Review of the Iraq Invasion

[BobF]

So why haven't nations decided to go to war against Mugabe and why didn't they invade Uganda to deal with Idi Amin?

I don't know and there is no real way to know either. Times are all different now compered to 2003. The US is now sitting around and no longer threatening other countries. We can not even get enough courage to try to end this Isis takeover of the middle east and other areas. Sort of like we are giving those criminals permission to be as deadly as they wish. Not at all like 10 years or so back when the UN would ask for help and the US and plenty of other countries would respond. Not sure why the UN has not even asked for help this time. What is happening over there these days is a complete disaster for all countries, religions, locations, and UN is not asking for help. I wonder why such a change?

 

[QuickSilver]

Because we have a rational and cool headed leader who prefers to use diplomacy first and force as a last resort? Just a guess.

I believe that most of the world is happy to see the USA showing restraint and deliberation before getting more Americans and Allies killed. I have no doubt that if America or her allies were truly threatened he would have no problem using force.. but he at least looks at a situation with a more deliberative eye than our previous administration.. and I am grateful for that.

 

[Jackie22]

I'm also glad to have a president in the white house that uses restrain and negotiation rather than macho 'rushing in with bombs' techniques.

Here is what President Obama had to say about Iraq just recently that verify's all that QS said and also the Iraqi's unwillingness to fight their own wars. .....

[h=1]Obama Responds To GOPers Who Blame Him For Instability In Iraq[/h]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-republicans-iraq-war-mistakes Obama Responds To GOPers Who Blame Him For Instability In Iraq By Caitlin MacNeal PublishedMay 21, 2015, 12:20 PM EDT In an interview published on Thursday, President Obama responded to Republicans who have recently criticized his decision to withdraw troops from Iraq, arguing that the Iraqi government needs to work for its own security. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg asked Obama about former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's (R) struggle last week to answer whether he would have invaded Iraq given what he knows now. "I’m very clear on the lessons of Iraq. I think it was a mistake for us to go in in the first place, despite the incredible efforts that were made by our men and women in uniform," Obama responded. "Despite that error, those sacrifices allowed the Iraqis to take back their country. That opportunity was squandered by Prime Minister Maliki and the unwillingness to reach out effectively to the Sunni and Kurdish populations." Obama then pivoted to the current situation in Iraq and responded to Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who blamed Obama for the current instability in Iraq. "I know that there are some in Republican quarters who have suggested that I’ve overlearned the mistake of Iraq, and that, in fact, just because the 2003 invasion did not go well doesn’t argue that we shouldn’t go back in," Obama said. "And one lesson that I think is important to draw from what happened is that if the Iraqis themselves are not willing or capable to arrive at the political accommodations necessary to govern, if they are not willing to fight for the security of their country, we cannot do that for them. We can be effective allies." Obama said he is committed to assisting Iraqi security forces to help them secure and stabilize the country. "But we can’t do it for them, and one of the central flaws I think of the decision back in 2003 was the sense that if we simply went in and deposed a dictator, or simply went in and cleared out the bad guys, that somehow peace and prosperity would automatically emerge, and that lesson we should have learned a long time ago," he told The Atlantic. Earlier in the interview, Obama said that he does not believe the U.S. is losing the war against the Islamic State, but said that ISIL's ability to take Iraqi city of Ramadi was a "tactical setback."

 

[BobF]

One of the things that kept Europe from re exploding after WWII was the fact that for many years the US, England, and others stood fast after the truce and help those damaged countries survive and also helped keep interloper types from trying to become takeover types in Europe. Russia was kept in restraints for one. And now, Russia is no longer cruel communist country as it had become. We had enough troops and oversight to help those damaged countries to survive and become independent. We helped them to develop pride in their own governments. And for the most part they are still standing free of any more wars. The overseeing countries did not suppress them at all but were there to help provide stability, rather than more take over wars that Europe seemed to love over so many generations.

