How Iraq Should Have Gone

First, a few what if's settled for this thought experiment:

• assume we had to or at least were inevitably going into  Iraq with the Bush Admin
• assume the "they'll throw flowers and candies" and other characterizations by the Bush Admin were real expectations and motivations

Let's say beyond that we have some flexibility but of course it has to start with a military action, sadly to any pacifists, but I'm taking this as the inevitable result of those in power intent on taking Saddam from power, but while minimizing civilian costs (indeed, costs in general, i.e. encourage surrender). The reason for this was given by the Bush Admin, Saddam was a dictator, indeed, often listed on human rights abuse lists as in the top ten in the world (take that as you will, but no doubt he was a jerk).

So, shock and awe of the traditional sort is out, but really, the Bush Admin did not wage traditional shock and awe.  The air dominance was so unilateral that a more Rumsfeldian type was used.  Starting at this point I think bombing campaigns like we saw in 2003 in Baghdad should have, even by a pro war admin, reasonably be announced with leaflets. 

Other than that they continue with their objectionable bombing.  They ought not have used cluster bomgs, any mine fields should be accurately markes so a complete cleaning is gone (in other words treated as temporary), and one supposed that while pinpoint bombing is objectionable given it is done on such weak intelligence and with no warning, ought to be minimized but given the circumstances and the military leadership at the time, one assumes this would probably have had to still occur since their strategy involved taking out military leadership and "freeing" the people.

The main fuckup comes when it's time to rebuild Iraq.  When I make a video of this blog I'll tell an anecdote about how we our system of martial law and the application of curfew hampered locals that would have liked to start rebuilding immediately.  The big picture is we should not, and there should be a law against it--- have brought in the Bechtels and the Halliburtons to rebuild.  All those billions should have gone to local engineering firms.  Once great firms, prior to sanctions, has disappeared  or whittled down to just a few people, but they were not gone, and could have been rejuvinated.

If there are not enough construction workers, western companies could be brought into train them, but a heavy weight should be given to firms in nearby countries, that is, by distance, because this keeps the money spent as local as possible. The results is a rebuilt infrastructure, and a rebuilt engineering industry, and a natural protection against sabotage and other extra expenses in construction, like the amount and type of security required.

If this seems like some liberal fantasy, go crack some books, the Just War, I mean WWII, and I mean it ironically, did have a smart ending for the antagonist German and Japanese.  They were rebuilt.  They provided world class engineering within decades, and we really don't have to worry about them much anymore, do you think?  Quite the opposite, they are sterling international citizens, such as they go, even if the standards for such things are quite low after the standards-lowering experiences of the 20'th century.