In the wake of the ISIS War in Iraq, Pentagon officials will tell you
what they’ve been saying all along, that America’s intention is to stay
in Iraq, and that there is no consideration being given to leaving. It’s
not clear the US has spoken to the Iraqi government about this,
however.
While many Iraqis accepted the offer of help in the more desperate
moments of the ISIS War, the US military has quickly worn out its
welcome. Across a number of major political blocs in Iraq, there is growing consensus that the US, and indeed all foreign military forces, need to go.
This has been brewing for months. The Iraqis saw Trump’s visit to Iraq,
during which he didn’t meet the Iraqi PM, as a sign of disrespect. That
the Pentagon keeps insisting they’re staying in Iraq, without asking the
Iraqis, only adds to the sense that the US isn’t really an invited
guest in any real sense.
Hawks are already trying to spin this, as with everything else that
doesn’t go America’s way in Iraq, as Iran’s fault. Iraq’s political
scene is dominated by Shi’ite parties, and US officials have plenty of
practice pretending that Shi’ite is just a fancy word for “Iranian”
these days.
Yet this underpins one of the major reasons the US is on the outs with
so much of the Iraqi parliament. US hostility toward Iran has meant
practical hostility toward Iraqi Shi’ite militias who fought against
ISIS and enjoy strong support from the Iraqi government. US ultimatums
to disarm militias that are practically part of the Iraqi government
have always come with the implied threat of the US leaving, when they
never had any intention of doing so.
And now, when hostility to the Shi’ite militias has turned parliament
against them, US hawks are still trying to spin this as proof of an Iran
problem, In reality, the US and Iran have been backing the same parties
in Iraq since 2003, and US discomfort with that fact has been
consistently undermining their goals.
Iraq more or less evicted the U.S. over their Status-of-Forces Agreement quibble back in 2011.
… Guess there’s possibly a sudden and miraculous resurrection of the IS this Easter, though there can’t be much left to resurrect.
https://www. washingtonpost. com/world/as-the-caliphate-crumbles-the-islamic-state-is-seeding-a-new-insurgency/2019/03/06/96503d5e-2fae-11e9-8781-763619f12cb4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4e360ea9a0bc
Syria, Russia Iran and Iraq have their own information-sharing agreement, which makes things interesting. The U.S. won’t leave quietly with the 4+1 (Hezbollah) in place.
https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria%E2%80%93Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_coalition
“Iraq more or less evicted the U.S. over their Status-of-Forces Agreement quibble back in 2011.”
Indeed and if President Obama had not ordered that “eviction” we would have been legally at war with Iraq.
Now El Sadr has had enough of us and his party dominates the Parliament of Iraq.
Leaving Iraq removes the Iraq-Afghanistan squeeze on Iran
If the Parliament of Iraq demands that our forces must leave and the Trump administration refuses we would be at war not in but with Iraq again. My guess is that this would immediately be challenged in the UN.
The present Iraq government would no more officially declare war against the U.S. than Syria’s government.
Should be interesting to see what happens. Iran does not seem particularly squeezed by the U.S. presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The trade/financial war is doing the most damage, yet the U.S. recently condescended to grant Iraq a waiver to continue to import power from Iran.
https://www. reuters. com/article/us-iran-sanctions-iraq-idUSKCN1R11IY
Maybe it looks like Iran is surrounded by hostile bases on a map, but then Russia is ringed by NATO bases to small real effect as well.
Thanks for your comments.
To be in a state of war that war does not have to be officially declared. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union it did not declare war, it just attacked and so did Japan at Pearl Harbor. Hence, if we leave armed forces in Iraq against the command of that government we are committing an act of war hence are at a state of war with Iraq.
Yes, both Iran and Russia are ringed by NATO bases. The difference is that Russia has a nuclear arsenal.
“When Germany invaded the Soviet Union it did not declare war, it just attacked and so did Japan at Pearl Harbor.”
Actually, Japan declared war on the US effective a few minutes before the attack on Pearl Harbor and instructed its ambassador to deliver that declaration. However, due to a miscommunication, the ambassador got the time wrong and did not inform the US until after the Pearl Harbor attack.
Thanks Thomas
I did not know that about Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, we were attacked before we got their declaration hence were at war at the time when the ambassador handed the declaration to whomever (Secretary of State?).
I also understand that Hitler declared war on us before FDR responded.
A state of war legally is an on-off switch. Once official armed forces engage in anger, then the parties are officially at war.
When the U.S. invaded Syria, the Syrians chose not to respond militarily but instead protested the violation of their sovereignty diplomatically.
The rules of war are a little muddled in that the aggressor is the one who uses armed force first. The U.S. infiltrated Syria unopposed with the collusion of the Syrian Kurds, and has been careful not to engage SAA troops.
http://www. bbc. co. uk/ethics/war/overview/aggressor.shtml
The U.S. might react to a SAA armed response to evict them by claiming the U.S. was going after the Islamic State, and accuse Syria of siding with terrorism, which then justifies a war against the Syrian government. However, the U.S. would clearly be legally the aggressor if they shot at Syrian troops first.