Happenings like after WWI did not happen again. It was not really good for the victors of WWI to just run away and allow chaos to recreate. It was because we stayed long enough to help folks to get settled in and not just go back to war attitudes like in Iraq area. We left too soon. We stayed long enough for the country to design its own idea of government and for their elections. Then we just pulled our tails in and ran before the government and people became accustomed to each other. Don't like what is happening in Iraq? It is something we maybe could have avoided if we stayed their longer. No proof of yes or no as it is too late now to make that judgement. The US reputation of being a strong and ready country is likely gone forever. Pretty sad if that is what becomes of the US. Maybe it is time to start learning Chinese.

 

[QuickSilver]

I don't think our reputation of being a strong country is gone. I think the world has breathed a sigh of relief that a man like President Obama will keep a cool head and make deliberate and thought out decisions before committing our blood and treasure.... In addition.. We COULDN'T stay.. The deal to leave when we did was made by Bush and Maliki wouldn't alter it. So.. we left.. AND hopefully... we won't go back in.

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”
But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

 

[BobF]

One country for sure is happy we no longer seem to be a threat to them. Russia has just kept on taking territories as they wish and borders mean little to them these days. They no longer seem to be afraid of the US and warnings from Obama were just ignored by Russia. The Russian troops and equipment seem to be staying where Russia put them last year. The country where Russia is meddling asked for some help, arms, something to resist Russia. But they got nothing at all.

 

[SeaBreeze]

Buying the war, full article and video here. http://billmoyers.com/content/buying-the-war/

The story of how high officials misled the country has been told. But they couldn’t have done it on their own; they needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on.

How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 go largely unreported? “What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked.

How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored,” says Moyers. “How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?”

In 2004, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln wearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner. He was hailed by media stars as a “breathtaking” example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein.

Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House’s claim that the war was won. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews declared, “We’re all neo-cons now;” NPR’s Bob Edwards said, “The war in Iraq is essentially over;” and Fortune magazine’s Jeff Birnbaum said, “It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context.”

“Buying the War” includes interviews with Dan Rather, formerly of CBS; Tim Russert of Meet the Press; Bob Simon of 60 Minutes; Walter Isaacson, former president of CNN; and John Walcott, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers, which was acquired by The McClatchy Company in 2006.

In “Buying the War” Bill Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes document the reporting of Walcott, Landay and Strobel, the Knight Ridder team that burrowed deep into the intelligence agencies to try and determine whether there was any evidence for the Bush Administration’s case for war. “Many of the things that were said about Iraq didn’t make sense,” says Walcott. “And that really prompts you to ask, ‘Wait a minute. Is this true? Does everyone agree that this is true? Does anyone think this is not true?’”

In the run-up to war, skepticism was a rarity among journalists inside the Beltway. Journalist Bob Simon of 60 Minutes, who was based in the Middle East, questioned the reporting he was seeing and reading. “I mean we knew things or suspected things that perhaps the Washington press corps could not suspect.

For example, the absurdity of putting up a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda,” he tells Moyers. “Saddam…was a total control freak. To introduce a wild card like Al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn’t believe it for an instant.”

The program analyzes the stream of unchecked information from administration sources and Iraqi defectors to the mainstream print and broadcast press, which was then seized upon and amplified by an army of pundits.

While almost all the claims would eventually prove to be false, the drumbeat of misinformation about WMDs went virtually unchallenged by the media. The New York Times reported on Iraq’s “worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb,” but according to Landay, claims by the administration about the possibility of nuclear weapons were highly questionable. Yet, his story citing the “lack of hard evidence of Iraqi weapons” got little play.

In fact, throughout the media landscape, stories challenging the official view were often pushed aside while the administration’s claims were given prominence. “From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in the Washington Post making the administration’s case for war,” says Howard Kurtz, the Post’s media critic. “But there was only a handful of stories that ran on the front page that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions.”

“Buying the War” examines the press coverage in the lead-up to the war as evidence of a paradigm shift in the role of journalists in democracy and asks, four years after the invasion, what’s changed? “More and more the media become, I think, common carriers of administration statements and critics of the administration,” says theWashington Post’s Walter Pincus. “We’ve sort of given up being independent on our own.”

