You forgot step 0: ban every member of the Ba'ath party from participating in the government, thus ensuring a large supply of insurgents with military experience and access to weapons depots we didn't bother to secure.
Thank you! Paul Brennan will go down in history as a malicious individual who wanted above all to destroy Iraq and it back centuries. Of course, he also wanted to setup the US to profit nicely from the rebuilding efforts but that is a secondary pain.
Bremner, not Brennan; which is odd, because I thought it was Brennan, too. Also, I forgot that he disbanded the army separately from the general de-baathification of the government.
Genius moves all around, the guy was obviously playing 0.3D chess.
Additionally, “With us or against us” isn’t an ideal stance in a region as old and complicated. Oversimplification of complex issues seemed the method of dealing with allies and enemies.
Banning Baath was a very correct decision, were they let them stay, Iraq would've exploded, and boiled over earlier, and more violently.
What was wrong was them failing to deal with Baathists themselves, not the party. Without Baathists question being ever given a final solution, it came to bit them back.
While USA was struggling with rebranded Baathist remnants, actual Saudi backed extremists, and Iranian militias sneaked in, some times even with US own backing, ensuring far bigger troubles to come.
Lastly, what I forgot to mention was US finally look every bit of face, and any rapport it had left with Iraqi population.
US wasn't able to talk to people of Iraq with a straight face at a after around 2007-2008. Then, they resorted to pitting Shia vs. Sunni. It was not a bright idea, and I have no idea why they even came up with it.
