I shared Cheney's 1991 views in 2003 while we were planning to go in. But I think his 1991 views were based on the assumption that Saddam was a goner after the first war. There was a risk to leaving Saddam in power.

I think they could have been successful with this project but they had some complete fools in charge of this thing.

My thoughts are that the U.S. should have just had Allawi run Iraq similar to the way that the Democrats run the big cities in the U.S. or the Socialists run things in Europe. Don't do anything for the long turn. Just hand out patronage and contracts based for political reasons. Don't try to improve the economy. Just pay off who needs to be paid off. Instead,these idiots were contemplating a flat tax and free trade. Not the way to do things. They should have hired the most corrupt big city politician to run things in Iraq.

I think it's about time now that Iraq must be devided in to three ,Shia,Sunni and Kurdish sectors ie smaller countries.Makeing sure that the Kurds get also there original land from Turkey and Iran.The USA & West must then sit back and see how the muslims will get along with each other.If they want to kill each other then let it be,because that's what they are good at,killing.

No one ever said reconstructing an Iraqi government would be easy. No one ever wanted to have to do it. Unfortuantely events since 1991 have made it clear that the risk of leaving Saddam in power were intolerable. So in 2003 the bad choice of having to rebuild Iraq was better than the worse choice of having Saddam building wmd and supporting terrorism.

Cheney was the Defence Secretary with the contacts to all the Arab states under George H W Bush. The simple fact was that Saudi Arabia did not want Saddam toppled nor did Syria. The fundamental point was that the US never controlled Iraq, but blundered in. When a city is looted by its own people after the world's No1 hegemonic power has invaded it takes a very stupid Defence Secretary to excuse anarchy....................and Bush had one to hand.

Those who loot have no fear of the invader. Then to dismantle the Iraqi Army - some of those generals were probably British or US trained - they could have been the strong men behind the Govt. Even Turkey, so-called secular democracy needs the Army to stand as guarantor of Kemal Ataturk's Constitution - so why did the Us dismantle the Iraqi Army and why does the EU try to sideline the Turkish Army ?

The Americans did in Cambodia exactly what they have now done in Iraq 

Just because they felt that way then doesn't mean that truth or position holds later on in the future.  The truth is that Saddam was a very unstable and dangerous element in the middle east.  He possessed WMDs and used them; supported Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel etc...  Even the Clinton administration wanted to get rid of him but lacked public support for it.  That reality was on the table for years.  Saddam's own Air Force general as well as other peace envoys admit that there was no other way than to remove Saddam by force.  Heck, historically, the biggest anti-war protests in the US to date are those against WWII.  Was sending all those US servicemen to die for the sake of Europe forth it?  Yes, mistakes have been made, but, it's easy to criticize in hindsight.  The force there has to adjust to changing conditions as do the insurgents.  Most US soldiers don't necessarily believe in Iraq but they believe in what they do (they believe they are helping people and making relationships) and want to do it well.  What Cheney said was in 1991.  The times have changed, have they not?  Just because attacking Syria or Iran is not in the cards now doesn't mean it won't be in the future.  Those who quote past statements and apply it to today have to be careful how to use them for they may end up looking naive.

I think I said this before on this blog, but Iraq is just another Yugoslavia. There are no Iraqi people (like there are no Belgian people), there are just Kurds, Sunni and Shia. The only thing left is to split up the country in three separate cultural and religious areas. However, the White Houses seems to differ, alas. And with the Democrats sharing responsibility now, I fear that the Republicans are just letting this one run its course. Actually the Democratic win is like a godsend for the Republicans, because the media cannot attack the Republicans for failing in Iraq now, because that would implicate Pelosi & Co. as well. If a civil war does erupt in Iraq, Western nations have at least a moral obligation to protect the Kurdish regions from invasion. This is a moral obligation, for the sake of all arguments put forth against Saddam and his despotic regime in the last 25 years.

Dick Cheney is an easy fall guy and I think he is the only one in the White House bunch that has any common sense and wisdom. Yet he faithfully stands by Bush as Bush and his stupid generals fight this war like its Vietnam, i.e. tit or tat, instead of going in with overwhelming force ruthlessly imposing a surrender on the enemy.

Those are good questions that Dick Cheney asked and I don't think the "Generals" in the Pentagon or on the ground in Iraq, i.e. who probably never fought a battle but for the battle of the bulge(fat not the Ardennes) or the battle of the form, have a sane clue how to win against Islamic insurgency. They are simply bumbling bureaucrats in uniforms. They need MORE troops, not less as the Dhimmicrats want, to win this war. Anything but total defeat of the enemy is a loss.

Syria and Iraq are supplying the enemy in Iraq with weapons to kill our troops which is an act of war. The "generals" should be clamoring for Bush to authorize attacks against Syria and Iran, but they are timid foolish cowards fearful of world opinion.

Bush is failing in Iraq for lacking the will to win and doing what is necessary to win. The "staying the course" if it meant the status quo is idiotic. If one is not WILLING to WIN, and doing ALL that is necessary to win, then one should not engage in battle.

Cheney apparently was asking the hard questions; yet nobody apparently listened.