Lack of accountability, too late or not?

[Arglebargle]

I just don't understand how even those who think it was a good idea to invade Iraq can ignore the rank incompetance of the crew who (mis-)managed it. The scale of mismanagement was frankly astounding.

Given that the Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Cheney, etc, group were pretty much calling for intervention and nation building in Iraq since the mid '90's, you'd think that they'd have had something better in the way of a plan.

The CIA and the military tried to argue out of it, and, failing that, then tried to figure out reasonable strategies, all of which were ignored, dismissed, or refused. The move into Iraq also poisoned the occupation of Afganistan, and became a continuing infection for the political situation in Pakistan. All because of head in the clouds, pie in the sky incompetance.

But as for the OP's original question of when will anyone be held accountable? Not any time soon. I'd suspect maybe starting in another 20 years.

 

[Whiskey16]

But as for the OP's original question of when will anyone be held accountable? Not any time soon. I'd suspect maybe starting in another 20 years.

The culture in the USA must first drastically change.

As I've already posted on the first page, the USA dramatically lags behind the political maturity of the UK.

 

[Craig234]

Sorry but here's some bad news.

It'll get worse, not better.

We're actually pretty spoiled today.

If you look at history, these same tensions have long existed, between the few who especiallybenefit from war and the many who don't and resist it.

US Presidents won election before WWI and WWII by promising not to get in the wars. Presidents who led us into wars of choice - like Vietnam and Iraq - promised it was with huge reluctance.

There was always plenty of resistance to war - and the resistance has never been that great at stopping it.

Look at the huge costs to us the public put up with in previous wars - they greatly exceed the prices being paid for Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the costs the American people feel for war keep decreasing - ferwer killed, no draft, and always increasing technological advances like drones lowering the costs for our side, making war easier.

History suggests there is nothing that will effectively stop more war in place now.

Different people use different measureements. If a company makes a billion dollars from a war and cares zero about the casualties, was a 'bad war' bad in its view - or very good?

Some of these wars without pulic support look crazy looking at them later, but they happened.

Was it worth sponsoring a terrorist army in Nicaragua at the price of a constitutional crisis when Conress had explicitly outlawed funding it as well as the moral evil, having the US president say that the former police state thugs and criminals who were hired for the terrorist army were"the moral equivalent of our founding fathers"? But it happened over public objection.

By the way, what happened to the 'no nuke' movement a majority supported, to the pont US presidents and US treaties signed on to it as well? Kind of forgotten.