 

[BobF]

Well, for me that entire article is just what the far left thinking folks wanted to hear. Otherwise I think some is true and some is exagerated if not totally distorted. Ask some more centered or right thinking and you will get much different stories to hear and believe.

Apparently no one wants to believe that more than George Bush had a hand in the decision to restart the Iraq war some 11 or so years after it had first started. I mentioned Gen Sir Frank more than once, but we never see those comments in the rebuttals, such as this one is.

 

[AZ Jim]

It is clear that NOTHING that doesn't align with Bob's far right conservative views will move him to think anything that isn't in the extreme far right conservative republican play book!! There are other extreme right wing conservative republicans who are equally brainwashed.

 

[BobF]

I am not a far right thinker at all. I see both sides from the same perspective. There are extremist on both sides and i am not one of those extremist as you describe. You seem to fail to see facts as such and just continue to post to the very far left only conclusions. Which means that those that do not agree exactly with you are automatically the very far right thinkers. It just is not so for me or many others that can see good and bad in both extremes. The Iraq war was started by several nations to end the nuclear threats and the personal crimes against the people themselves. I bring forth the people involved but some just do not care about facts as they don't push the far left idea of destroying the US government and turning the US into another European style of government. Nothing wrong with the US Constitional run government as we have had for over 200 years. Longer than any of those European governments and more able to take care of the people at home and lots of places around the world with the open government style of our Constitution, which is being ignored by the current government. Hopefully we can move on to another style of government after the next 18 months have passed. Hillary maybe? Or maybe one of the many others that have indicated their interest in helping to run our government.

I am not a hard left, far left, socialist type that wants to see our government changed to something far less than it is designed to be. I am surprised that some folks can be so one sided that they see nothing good but a very far left socialist idea of government.

 

[WhatInThe]

Saddam was a butt hole. But was it really worth a full scale invasion to get rid of some attitude. No doubt if the nation building had been given time to develop and hold the Iraqi population would've benefited greatly and have been more anxious to defend their country against movements/groups like ISIS. But that would've taken a generation or two. Remember you not only had to convince the population that the US invaded the country for their own good but you had educate a bunch of nomads, farmers, religious groups/sects and status quo about democracy, politics, free trade, capitalism, technology etc. That's about 2 generations worth of work.

They halted the advance in Gulf War I because they knew the implications of nation building and how fragile the peace was with all the different Muslim countries and sects. After Gulf War I when Saddam started wiping out entire villages they had actual war crimes they could've tried him for. But with the lessons of Vietnam fresh in mind and no stomach for a protracted war the politicians did not push the most legitimate opportunity they had.

 

[tnthomas]

As a Vietnam veteran, I developed a keen sense for detecting governmental lies and deceptions. During the Irag war sales pitch my 'radar' was going off the charts.

The whole Bush-Cheney crowd should be tried for treason and mass murder of the 5000+ U.S. military personnel and thousands of Iraqis that were sacrificed for the financial enrichment of the corporate interests that were represented by the Bush regime.

 

[WhatInThe]

There was stink on the first Gulf War including the Iraqis taking babies out of their incubators which included a lying teenage Kuwaiti girl testalying about those alleged atrocities.

http://www.americanussr.com/american-ussr-premature-kuwaiti-baby-death-lies.htm

Again, Saddam was a butt hole but messing with babies? Even he wasn't that stupid as much as the brutal sociopath he was. Was his invasion necessary, no. Sometimes I wonder if that was orchestrated on a much smaller scale to get us used to the idea of dealing in the middle east.

Also by leaving Saddam alive/in power after Desert Storn it sets the stage and gives us an excuse for a return visit.

 

[BobF]

It was not just the US involved but some just keep insisting it was only the US. Such a sad way to look at what was actually an international, UN type of thing. My son and daughter both did service in Iraq. My son also did service in a European hot spot, why are we not making up lies about that place too? Over near Yugoslavia.

