Originally Posted by Militarythinker

Haven't figured out how to use that quote system yet:

"Not attack the bloody place in the first place."

Haha yes that would be a more favorable choice for many reasons, a few of which you listed. However I intend the thread to be around the one fact that you have to invade Iraq.

Saying that Saddam was the "Godfather of Chicago" is probably a good description. I don't know too much about the internal state of politics in Iraq but from what I know I think the title fits.

However as with Hitler, keeping Saddam alive would only have been helpful throughout the actual invasion. Once we switched to peacekeeping mode, both Hitler and Saddam did/would lose their purpose as the Godfather. Hitler helped the Allies by making stupid decisions and not listening to his much more intelligent military officers. Had Hitler been assasinated early in the war, not only would the Germans have a new reason to fight, but the capable German generals would finally have been able to call the shots.

I can't say that Saddam did the same only because it is too soon to tell how directly involved in his army's tactics he was. He may have been making stupid decisions all along just as Hitler did. I think that it was fortunate to have Saddam alive through the invasion because it gave the U.S. another reason/goal to fight for. Saddam was generally regarded as a bad dictator which is ideal for motivating both the public and military.

So "we kept" Saddam around while he was useful for the invasion and he was then removed post-combat. He had lived out his usefullness by the time the war was over and would no longer have his "Godfather" role as a defeated dictator. Remember that he was found hiding in a hole by himself. If he had kept any of his support, let alone enough to remain a Godfather, he would have not been in such a sorry state when he was found. I say "we kept" and that we removed him as if we planned it but I really am just observing what happened, not stating we intended it to happend that way.

Also using Saddam as a common element to establish bases in the Middle East serves what end purpose? Unless we plan on doing something with those bases I think we could find better uses for our boys. While I don't deny we could have used that excuse to set up bases in many locations, I just don't see the end move of that strategy. If it is to eventually invade Iraq or another country, I don't think that we need various bases to do that.

Also prolonged troop stations in those countries are bound to stir up at least some resentment. So unless we planned on using those bases soon I think the political cost would outweigh any military benefit.

I also only halfheartedly agree with your comment about 9/11 Tigger. While I do remember some reasoning for how Iraq was linked to 9/11 (the actual proof escapes me now), if I remember correctly there were other organizations the U.S. could have targeted that were more involved.

The reasons for why we went into Iraq are muddy to me and now really irrelevant. I went to a very liberal public high school where everyone swore up and down we invaded Iraq to steal all their oil. I also heard about the 9/11 connections Tigger mentioned which I believe involved Iraq financing terrorist organizations. One of the reasons that didn't get very much press coverage, at least from the news I watched, were the war crimes Saddam and his family committed and that removing such a terrible man justified invasion.

But all that aside, how would you have invaded Iraq Snowleopard? I am a much bigger fan of military strategy and know much more about it. I'm not as sound in my Iraq political history and can't contribute/converse as much about it.