An army report has outline some of the USA mistakes in Iraq.
First all the initial planning was concern with getting rid of Hussein. No plans for what to do next. There was no exit strategy. It was thought that having got rid of Hussein supporters, the Sunni control army and government, a new Iraq government could operate on its own.

In fact they needed more support from the west. However the occupation forces were too small to ensure stability. A much larger force was needed.
The Bush government could or would not provide the numbers. So the army could not succeed in its aims to have a stable and peaceful Iraq.

How far do you think this assessment is right?

aus22, I agree 100%.

If I may add, this whole plan was shabbly put together, and many things were'nt taken into account.

But that's what happens when you have a President and Vice-Prewsident who ran from combat thermselves leading a war.

Last they let terrorist come in waves through the borders at the beginning of this thing, because there were no terrorist there before.

Last what will be wrong with Iraq long after it's over is that our soldiers are thrown away like trash once they return with all of their injuries and mental problems, they can't even get help for their families from the Government who they went to fight for.

Phanton Mystic, You ad I agree but others do not even want to reply. I am not asking anyone to agree that everything went wrong in Iraq but where did we made mistakes. Surely noboby thinks we did not make some mistakes.

While I always thought we should have never been in Iraq most of the Americans, Australian and British public supported their country going to Iraq. Most today do not.Surely it must be because we wrong in some areas.

Is it because we underestimate the resistance from various groups in Iraq or is it we overestimate the government we created in Iraq ability to control the country without our forces?

Or is because we did not send enough troops to do the Job?

I think all this issues are examine in the army report. Surely we should learn by our mistakes in Iraq as we did from mistakes in WW2 and Vietnam.

Our soldiers deserve an investigation of what went wrong. Also what are we doing now to help them. A New Yourk Times report said all the military Hospitals in Iraq are destroyed. Why do we not build a new one?. It appears we are not even helping the Iraqi soldiers that faught alongside us. No wonder they do not want to fight. How about our own vetrans. Is it true we are going to treat them as it's over is that our soldiers are thrown away like trash once they return with all of their injuries and mental problems, they can't even get help for their families from the Government who they went to fight for.

This is what we did after WW1 & 2 and after Vietnam. Surely we can do better this time.

Even with enough troops, so many mistakes were made post-"victory" that it would still be a mess.

Even if we had totally overrun the country, it would do nothing to end Sunni-Shia rivalry and so the infighting would continue.

In short, there is almost no way to solve the problem, and with or without the USA the Sunnis and Shia will continue to fight.

I think what went wrong, and it wasn't that big of a wrong, was an incomplete plan. I realize some things come up that could not have been planned for but other things could have been. We sent plenty of troops and stuff to stamp out that little country. Perhaps we went too far in completely removing their military. I can say that with a certain amount of confidence since we took steps to undo that error.

I agree with Dax However Husain seems to kept the infighting at bay through supporting the Sunnies

I also think Jokul is right As the Sunnies were the only effective fighting force thier replacement by Shites would be less effective.

Now we have a third player the Kurds. An American oil company has signed a deal with the Kurds despite opposition from the Iraq government. Perhaps we want divisions.

aus22:

My point is who cares?The question is were the people that put this report together when the military was feeding misleading information to the public before the start of the war in Iraq in 2003?I have said this before and will say it again America wanted caos in Iraq,that's why you saw American soldiers doing nothing when they saw looters running by them.
aus22:

After everything that has happened you still have arabs that are still willing to do business with America like the kurds.I am not sure what the arabic word for "sell out" is but whatever it is that is the Kurds.Who is surprised that the Kurds have signed an oil deal with the America,it's no wonder that most of the arab world hate the kurds,since they helped to bring down the otterman empire.

Actually, Cass, the Kurdish people go back to at least 3,000 yrs BCE and had little to do with the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, which happened as the result of WWI, when England carved up the ME. The Kurdish people had long considered the area in which they lived to be Kurdistan--land of the Kurds. Their language is a dialect of the Iraqi language (which Saddam Hussein forebade) and their culture is heavily influenced by the Indo-European cultures that moved into Kurdistan during the years before the Christian Era.

Since they have for centuries considered themselves to be a separate people from Iraq, Iran and Turkey, perhaps it is time for the world to recognize a separate Kurdistan.

Hello Lizbeth all that you say I believe may well be true about the Kurds and that they that they should have a homeland.I am just bwondering why the west did not give them one after the end of WW1.I was under the impression that the Kurds fought on the side of the west in that conflict, on the understanding that they would get a home land if the west won the war.

The United States had little to do with the division of the ME after WWI. It was left up to England, which made sure it got control over the oil rich areas-- most notably Saudi Arabia. (See Lawrence of Arabia)

The Ottoman Empire fought WWI on the German side and when the British established boundary lines in the ME, it did so for its own benefit. It didn't do so based on languages or cultures. The mountainous regions of Northern Iraq, Eastern Iran and Southern Turkey, where the Kurds live, has no oil. For convience, Kurdistan became a part of Iraq. It could just as easily, for England, have become a part of Turkey.