What is Reddit's opinion of Imperial Life in The Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

That's not actually what happened. What happened was a series of completely incompetent people went into iraq and did things like dissolve the military, leading directly to ISIS; created unrest and chaos that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and ended up threatening American lives for decades. Great book detailing what happened in the invasion, and setting the foundation for the years of catastrophe

ok, This is funny and I don't mean ha ha.

>This is a worthwhile concern, and worth taking seriously, seeing as something similar happened when former President Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011.

because that's some truthy news beside the big, fat embassy green zone. Anyone here read Imperial Life in The Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone yet? I have. It took me a few months, because I couldn't read it in one go without doubling over from stupid fumes induced nausea. Now look, Iraqi ministry says 104 killed in protests and it's still there, collecting pay checks.

>You can tell by the way they prefer dictators over democratic regimes. They are fine if they follow orders, but it's a risk they won't if the people are in charge.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I'd say the U.S. prefers regimes that are in line with U.S. goals, and whether it's a democracy or dictatorship is less important. (That said, I think the U.S. is much more wary of propping up dictators / overthrowing democratically elected governments then it used to be)

>And there is zero evidence that the US tried to bring about democracy. Democracy would inevitably harm US interests.

I disagree with the first point there. The failed occupation in Iraq would only go on to hurt Bush/Cheney and other Republicans. There was no point in going into Iraq if they didn't think they would create a U.S. friendly government there.

That said, they massively underestimated the difficulty of the task. Important appointments were too often based on party loyalty and ideological beliefs instead of qualifications. Iraqi concerns were ignored, and practical solutions were foregone because that's not how we do things in the U.S. Iraq was seen by some to be a chance to build a shining example of a free market economy from the ground up, and countless problems stemmed from putting this free market ideology above the current needs of the people.

There's an almost unending list of blunders I could mention, but I'll stop there... Anyway, the point was that the U.S. didn't go into Iraq with no intent of creating a democracy. The point made in your linked article is certainly a valid one though. I'd say it was pretty naive to think we could go in there and clear everything up.

Anyway, I'm no expert on Iraq, and I used to believe exactly what you've been saying, but I really believe things are never as black and white as we'd like them to be. Exploring the shades of grey in between is a worthwhile thing.

Sidenote: "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" Is a really great book! I think you'd like it even if you don't agree with my opinions here :D. It basically tells the story of how the U.S. occupation fell apart, fiasco by fiasco.

Below podcast is really interesting concerning the post-invasion management of Iraq, and subsequent de-Ba'athification.

It makes clear that de-Ba'athification was an increadibly stupid thing to do, as even almost all teachers had to be members of the party, not to talk about the military officers who initially waited for instructions from the US command. Only the complete disbanding of the Iraqi Army created the insurgency as it unfolded.

edit: stupid me, forgot the podcast: http://thedollop.libsyn.com/122-the-iraq-war

edit2: The podcast is based on this book: Imperial Life in the Emerald City. Here is a nytimes review.