Its not worth it for either The U.S. legally (lose the peace) or Syrian government materially (lose the war) to officially be at war.
Iraq is the same deal, except, the presence of popular militias that are not officially part of the government forces complicating things.
The U.S. has tried to integrate private popular Iraqi militias into the official armed forces likely for more than just civilized appearances. Once part of the official military, Iraqi popular militias can be legally held to account as official government forces.
If Uncle Sam doesn’t like the fact that Shia political parties dominate politics in Iraq he shouldn’t have kicked out Saddam.
My take:
Stop with the “Uncle Sam” talk. The same as using “America”, it allows the real perps to hide behind the curtain of that anonymizing noun. Name the names: Cheney, Bush 2, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Frum, and the rest of the Neocon crew, all working on behalf of criminal Zionism.
Cheney wanted Saddam gone for Halliburton & oil reasons, and he found it easy to persuade W, because W had “father issues”. Everyone considered “Poppy” Bush the better man. W thought booting Saddam, would fix “Poppy’s” failure, the problem” that “Poppy” had left behind, and make him, W, the better man, smarter and stronger than his daddy.
Cheney was wrong, W was wrong, the Neocons were wrong, and the Oded Yinon plan suffered an unforseen glitch. Now the Shia Arc extends from the Iran/Pakistan border to the Mediterranean.
Cost to the Zionist criminals: $0. Cost to the US: 5 trillion dollars and 5,000 lives. What a bargain!
The best laid plans of mice and Neocons…
Shia also happen to be a vast majority if Iraqi population. Sunnis are divided between Arabs and Kurds, and their differing interests insure that Sunni block is not effective. Especially after ISIS takeover of largely Sunni areas, many Sunni tribal leaders out of a dire necessity ended up turning blind eye to ISIS recruitment in their areas. This hasvweakened their hand even more with bith Shua and Kurds.
Whoever first conceived ISIS menace, has the distinction of the politically most stupid person(s). For somebody did — even though Saudis and Gulf paid through their nose. When it first sprung in the scene with carefully coreographed sicial nedia pictures of creatures from Star Wars-ish images of bad guys, and their propaganda videos — all advocating a return to the “golden” age of caliphates, and “true Islam”, Salafi style. Strangely enough, they quickly took the Sunni parts of Iraq and Syria — and stage was set for partition of both. The idea of Sunnis having their state in the region, permanently dividing Shia Iraq from Shia-Christian Syria. And with independent Kurds, separating Turkey from both Syria and Iraq.
Well, the best laud plans of mice and men dud go awry. Big time. While Netanyahu saw nothing bad in ISIS flag over Damascus, and Gulf states controlling ISIS — all sermed logical. To zealotic minds, who tend to think that they can bend the unuverse to their will, ss they seem to have the special line to God’s ear.
Yet, it backfired, in Iraq, Kurdsand Shia found themselves in the same side, with Iranians. To Sunnis, USUS wereappistates, as they broke many Sunni Sharia laws to suit their ends. Barbarism if ISIS may have kept populace scared and obedient, but it taught nany governmenrs in the region a most valuable lesson. Play with fire, and you will get burned. Iraq asked US back to help. But help was not the kind they asked for. Every time Iraqi military went into action on the basis of US intellugence, they suffered heavy losses, their soldiers executed to provide graphjc evudence to Iraqi army not to fight, to desert the army. It turned around knly after Iraq, Iran and Russia opened intelligence sharing center in Baghdad.
The US enemies in Iraq were backed by Saudi Arabia and our Gulf “allies.” They would not even open embassies to the US-created puppet government.
Meanwhile, Iran helped the same groups we did, and opened an embassy to our puppet government. Of course, we arrested some of their diplomats as “terrorists” for their work with our own puppet government — they got in our way.
The complete nonsense and blatant dishonesty runs deep, and always has from the beginning when there were no WMD’s and the the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and Iran also helped us against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
and even if there were nuke WMDs, what about Iraq’s neighbor with the massive nuclear arsenal?
Iraq doesn’t decide when ‘Murica leaves. ‘Murica may never leave.
Moqtadr al Sadr may beg to differ.
I like to see them try to implement this eviction.
Legally, they shouldn’t have to, without authority to be there, the US government should have the civility to remove themselves.
Empire and civility don’t mix in the same sentence.
Cough… cough… wheezee…
OK, but that U.S. government civility thing? Trump is still POTUS.
Throw the bums out.
Hopefully they have the balls to kick the US out of Iraq…..otherwise their country will continue to be used as a launching pad for US aggression against Iraq`s neighbors.