 

[AZ Jim]

It was not just the US involved but some just keep insisting it was only the US. Such a sad way to look at what was actually an international, UN type of thing. My son and daughter both did service in Iraq. My son also did service in a European hot spot, why are we not making up lies about that place too? Over near Yugoslavia.

I have no idea what anything your son did anywhere has anything to do with this issue. We had the overwhelming majority of troops in Iraq not to mention the huge preponderance of equipment and armaments. We "lead" the war. To suggest that others were as involved as the US is naive.

 

[BobF]

It was not just the US that laid military on to the location of Iraq. It was actually a number of countries from around the world that stood up against the Iraq ways of killing numbers of it's citizens and for threatening to destroy other nations with there weapons. It was not just the US that had attacked Iraq.
................................................

An English General that totally dislikes G Bush said the extension of the Iraq war was legitimate after 10 years of Saddams defiance of the UN and the surrender terms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html

Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a 'second' resolution.

Note: I will need to correct this connection comment to make it correct. So away I go to just do that.

I now add this link to Gen Sir Mike Jackson report

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html

Gen Sir Mike Jackson attacks US over Iraq


By Con Coughlin and Neil Tweedie

12:01AM BST 01 Sep 2007

.
.
.
Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a 'second' resolution.
.
.
.

Not sure what is happening here. More than once I have posted the link I am using but it does not seem to work properly.

 

[911]

As a Vietnam veteran, I developed a keen sense for detecting governmental lies and deceptions. During the Irag war sales pitch my 'radar' was going off the charts.

The whole Bush-Cheney crowd should be tried for treason and mass murder of the 5000+ U.S. military personnel and thousands of Iraqis that were sacrificed for the financial enrichment of the corporate interests that were represented by the Bush regime.

If you are going to do that, then include Kennedy and Johnson for their efforts to expand the Vietnam War. We should never have been there to begin with let alone having these two Presidents escalate it to the tune of 50,000+ GI lost lives. These two wars almost paralleled themselves politically. I have always believed that each President does what he needs to do to keep the fighting from happening here at home.

 

[AZ Jim]

No one is disputing there were other countries. The fact is we convinced the UN to call for the coalition and we were the main troop and equipment supplier not to mention what it cost us financially. When you look at the other nations involved also look at their withdrawal dates.

Country	Deaths	Reference(s)
United States	4,486	[SUP][131][/SUP]
United Kingdom	179	[SUP][132][/SUP]
Italy	33	[SUP][133][/SUP]
Poland	23	[SUP][134][/SUP]
Ukraine	18	[SUP][135][/SUP]
Bulgaria	13	[SUP][136][/SUP]
Spain	11	[SUP][137][/SUP]
Denmark	7	[SUP][138][/SUP]
El Salvador	5	[SUP][139][/SUP]
Georgia	5	[SUP][140][/SUP]
Slovakia	4	[SUP][141][/SUP]
Latvia	3	[SUP][142][/SUP]
Romania	3	[SUP][143][/SUP]
Estonia	2	[SUP][144][/SUP]
Thailand	2	[SUP][145][/SUP]
Australia	2	[SUP][146][/SUP]
Netherlands	2	[SUP][147][/SUP]
Kazakhstan	1	[SUP][148][/SUP]
South Korea	1	[SUP][149][/SUP]
Hungary	1	[SUP][150][/SUP]

Coalition fatalities

[h=2][/h]

 

[AZ Jim]

If you are going to do that, then include Kennedy and Johnson for their efforts to expand the Vietnam War. We should never have been there to begin with let alone having these two Presidents escalate it to the tune of 50,000+ GI lost lives. These two wars almost paralleled themselves politically. I have always believed that each President does what he needs to do to keep the fighting from happening here at home.

If you are going to do that then also include Eisenhower who sent in the very first "observers" in April 1954. To suggest that every President was only interested in keeping the battles out of America is to ignore our quest for oil among other considerations.

