If the Baathist units had been allowed to remain intact, there would be no hope for change in Iraq. No civilian government. They would have been viewed, rightly, as just a continuation of Saddam’s reign, and the US as powerless (even more so than now, I mean, heh).
I am GLAD that they were ‘broken’ and starved for awhile. They needed some humility. Now maybe they can be useful members of Iraqui society, and not its overlords.
Now that’s thinking, in my book.
I disagree. The choice we had was to reorganize the country around some existing institutions or dismantle them all and build a country from scratch. We chose the latter. That is a long-term process, 7-10 years, minimum - time we didn't and don't have. Had we left the army and most ministries in place, rooting out the higher-level Baathists and more fanatical units, we could have reorganized the country and accomplished a stable government much sooner. And Iraq would have an army the size it needs today but does not have.
Also, by dismantling the entire army, we threw hundreds of thousands of soldiers out of work with no pay and no unemployment. So, of course they signed up with AQ - they got a steady paycheck.
We didn't even destroy all the institutions of Germany post-WWII and there we didn't restore sovereignty until 1954. Rummy and Bremer must have been high on something if they thought the voters would give them that much time in Iraq.