I hear a lot of Obama blaming lately about leaving a vacuum of power here and there for evil to rush in but isn't non-intervention and

LOL...  Not with a ten foot pole, eh?

Hah! Purrrrrrrrrrrrfect

(its dictator)
No apostrophe.

My abject apologies, sir.  I really do know that.  :)

(object)

One of the definitions of "abject" is "cringing."  I cringed when I realized I made a mistake when I knew better.

I'm pretty sure the power vacuum means what resulted from killing Saddam Hussein and his two sons.  As bad as Hussein was, he kept a lid on a tinderbox.  Once he was out, having no leader caused that vacuum and destabilized Iraq and emboldened Iran.  Hamid Karzai became the Iraqi leader and he stole the U.S. blind. 

Karzai was the Afghani president.

Crap...that slipped with by me. Off the top of me head, I don;t remember who the NEXT Iraqi leader was

Ha!  I only recall Karzai because he had previously been a consultant to Unocal who, incidentally  (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), couldn't build their pipeline across Afghanistan under the Taliban, but got the OK under Karzai.

Paul Bremer was appointed to lead the Coalition Authority in Iraq the first year.  I have no idea who the first Iraqi to lead the country was after Bremer. This post was edited by Bozette at April 21, 2017 4:50 AM MDT

28 June, 2004 <!-- E IBOX --> US hands over power to interim government
Two days ahead of schedule the USled coalition formally hands over power in Iraq. At a lowkey ceremony in Baghdad Paul Bremer transfers sovereignty to an Iraqi judge before leaving the country. Hours later Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his cabinet are sworn in.

7 April, 2005 <!-- E IBOX --> Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani sworn in as the new interim president 7 April, 2005 <!-- E IBOX --> Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani sworn in as the new interim president 22 April, 2006 <!-- E IBOX --> President Jalal Talabani asks Shia politician Nouri Maliki to form government
http://answermug.com/forums/topic/28091/i-hear-a-lot-of-obama-blaming-lately-about-leaving-a-vacuum-of-p/view/post_id/252434/page/1
This is a very interesting timeline (via the BBC) of events in Iraq.

Even more interesting, I checked last night and Lt. Gen. Jay Garner actually preceded Bremer...for a very short time, from April 21-May 12, 2003. Hmmm.

When Garner was replaced in his role by Paul Bremer on May 11, 2003, there was quite a bit of speculation as to why he was replaced so abruptly. It has been suggested that Garner was moved aside because he did not agree with the White House about who should decide how to reconstruct Iraq. He wanted early elections—90 days after the fall of Baghdad—and the new government to decide how to run the country and what to do with its assets. Garner said "I don't think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people. It's their country ... their oil."[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Garner

I had no recollection of Garner at all.  Cheney saw this Iraq invasion as a way to take over the oil, plain and simple - I don't care what anyone says, and Bush went along with it lock, stock and barrel. 

The reason we were successful in rebuilding Europe after WWII was, in my opinion, because we were dealing with people who basically had the same westernized ideas and way of life as we did.  There is no way we could have the same success in the Middle East because of the vast differences in our approach to a way of life.  Democracy and Islam are mutually exclusive.  In Afghanistan the greatest percentage of its population is illiterate.  We have been training these troops for more than ten years and they still cannot stand up for themselves against the much smaller groups like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ISIS.  In ten years, we should have been able to teach everyone in the world how to read and make them literate enough to be able to use and maintain the war materiel we have provided them. 

Frankly, I don't care if those people live in caves for the rest of their lives.  I'd be delighted to get the hell out of there and let them live however they want.  Let them live under the yolk of oppression - not my problem. 

I largely agree with you.  I have delved pretty deeply into who benefitted and how from events over the past 16 years...oil is a huge part of it, but it was not exclusively oil.  

Our cultures are far too different, and we have no right to try and impose ours upon anyone anyway.  Our reason for being there has absolutely nothing to do with democracy or humanitarian purposes.  

The worse part is that we benefitted very poorly in terms of securing their oil for ourselves. 

I agree that we have no business telling everyone else how to live.  What's good for us isn't necessarily good for anyone else. 

Yes and no.  Just as America, unlike previous empires, does not overtly "conquer" and absorb other nations/territories today, we effectively do so by the 800-1,000 military installations worldwide.  With oil, it isn't necessary to outright steal it.  Our primary export today is the petrodollar, which also includes investments in America to recycle the excess.  Saddam had begun selling Iraq's oil for euros, rather than dollars.  Later, Qaddafi sold for dinars rather than dollars (and was working to get all of Africa on the dinar).  Needless to say, today, both countries are again selling in dollars.  In 2003, Big Oil's earnings more than doubled.  So while it didn't benefit a great many Americans, it greatly benefited those with oil stocks...and defense stocks.  

Once again, a fantastic response.  Thank you.

Thanks for the correction.  I had a feeling I was wrong. :)

Well that wasn't Obie was it?  Thanks Dubya