 

[BobF]

As I said before, it was the UN that really started activities against Saddam and his wild ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the Iraqi Republic. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power),[SUP][1][/SUP] and persisted in part, including reparations to Kuwait, through the present.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4]
[/SUP]
[SUP]The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction.[/SUP]

[SUP]Initially the UN Security Council imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq by adopting and enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 661.[SUP][5][/SUP] After the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, those sanctions were extended and elaborated on, including linkage to removal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by Resolution 687.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs, whose import into Iraq was tightly regulated.[SUP][5][/SUP]

.....................

And then followed the many countries that joined together to force Saddam to surrender his tactics against the world but did not depose him yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
[/SUP]
The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), codenamed Operation Desert Shield (2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991) for operations leading to the buildup of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia and Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) in its combat phase, was a war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.
...................

The UN started all this effort against Saddam and then the US help a group of countries to join together to help defeat Iraqs aggression, which was done in general. But Saddam refused to end his power weapons activities and continued attacking his people by whippings, pushing off walls to kill prisoners, gas attacks on small villages, and so forth. So finally after more than 10 years of this wild and merciless handling of people under his control. Gen Sir Mike Jackson, I hope I have it correct this time, encouraged the new military effort and this time to take over of Iraq and elimination of Saddam. This did happen and Saddam was then tried by the Iraq courts and then hanged.

We should have stayed over as we did in Europe after WWII and in Japan too. This gave the people time to establish their personal government and reduced the possibility of radical upstarts taking over. Quitting and leaving right away was a big mistake from the beginning.

 

[SeaBreeze]

A side note on our troops withdrawing from Iraq: Just last night I heard once again from a host of a conservative talk show that Obama was at fault for pulling out our troops, he should have kept them there. Obama had no choice but to leave, the decision was made by the Iraqi government, and indirectly by GW Bush. http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

President Barack Obama’s announcement on Friday that all 40,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq will leave the country by New Year’s Eve will, inevitably, draw howls of derision from GOP presidential hopefuls — this is, after all, early election season. But the decision to leave Iraq by that date was not actually taken by President Obama — it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it.

While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it.

Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal.

The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

The Iraq that U.S. forces will leave behind is far from stable, and the mounting tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia could well see a renewed flare-up of Iraq’s disastrous sectarian civil war. A jihadist Sunni insurgency has reasserted itself in recent months with a steady uptick in terror attacks, and it could become a vehicle for Saudi proxy warfare against Iran, which backs the Maliki government and various Shi’ite political and military formations, including Sadr’s. Kurdish-Arab tensions are growing in the north, where the fate of such contested cities as Kirkuk remains unresolved and a source of mounting security danger. Iraq’s political future, also, remains contested, with sectarian and ethnic rivalries reflected in the continued failure to pass a low regulating the sharing of oil revenues, and mounting anxiety over the increasingly authoritarian approach of Prime Minister Maliki.

Iraq could yet fail as a state. But it’s not as if the presence of 40,000 U.S. troops has been all that’s holding it together: Those forces no longer patrol Iraq’s cities, and are mostly involved in mentoring Iraqi units, although they have played a major role in mediating Arab-Kurdish conflicts in the north.
Given the unresolved political conflicts that continue to plague the country even after its transition to democratic government — and in light of the rising levels of regional tension — chances are high that the U.S. withdrawal will be preceded and followed by a sharp uptick in violence. Shi’ite insurgent groups are likely to escalate attacks on U.S. forces, hoping to claim credit for driving out the Americans — and, no doubt, to please their Iranian backers. Sunni insurgent groups are likely to raise their own game, in order to challenge the Shi’ite dominated government and demonstrate its inability to ensure security — an exercise that will suit the agenda of their own backers.

The key to ensuring security after a U.S. withdrawal has always been achieving a regional consensus on Iraq that could set the terms for political compromise inside Iraq — or, at least, limit the likelihood of renewed violence. Unfortunately, instead, that withdrawal coincides with a sharp escalation in the Saudi-Iranin cold war.

