MovieChat Forums > No End in Sight (2007) Discussion > a thought experiment

a thought experiment

posted 15 years ago by jriley555
2 replies | jump to latest

leaving entirely aside the question of the rationalization, marketing, intelligence, thinking that led the admin. into initiating the incursion into iraq...

let's say that people like gen. garner and col. hughes had been empowered to engage non-lethal baathist and retain the iraqi military to hold up the infrastructure of iraqi society post-invasion, as they were in the process of doing before they were relieved by bremer...

let's also say that the state dept planning had been incorporated, and that moreover a stable, civil, cooperative relationship had existed between state, dod, nsc had existed (iow, people like cheney, rumsfeld and wolfowitz were not in charge)...

---

given this alternative scenario -

do you think it likely or unlikely that the iraq intervention would now be viewed as a constructive engagement rather than an ill-conceived disaster?

[–] JohnMoonlord 14 years ago

Good question.

I don't think it would've been the miracle solution. That kind of situation is so complex that I doubt mishaps wouldn't've happen at all. Tensions would still be there since the Americans were not the only party implicated (Talibans; Al-Quaeda; various religious groups, of any stance, friend or foe; the international community; etc.).

But I think that letting people like Garner, Hughes and co, that actually know what they are doing and have experience in such or related matters, things would've been a whole lot better, in short, but more importantly, in long term.

[–] gayfordeniro 12 years ago

Finally, a good question on an IMDB board.

I still dont think it would have been seen as a constructive engagement. A construction engagement (i.e. Balkan War) takes a huge PR effort, and clearly there wasn't enough planning from the start.
The flimsy reasons for going to war will still be enough for people to doubt the legitimacy of the occupation and further question why the US is spending money on 'these people'. And as the previous poster stated, there's bound to be retaliation due to the tensions caused in the area. Whether this is internal sectarian conflict, or states that building defenses by feeling threatened (Iran). So it would be seen as a mistake at least in the long-term.

I think at least the US would hold a little more moral high ground however.