12 years ago, the US invaded Iraq, falsely claiming an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program, and 9/11 as pretexts. Like most American wars, it was supposed to be a cakewalk, a quick regime change and being “greeted as liberators.” Like most American wars, it didn’t turn out that way.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey took part in the 1991 Iraq War and the 2003 Iraq War, and today marveled at the sense of “deja-vu” he is experiencing as the US builds up for another protracted war in Iraq.
Gen. Dempsey insisted he didn’t expect the US military to be active in Iraq by now, something most officials can probably relate to. The “easy” wars have added up into a single, protracted disaster.
Dempsey and other Pentagon officials are trying to play up lessons learned in the past failures, but they again warn that the whole thing hinges on some sort of unity between Iraq’s Shi’ite and Sunni populations, something the US has proven time and again to be unable to pull off.
All three significant words in GWoT scream 'eternal.' I don't know everything, but there was damn well no ambiguity in the intent to string military activity on ad infinitum. Dempsey is not that stupid…there's no shortage of obvious character issues among people who went along at the beginning.
—–
Telling ya. Writing about 'wmd' needs to stay fairly specific. There were specific insinuations about anthrax, and I believe sarin, etc. 'WMD' is a sensational/propaganda term intended to expand to include any scary sounding contraband the public might shiver over. CBR, however, when spoken, provides both an inventory of claims to check on and a limit to how much the term could expand to include–hence is not quite the authoritarian brand name for something to screw folks on. Of the two, the latter is how sane people speak and expect to be spoken to. The former is how one speaks when the goal is to sick fools on their betters.
All three significant words in GWoT scream 'eternal.' There was no (genuine) ambiguity in the intent to string military activity on ad infinitum. Dempsey is not that stupid…there's no shortage of obvious character issues among people who went along at the beginning.
—–
Telling ya. Writing about 'wmd' needs to stay fairly specific. There were specific insinuations about anthrax, and I believe sarin, etc. 'WMD' is a sensational/propaganda term intended to expand to include any scary sounding contraband the public might shiver over. CBR, however, when spoken, provides both an inventory of claims to check on and a limit to how much the term could expand to include–hence is not quite the authoritarian brand name for something to screw folks on. Of the two, the latter is how sane people speak and expect to be spoken to. The former is how one speaks when the goal is to sick fools on their betters.
12 years later and those who started the illegal Iraq war still free and not been prosecuted, nor any prosecutor from justice department or fir that matter in Europe hade any courage to act. This because of a fake democracy manipulated by fake people whom advocate that democracy rules the country while their supporters are the very same people who supports ISIS. They know who they are and very well known by people at antiwar.com
Another asshole general with a lot of medals pinned to his hide.
im am eagerly awaiting in the next few year some american politician saying
"we have to back al qaeda because of 9.11"
Isn't that what they were doing in Syria for awhile?
If I'm not mistaken Dempsey was among those warning about pulling out of Iraq too soon would mean we would have to go back again. It's too bad Obama didn't stick around Iraq with reduced forces, concentrate on Health Care, Guantanamo and Iran, he'd have had a more successful Presidency. Like those others, he's 'pissed' his goodwill opportunities and Iraq, up against the white house fence.
"It's too bad Obama didn't stick around Iraq with reduced forces…."
He tried to. Contrary to his constituency's (and probably most Americans') desires, as well as his campaign promises (and, indeed, the whole raison d'etre of his campaign), he not only followed the withdrawal timetable negotiated by Bush in the 2008 SOFA with Iraq, but tried to get a new SOFA before it ran out at then end of 2011. Obama, listening to the hawks in his Administration (Hillary, Panetta, etc), tried to keep several thousand troops in country. He was willing to have them officially designated as "non combat trainers" to appease the Iraqis. But the Iraqi parliament was not likely to approve judicial immunity for the troops. Maliki, at one point, offered to do an Executive Agreement and bypass parliament, but Maliki's own advisors, as well as the speaker of the Iraqi parliament, and the USA's own lawyers, were dubious about immunity not approved by the Sh'ite governing majority in parliament (as the Bush SOFA, including its immunity provisions, were).
Furthermore, Maliki was not willing to make whatever other compromises that might have been demanded by the non Sh'ites of him to get a SOFA/immunity package through parliament without the approval of all the Sh'ites (echoes of the main article, which shows Maliki still unwilling to bridge the sectarian divide). Obama, quite rightly, did not want to be left holding the bag if some Iraqi prosecutors and judges refused to honor an non parliamentary grant of immunity. Ambassador Jeffrey, high DoD official Kahl, and then SoD Panetta laid all of this out at the time (late 2011).
Still, a review of the media from 2011, as well as Juan Cole (who wished Obama had stuck to his original position, even though he predicted further Sunni insurgency in this failed state), and all the actors on the ground, including Maliki himself, make it clear that it was indeed the immunity issue that was the sticking point in 2011, and that, without it, Obama would have made the deal.
Personally, I agree with Cole. And, to an extent, with what Dempsey is saying now. The truth is Iraq was smashed apart by the US invasions. Saddam, say what you want about him, kept the lid on sectarian violence. We knocked him out, and his government and regime. And set about constructing a Sh'ite dominated regime to replace it. Since then, we have the recurring situation of Sunni insurgents (Baathist, AQ in M, now ISIS) battling the Sh'ite regime in Baghdad, with the Kurds paying lip service to the "national" government but basically running their own mini state as if it were independent. And we will continue to have that, unless and until there is a general political settlement or a new strong man resurrects something like the Saddam regime. And the presence of a few, or more, thousand, American troops would not make any difference to the basic situation.
Overall, yes, focusing on domestic issues, ending the war on terror, and its accompanying civil liberties disasters like Gitmo, as well as making peace with Iran, would have been better than the course Obama chose. Still, I think it is a mistake to think that he blew it on Iraq, nor that he could have done any different.
Well gosh, no one of any worth, wisdom, or value saw any of it coming. Just those usual Freedom-hating Muslim-loving anti-war idiots mucking things up, and who cares what they say? They're always wrong, even when they're right. We would have won if the stupid bleeding heart anti-war idiot girly-men would have stuck with the plan. Just like 'Nam, man. fkin hippies.
"Again warn that the whole thing hinges on some sort of unity between Iraq’s Shi’ite and Sunni populations, something the US has proven time and again to be unable to pull off."?!
It is the US has created disunity and conflicts in Iraq in the first place.It created and unleashed the sectarian death squads ,and the sectarian government that forever dividing Iraqis.The US has set the whole place ablaze.