Not that the U.S. will be out of the picture, by any stretch of the imagination. As things stand, the U.S. embassy in Iraq will have 17,000 employees — including at least 5,000 “security contractors”, i.e. non-uniformed military personnel. It’s not hard to imagine that future training needs of the Iraqi military will be undertaken by privateers rather than under the auspices of the Pentagon. And that the CIA — now under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, former U.S. commander in Iraq — will play a more active role in pursuing U.S. objectives on the ground and in the neighborhood.

But as of December 31, no more American soldiers will be doing tours of duty in Iraq. The war that ousted Saddam Hussein, unleashing an insurgency that left 4,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and which will cost the U.S. upwards of $1 trillion, is finally over. Historians will note that the U.S. invasion of Iraq precipitated dramatic changes across the Middle East political landscape in the ensuing decade. But many of those changes were hardly the ones the war’s authors had in mind.

 

[BobF]

Thank you SeaBreeze, a very detailed and exact post. What is obvious is the mind set of the earlier government that expected more co operation from the Iran government. But that all fell apart shortly after Bush left and Obama got the challange. That Iranian lead pretty much decided no more of the centrist types and no more of the Sunni types as the Shia seem to be trying to take over much of Iraq rather than just share the government for the people as was intended in the beginning debates and the way their new government had been set up. With what is happening now it is bad and with the newest way out bunch that is attempting to take over the entire middle east area, nothing will ever work as planned. It will be a killing and unsafe place to be in for many years to go. What had hopes of being a good democratic set up has now failed. Saddam and his hateful way of government is gone but soon to be replaced by an even more cruel form of religious government.

For clarification, I do not see this to be all Obama's fault as some may say. This latest bunch trying to make all the nations follow their twisted rules, is the real problem. Maybe down stream a bit we, with many other nations, may have to agree to fight to defend our ways from those killing types now attempting to rearrange the worlds religious plans to what they think is the only way to go.

 

[SeaBreeze]

More repeated complaints about Obama withdrawing our troops from Iraq, when it was not his choice. Senator Lindsey Graham still moaning the same old song, of course he wants to put 10,000 more of our troops on the ground there. Can we say war hawks?

 

[BobF]

More repeated complaints about Obama withdrawing our troops from Iraq, when it was not his choice. Senator Lindsey Graham still moaning the same old song, of course he wants to put 10,000 more of our troops on the ground there. Can we say war hawks?

Is Graham a war hawk? I just listened to his speech and from what he spoke of I would say no. He is not a war hawk but he definitely is against our having pulled out of Iraq when we did and apparently did not have too. He is mostly wanting to put our troops back to the level he wishes they had stayed and believe that would have kept the nasty groups over there from becoming so strong and ready to kill for their joy. I would suggest relistening to his responses to that news caster questions. Pretty direct answers to the problems we have now where once we, the US and many other UN nations efforts, were controlling much of the area.

 

[SeaBreeze]

But we did have to pull out, Obama had no choice. The decision was made by GW Bush indirectly and the Iraqi Government, I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand, unless of course they are just in denial and don't want to hear the truth.

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.


As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions.

Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.



Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections.

Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.”

Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

​

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there.

The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along.

So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Some critics assert that the administration was unwilling to offer enough forces to make it worth the Iraqis’ while. But it is not clear Maliki wanted that many troops. Indeed, he was conscious of the extreme unpopularity of a continued U.S. presence among his Shia base, and he had no interest in a sizable U.S. contingent along the Arab-Kurd divide, which is what all of our military’s troop options above the 10,000-man threshold assumed. These disputed boundary areas include Kirkuk as well as parts of Nineveh province north of Mosul and portions of Diyala province—precisely where jihadists are making inroads today.

Others claim the administration spent more time negotiating with itself than it did trying to get a deal from the Iraqis. Perhaps. But, in the end, the immunities issue would likely not have been resolved even if the administration had started negotiations earlier and offered more. There was little the administration could have offered or threatened to change their calculations. It was simply too toxic, politically, for Iraqi politicians to accept.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/no-obama-didnt-lose-iraq-107874.html#ixzz3d5bdIdLh