Parky, well said.
But the problems go deeper than what you have written.
Prior to WW1 US foreign policy was very limited and America was basically a political isolationist.
After WW1 the American industrial war capacity wasn't required, a series of natural mid west disasters then the Wall street crash plunged the USA into a recession.
Roosveldt and his party pulled America to the brink of recovery and Pearl Harbour / Declaration of War gave the final push. Post war the US had massive industrial capacity which turned in two directions.
1. Development of military technology to counter the Russian threat - Cold War.
2. Expansion of American diplomacy to counter Communism - but a sort of Pax America.
In the far east, because of the changing world order, China developed militarily and gave support to North Korea (with Russia), Indonesia began local colonial expansion, France failed to regain Vietnam.
Some clever dick in the Pentagon came up with the Domino Theory of Communist expansion and America spent decades supporting dictators who were anti communist. That they butchered their own people was not important in the greater scheme of things. Korea was a UN police action, everyone got involved and stalemate.
This encouraged the USA to send advisors to support the Vietnamese and hello another war.
What is important is that the USA lost in Vietnam and retired to give covert support where it best served American interests. But after Korea the rest of the world had enough which, by default left the USA as world police. After Korea the UN proved to be a total waste of time resolving conflict.
Saddam invades a little state and the UN steps in 90% American.
Just the odd skirmish with US involvement thereafter until Serb/Croat genocide and EUROPE stands back. The US eventually goes in with British assistance and token forces from elsewhere. But where are Germany, France - critiscising.
The pattern of US involvement (except covert) since Vietnam had been military prescence only or hands off. Unfortunately one of the areas it has been totally hands off is Israel. Bin Laden and his terrorists are fanatically anti Israel and realising they could put the fear of god into the USA by random acts of martyrdom brought down the World Trade Centre.
Bearing in mind that during the Gulf War Saddam slung a few rockets into Israel and these were known to be biological capable. Because the UN Inspectors were unable to give Iraq the all clear the worst case scenario was accepted by the CIA etc and MI whatever, not to be outdone, added its bits of mis information.
If you consider the politics of the whole instigation of war, I think there are several aspects to consider.
1.Britain is dependant on the USA for upgrade of our submarine missiles - no upgrade just expensive toys.
2. Britain has a large Muslim population. Immigrants usually vote Labour so there was a potential loss of votes if the case for War wasn't good enough.
3. The USA had been attacked and there had to be an enemy that could be destroyed. A President who can't be re elected, ultra right wing born again Christan, resurgence of God in the USA etc etc. All Bush needed, with control of Senate and Congress, was a plausible excuse and a degree of support. No support, no war.
The removal of Saddam had to happen. Perhaps spurred on by genocide on Serbia and Croatia, the attempted genocide of the Kurds the attack on Kuwait. There was no real way to handle the removal well. The UN imposed sanctions and the Iraqi people suffered.
George HW Bush refused to attack Iraq as it (attack) was contrary to the UN resolution - it should have been done and twenty years of Iraqi suffering would have been averted.
Oh, I know there is the question of oil but its rather a red herring.
So there you have it. 50 years of incorrect foreign policy, 50 years of ineffectual UN, 50 years of Western Europe sitting on the fence and a major conflict, which can't be "won", caused by a bunch of disaffected muslim nutters.
Its a viewpoint.
