In retrospect, no this should have never happened. But, if Bush was so insistent on doing so, for whatever his reasons, at least he should have put in a few more army divisions on the ground to pacify the country immediately. In one of my reviews on this site back in 2002, right before the war, I said that attacking Iraq would be okay if the threat was imminent and if we were willing to commit hundreds of thousands of troops to take control of the country. If we had done that, and not completely disbanded the army or the civil service, the country would be in much better shape today. The invasion itself was successful in that we removed Saddam, but the aftermath has been a disaster. In disbanding the army, we created a huge unemployment problem in the country, along with these militias that are creating unrest and threatening to take the country into civil war. Truth of the matter is that once the Ba'thist regime fell, more than likely the followers of Saddam would have been ratted out of the government anyways. In short, the war was very poorly planned and executed, especially in the post-operative stage. We should have never disbanded the army or put out of work the entire civil service. In doing that, we fragmented society by creating alternate lines of authority in the form of those militias that currently run most of the country. We lost control in May 2003 and essentially never regained it. But all is not lost, for I think there are a few ways to fix it. I tried to post it here, but unfortunately it's a bit too long!

Saddam Hussein, in March, 2003, was in gross violation of the peace treaty of 1991 which ended the Gulf War, wherein Iraqi military forces had staged a violent takeover of its sovereign neighbor Kuwait. Iraq was in violation of many clauses of the treaty, including one which mandated UN weapons inspectors to monitor Iraq's weapons development, and enforcement of a no-fly zone which Iraq routinely violated, throughout the 1990's. Everyone in the free world, from the most blood-thirsty conservative to the most dainty pacifist believed he was in possession of bombs and other military arsenal, even John Kerry and Bill Clinton. His refusal to allow inspectors represented a violation of the peace treaty, and an act of war. Bush wanted to utilize military action against Hussein just as Lyndon Johnson wanted war in Vietnam. He made his case, received overwhelming approval from Congress, and took the country to war. The US military routed Hussein, his sons, his contingent of loyal Baathists, and shortly thereafter, elections were arranged to allow Iraqis to govern tnemselves. The blockbuster story of the Downing Street memo hit the liberal media, and they concluded, Holy sh$t, these guys thought about this in advance! What audacity! Let's impeach Bush! or something to that effect. In the meantime, an insurgency of foreign (to Iraq) terrorists assembled in Iraq, to obstruct the establishment of that most hated form of government (a representative republic) by that most hated of enemies (you-know-who) in a previously muslim country. Now, exactly why the establishment of a republic in Iraq has become an effective recruiting tool for islamofascist terrorists, willing to blow themselves up killing innocent Iraqis (does anyone have any hard numbers on this?) I'm not quite clear. But, to call that contingent an insurgency is not correct. An insurgency usually implies the rising up of a people against their government. There are a few loyal Baathists around but I'd point to the election turnout numbers as an indication that this is a group of murderous mercenaries assembled by non-Iraqi terrorists. But, the terroist leaders are watching as the US exposes its inherent foreign policy weakness: a short-sighted lack of staying power. A very small, yet vocal contingent of anti-war activists and theorists exert an inordinate amount of clout in the US forum of public opinion. Those who favor the war do so in silence, for the most part, eschewing pro-war rhetoric in favor of quiet resolve, gritting their teeth as the anti-war contingent seek to publicize the inevitable human cost of war, gleefully pointing to the bodies of Americans killed, seeking to further publicize them in an effort to win their intellectual argument through emotionally violent means. But the terrorists have learned from Vietnam. The more casualties and casualty stories that receive publicity, the more difficult it is for a president to stay the course and prevail. I don't like this war. Or any war. But, we must see it through regardless of an irresponsible press and our irresponsible fellow Americans who seek to distract us from the job that must be finished. What an odd surprise for bin Laden and terrorists around the world, expecting a Clintoneaque reaction to 9/11/01 (we will not rest until the people behind this attack are brought to justice. Pass the mayonnaise, please. ) and receiving instead George W. Bush's response. Love him or hate him, he was sick of America swatting flies.