Coming so soon after nine eleven, I think the Americans saw getting rid of Saddam as a tangible way of demonstrating to the American people that they could "kick some ass", and I think Iraq was seen as a soft target, despite the intelligence being flawed. I don't think they even considered what they would do with the country if and when Saddam was deposed. They didn't have a plan. They haven't had a good track record in military conflict since WWII. Vietnam was an ugly fiasco in which they did not acquit themselves well. That Bush managed to drag us along on this fool's errand was entirely the fault of Blair and his cabinet IMO. As for our troops being ill equipped, the MOD have a poor track record in this. Equipment was inadequate in the Falklands. Boots, particularly, have always been a problem. Soldiers in the Kuwait conflict were purchasing their own dessert boots because there weren't enough available and in Iraq, standard green issue was being worn by many troops because there was not enough desert camouflage to go round (troops who only had greens we not allowed to meet the PM when he visited, apparently), but of course, most crucially, body armour, armoured vehicles and communications equipment were in dangerously short supply and to my mind it has to be considered to be a criminal act to send troops into war with inadequate protection. I listened to Blair on the radio this morning and I wanted to throw up.