http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3613473.stm


I think the events so far after the inasion of Iraq show the US officials didn't even put enough thought into the whole process. Did they just think, "Oh, let's invade Iraq now. We'll deal about problems later when they surface." If they didn't expect this kind of a lawlessness, they are unfit to even fight a war.

And what could be the reason for such dissent and opposition to the coalition?

One prime reason seems to be the widespread hatred towards the US.

Secondly even after Saddam was defeated, the infrastructure seems to be improving at a very slow pace. I think lack of planning in the post-war activities is squarely to be blamed for this. Probably the US expected the people of Iraq to understand, digest and implement a completely different form of rule overnight?

Thirdly now that Saddam is gone, several parties and people are staking a claim to the power. How many really are worthy to assume power? How many really want to bring Iraq back on the track of economic development? There's no way of verifying this, except to have a trial and error method. And once a government is elected in Iraq, it might just be a dictatorship under the guise of democracy. Then it might be worse than Saddam's rule.

Fourthly, as the article above suggests, the US is probably acting like a trigger-happy cowboy, eager for action and short on patience. Again because there was no planning or no thought put into any eventuality like this, and more likely the local commanders don't know what's the best course of action to take, and their mentors in the US thought this would never happen?

.