. It also matters who risked their own lives to protect them. The very actions of US forces as opposed to jihadis in Iraq have proven the jihadi ideology and propaganda to be a fraud.
No, that's conservative myth. Iraq was a civil war plus. Or enemies merely were smart and took advantage of it and got more bang for our buck. And very few outsiders came. Of those fighting, only some 5% were foriegn (and only an estimated 5% of those ever had any connection to any terrorist group prior to coming to Iraq). That's a small percentage. Outsiders did not invest heavily, they just talked a lot because it keep it going longer and we were too easily led on this.
if it were any kind of CENTRAL battlefield, our eneimies would have invest much more. Instead, they got training and used Iraqis. This makes Iraq a loss for us no matter what eventually happens in Iraq.
And no, I still maintain it does not matter who is doing the killing because we brought the war. With us invading, those 100,000 would not have been killed. At the end of the day we cannot pretend that isn't true. So while soliders did a great job, and may well have made inroads with some, the act itself, of which or leaders hold responsibility, cannot be divorced from the consequences.