[smallstar]

Cheers,

I wonder where the 'good old days' diplomacy has gone. In the 15th-19th century, when wars were fought, they usually lasted until the outcome was clear. After that, the losing side yielded and gave up a region, sometimes even receiving a fairly decent monetary compensation. After that, both sides were relatively happy - one for having won, the other for being spared.

The occupation of Iraq was quite an opposite example to that. How could they ever think that the country could retain stability after all existing power structures had been destroyed, and after the leaders had been made into martyrs? A 'good old days' diplomat would, after invading Iraq, probably have confederationalized the system at the most, giving more power to existing regional leaders, divide et impera, letting Kurdistan to go officially its own way, even bribing Saddam into cooperation by retaining him as the ruler of Tikrit. That would have accomplished the main problem (eliminated the military threat and the suspected WMD). After that, the puppet government would have plenty of time to slowly introduce democratic-Western values into the system.