Who do you think is strong enough to stabilize the country once we’re gone?
Iraq wasn’t “stable” by that definition under Saddam. You’re looking for a new dictator. Why, I have no idea.
BTW- State Dept doctrine is to continue throwing money into a black hole.
You are confusing policy with doctrine. Stability is State Dept doctrine.
The lack of leadership makes it a threat to regional stability. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are currently jockeying for position in the country. The Iraqi Army is unable to defend the country and the Iraqi Police are corrupt to the core.
The idea that Iraq’s internal position today poses a greater threat to regional and world stability than Saddam Hussein’s regime is simply misguided. Pundits have been predicting since before Saddam was overthrown that Iran would take over Iraq. It hasn’t happened yet and the Shia won’t allow the Sauds to take over either. Syria is not even worth mentioning as they have neither the wealth nor expertise to pose the threat you are imagining.
To whom? The House of Saud? I don’t recall Iraqi’s attacking the US.
This is where your true colors become obvious. Your clear stance is that Saddam’s Iraq was not a threat and that position is undefensible, as laid bare by the sources cited in the sources linked in the article I posted, as well as the Human Events article from 2008.
Under Saddam, Iraq was able to defend it's borders against regional threats, and Saddam was a known quantity. In essence, he could be measured. Now, there is no standard of measurement. As for "looking for a new dictator", the average Iraqi (Kurds not withstanding)doesn't understand democracy. They've lived their entire lives under a dictatorial government which provided everything; essential services, health care, jobs, it made their decisions for them. They don't know how to live without that hovering over their heads. The current Maliki-led government is weak. It cannot provide the services that the people had grown to accept, and the average Iraqi sees that.
Stability is State Dept doctrine.
Then it's a failure. The Iraqi people look upon the US military as the stabilizing force in the country. The State Dept wants to maintain a presence in Iraq after the final withdrawal, but they can't provide stability or the training the Iraqi's would need provide for their own security.
It hasnt happened yet and the Shia wont allow the Sauds to take over either. Syria is not even worth mentioning as they have neither the wealth nor expertise to pose the threat you are imagining.
Practically all the Shia east of the Tigris River are supportive of Iran. Maliki himself is under Iranian influence. There is a strong Syrian influence in Anbar Province. Allawi, who won the election in March, is in Damascus holding talks with al-Sadr. The Saudi's are exerting their influence in the south.
Your clear stance is that Saddams Iraq was not a threat and that position is undefensible, as laid bare by the sources cited in the sources linked in the article I posted, as well as the Human Events article from 2008.
I read your Human Events article down to where it mentioned Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The info on him is wrong, but that's a subject for a different thread. As far as my stance, Saddam was a regional threat, but with the northern and southern no-fly zones, plus being placed under a magnifying glass of world opinion and sanctions, his threat to the US was minimized. Sure, he hosted known terrorists, but the same can be said of the other countries in the region, even our NATO "ally" Turkey..