Incorrect.
After the 2003 invasion things were going pretty well. The Army and the Marines let the local sheiks run their tribes. Then Bremer came in and screwed it up. He insisted that only a central government could exert authority. That pissed off the Sunni tribes enough to embrace al Qaeda in Iraq.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Had the Iraqis not been utterly and completely ruled from a central government authority for decades? Elections were held, a central government wasn't insisted upon by Bremer, it was duly elected. You'll remember local sheiks and tribes weren't the only interest, Shia militias, many backed by Iran. You also had a Kurdish state that many nations in the region didn't want autonomy afforded.
Don't rewrite history in some donttread manner of debate style, Peter, that won't even take off much less fly. A working Republic was elected in Iraq, their turnout besting ours.....when many voters there were under duress for voting. Who do you think you're exchanging with here, one of our resident liberals. Tighten up, 1469.
You're right, you aren't rewriting history, you're making it up as you go along. The media/donttread methodology is disappointing when coming from you, Pete. You know better, and purposefully slaughter the truth.
Central power in Iraq.....was why you had to go there in 1991 to begin with. There was no Jeffersonian democracy, in fact, much of the election kept in place Sharia law, equal representation didn't exist, Kurd and Shia alike were disenfranchised and dislocated.
The biggest mistake might have been going in 1991. The second biggest was starting to listen to media/donttread/and now Peter-like Observers who either have an agenda or don't know any better. Pity actually