Friday, June 13, 2014

Who Wants To Go Back To War In Iraq?

President Barack Obama is hinting that he might authorize air strikes in Iraq just three years after the last U.S. soldiers left the country after nearly a decade of U.S. military occupation following the 2002 invasion as Islamic radicals continue their march to Baghdad after already seizing control of major parts of the country in a matter of days. The UN reports that there as many as 800,000 refugees, more than double the estimated figure last week after the fighting began in January. It's abundantly clear that American-trained Iraqi forces are unwilling to fight to maintain the country's security. Many choose to abandon their post, change into civilian clothing and flee areas of combat, allowing their weapons and military vehicles to fall into the opposition's hands at the first sign of resistance.

Many of President Obama's critics are blaming him for the mess for failing to work out a permanent security arrangement with the Iraqi government that would have kept an American military presence in the country. The fact is that the original invasion of the country under the leadership of President George W. Bush was a bad decision that was undertaken based on false pretenses, and the conditions of the country have become much worse since the American invasion. The notion that the U.S. could establish a democratically-elected government in Iraq by force never made sense, particularly since its own people are unwilling to fight and die to preserve a democratic-elected government. President Obama shares blame to the extent that he has supported the training and arming of radical Islamists to wage a civil war against neighboring Syria's Assad government. Many of those radicals have flooded into Iraq and have been waging war in the oil-rich country against the American-backed government. The only winners are the military/industrial complex and the oil industry which profit handsomely from Middle East turmoil.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

About 10 years ago, I told some neocon Republican that nation building always results in failure and that we had no business being in Iraq.

Of course, he disagreed.

Hey, neocon, told ya' so.

We completely wasted all the money, lives and national reputation spent in Iraq.

Our Iraqi failure should be a clear sign that we need to downsize the military to a force that is big enough to protect the shore, and no more.

Our expeditionary force is a waste.

Anonymous said...

Gary, this is why I am a fan of the blog. You are a Republican, and I am not, but you call out all politicians, including Republicans, when they deceive.
P.S. I think you mean GWB rather than GHWB...

Gary R. Welsh said...

Thanks for the correction, anon. 8:25. Yes. I did mean "W", although his father was partially to blame for the first was when his ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, "miscommunicated" the Bush administration's position on what would happen if he invaded to Kuwait, contributing to the start of that war.

bryan brown said...

Spot on, Gary. We have tried to export representative democracy as our national creed and found it to be the god that failed. Or did it? Given the trajectory of the past few years, could the goal actually be the toppling of all Arab governments, leaving the middle east a seething sea of angry fundies with small arms and nothing resembling a true military threat to an empire packing drones to protect oil shipments?

Anonymous said...

I was listening to wibc this morning and Garrison and friends were excoriating the President for the impending ISIS takeover in Iraq and they were just furious, as though every American death in Iraq was somehow wasted by a President that failed to keep Iraq in Shia hands. But this is just ridiculous. Nobody saw the ISIS phenomenon coming. These ISIS guys came out of nowhere. And Obama was just honoring his mandate to get us out of the Iraq war, a popularly held position. Anyway, the Bush/Cheney machine put us in that untenable position to begin with and committed a few war crimes along the way. I don’t see how the current President bears any responsibility whatsoever for this mess. And if we had kept troops there they would now be coming under attack as ISIS marches on Baghdad. My personal belief is that we don’t belong in Iraq, ought to continue to stay out of it, and let the chips fall where they may, even if that means Iranian fighters in Iraq. We have very little legitimate business in the middle east requiring military presence. Let the Republicans bellow about our foreign policy. They put us in that mess. And I’m glad we don’t have troops there now. I would never dishonor those American dead and wounded serving us in Iraq. They fought the good fight. But this is a new decade, and we can’t protect Baghdad forevermore. We can’t.

Flogger said...

James Bamford wrote an excellent book, "Pretext for War" concerning the invasion of Iraq, by GWB. The reasons were a series of lies to be blunt, accompanied by a massive propaganda campaign by the Mega-McMedia and the Government.

The NEO-CONs are again beating the War Drums and Obama looking to avoid appearing weak - has said, "some short-term, immediate things that need to be done militarily".

I suppose this means firing off a bunch of Tomahawk missiles at a $1M a piece.

The bottom line is the Wall Street-Security-Military-Industrial Complex will call the shots. This situation will probably give Obama and the NEO-CONs the pretext to bomb Syria.

Marycatherine Barton said...

I saw the ISIS phenomenon coming, and I would bet thousands of dollars that Obama did also.

Marycatherine Barton said...

This has all been done to continue to balkanize and break up the Middle East. One can learn more about this by 'googling' the words "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East", "Power of Israel in the U.S.", and "Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of the Power of the U.S."

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with zionism. This is Shia vs Sunni vs Kurd and its about power, Islam and tribal history. With all due respect none of this has to do with any reorganization of the world order by shadowy Bilderberg types or Rothschilds. Nor is this another of these ridiculous false flag events trotted out by conspiracy theory wing nuts. An expected casualty, however, is that almost every single last Christian family living in Mosul is packing up for good, probably because they don't want to be beheaded.

Pete Boggs said...

War is not a police action; or the pursuit of pyrrhic victories through political & myopic margin tinkering. The managing editor mindset is no substitute for military strategy focused on clear objectives tied to national interests.

War isn't good, but at times may be necessary. The idea that all war can be avoided is a ridiculous assumption that "peace can be achieved" through acquiescence to tyranny & slavery.

Whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq was not itself reason for war. Prior to the Baghdad assault, satellite images revealed a road to Damascus export of probable WMDs, known to exist- because we have the receipts (!!!).

Tony Blankley wrote a book some years back that detailed some of Al Qaeda's training facilities in Iraq; including a DC 10 (think that's the right plane) for tactical takeover, etc.

To the extent we were "in Iraq," we should've extracted repayment in the form of oil. "Winning" at war requires one side to surrender; unacceptable to those who value liberty.

Anonymous said...

Gotta wonder why McCain and others were so hellbent on getting into Syria months ago...Follow the money and contractors...Elections coming...Spins.

Eric Morris said...

And these were the people the USG originally "liberated" from the bad tyrant Saddam: http://news.yahoo.com/kuwait-top-court-jails-activist-over-insulting-emir-144857216.html?pt=tAD4SCT8P7

bryan brown said...

Is this ISIS the same group seeking to overthrow the government of Syria, that is, the same insurgens that Dear Leader and his neocon goons in the GOP wanted to aid and abet last year?