Indeed. They threw millions at Afghanistan to defeat the Russians. And then nothing whatsoever to rebuild the country after the ravages of war. I don't see how Clinton could have forced this through 2 presidents before he even got into office. The Taliban were just a symptom of this root failure that grew and fed on the anger of US abandonment.
Clinton could have done a lot, he didn't (which generally was his policy).
But frankly much like Obama, whatever he'd done would have caused issues, doing the "right thing" by Afghanistan would not have been an easy course, nor would it have been without cost or a lot of criticism.
So he stuck his head in the sand and dodged the bullet that Bush caught smack in the face.
It would have been a FAR easier course for Reagan or Bush Snr at the end of the war with Russia though. It would have been a lot cheaper too.
Initially there was little that could be done that wouldn't have resulted in basically replacing the USSR, a bit later on there was at least one potential window of opportunity though.
They made a similar mistake in Iraq with debaathification. Sacked an entire nations army and hoped they'd give the weapons back and go home quietly.
Nice move Bemmer, created an armed militia in one fell swoop.
They were in a no-win situation there too, which was the biggest mistake anyone make over Iraq, not realising that Saddam had keep the lid on an all out civil war for 20 years. Retaining the status-quo was unacceptable to the majority of the population (but it would have been the most sensible course never the less).
Add to that the HUGE influx of Bin Lardinists looking for a cause/fight, and Syria and Iran's interests in a nice destabilising rukus and you get what we have.
Again no win, and more importantly no easy solution for anyone that takes over now.
I think it had less to do with what was right for Iraq and far more to do with who got paid for doing it. Paying a US corporation to control the country is far more desirable than supplying Iraqi people with jobs.
Course it's not just Iraq where that shit happens, they did it after Katrina too. I read an old article this morning which pointed out rather than paying locals, the contract for tarping over roofs was tendered out to the Shaw group at $175 per square, it was subcontracted to such a degree that in the end the men doing the job got $2 per square.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060410/davis
...and the tarps are provided by FEMA.
There were probably commercial interests, but that doesn't take away from the issue that the Shia majority wouldn't have allowed it, one of their biggest complaints after the "war" was that Saddam's structures that had oppressed them for years weren't being dismantled quickly enough, although that rather swiftly developed into complaints that things weren't being rebuilt quickly enough (and all sides were initially happy to shelter foreign insurgents bent just destabilising everything).
It was a no win situation. I suspect even with the best and most through planning possible it was no win in the short term, Iraq was only ever going to be something that was looked back at Iraq in 20 years as anything, but an utter mess.
And again going back to now, pulling out too quickly will be a bad thing, but staying to long will also be.
I bet on reflection the Pentagon insiders wish that Saddam had been left in power. Doing their bidding as he did for all those years.
