Iran trying to take over Southern Iraq?

Trex · 04-12-08, 07:47 PM

Skybird, August,

There are indeed different versions of whose idea the Plan was. From my readings, I lean towards Truman, but I acknowledge others differ. In any case, it was my intent to mean the Marshall Plan which took place during the Truman administration.

Regardless of the differences between 1945 and now, there are still many similarities. The Iraqi infrastructure had been systematically targeted by air strikes, leaving a large slice of the population without clean water, electricity, a satisfactory transport net, telephones, etc. By some accounts the hospitals and medical system had been crippled by a long embargo (again, I wasn’t there and there is little doubt that this last was at least in part due to Saddam himself, but the important point is that there were problems). All in all, the basics of life had been pretty seriously degraded. By some accounts, this situation has not even yet been completely resolved. It’s pretty hard to be enthusiastic about anything when you are shivering in the dark.

I think that spending a relatively minor amount (compared to the cost of the war to date), in a timely fashion, starting right now, to get the electrical grid up and running, restore bridges and roads, fix water and sewage treatment plants, get hospitals operating as they should – these things would have been perceived by the Iraqis as positive. The message should have been that: 1) We came here to get rid of Saddam. We did that and we are now going to leave as soon as possible to allow you to get on with your lives in whatever manner you decide. 2) We are, before we leave, going to make Iraq a better place in which to live buy getting the country back on its feet. 3) Even after we are gone, we hope to remain friends of the Iraqi people.

Such a move, despite all the cultural differences, would have made a big difference in how the average Iraqi saw the coalition and its presence.

There is no argument whatever that there should have been far more attention paid to keeping the peace in liberated areas, but that is but one piece of the puzzle. Rebuilding the country was critical, and the coalition muffed it.

04-12-08, 07:47 PM	#15
Trex Lieutenant Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 262 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Skybird, August, There are indeed different versions of whose idea the Plan was. From my readings, I lean towards Truman, but I acknowledge others differ. In any case, it was my intent to mean the Marshall Plan which took place during the Truman administration. Regardless of the differences between 1945 and now, there are still many similarities. The Iraqi infrastructure had been systematically targeted by air strikes, leaving a large slice of the population without clean water, electricity, a satisfactory transport net, telephones, etc. By some accounts the hospitals and medical system had been crippled by a long embargo (again, I wasn’t there and there is little doubt that this last was at least in part due to Saddam himself, but the important point is that there were problems). All in all, the basics of life had been pretty seriously degraded. By some accounts, this situation has not even yet been completely resolved. It’s pretty hard to be enthusiastic about anything when you are shivering in the dark. I think that spending a relatively minor amount (compared to the cost of the war to date), in a timely fashion, starting right now, to get the electrical grid up and running, restore bridges and roads, fix water and sewage treatment plants, get hospitals operating as they should – these things would have been perceived by the Iraqis as positive. The message should have been that: 1) We came here to get rid of Saddam. We did that and we are now going to leave as soon as possible to allow you to get on with your lives in whatever manner you decide. 2) We are, before we leave, going to make Iraq a better place in which to live buy getting the country back on its feet. 3) Even after we are gone, we hope to remain friends of the Iraqi people. Such a move, despite all the cultural differences, would have made a big difference in how the average Iraqi saw the coalition and its presence. There is no argument whatever that there should have been far more attention paid to keeping the peace in liberated areas, but that is but one piece of the puzzle. Rebuilding the country was critical, and the coalition muffed it. Last edited by Trex; 04-12-08 at 09:09 PM.