There are remarkably few positive things to say about Iraq today. The country seems to be in perpetual upheaval since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Dozens of people were killed across Iraq just days ahead of the start of the holy month of Ramadan, and more will probably lose their lives in the coming few days when insurgents typically step up their attacks. Yet the Obama administration has recently announced that the U.S. is "on target to end the combat mission." The U.S. government plans to withdraw its combat troops by the end of August and to remove all troops by the end of 2011.
But Iraq's most senior military officer, Lieutenant General Babaker Zebari, said that his forces, particularly the air force, were not ready to take over, cautioning that his security forces will not be able to secure the country until 2020.
The country has been facing many domestic challenges, such as a period of Sunni Arab insurgency, bloody attacks by al-Qaeda, confrontations with al-Sadr militias, and the ongoing tensions between various political factions; however, it's Iraq's vulnerability to neighboring countries that Zebari was alluding to.
"If America withdraws its forces and one of the neighboring countries causes problems, then we're going to have a problem," Zebari said.
Meanwhile, in an interview with the British newspaper The Guardian last week,
Saddam Hussein's former deputy Tareq Aziz warned about a U.S. withdrawal and accused Barack Obama of "leaving Iraq to the wolves". Indeed, and even with the presence of 64,000 US troops in Iraq, both Turkish and Iranian troops have recently crossed Iraq's northern border in pursuit of Kurdish rebels. Last December, Iranian troops occupied an Iraqi oil well in the south, triggering popular outrage but little action from the Iraqi government.
It's worth mentioning that not everyone agrees with Zebari. A couple of days before his cautioning statement, General Ali Ghaidan, the commander of all Iraqi ground forces, told reporters at a news conference that his troops are "100 per cent ready" to take over.
But will the U.S. actually withdraw from Iraq?
Not really. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in the country to train the Iraqi army and provide it with logistical support. If need be, they will be engaged in combat missions. Meanwhile, the number of private contractors working for the U.S. in Iraq in sectors such as security, communications, utilities, and commerce is estimated at 100,000. This number is likely to increase significantly once the "combat forces" are gone, especially in the security sector.
Move on US Marines, here come Xe Services (better known as Blackwater)!
Meanwhile, the political stalemate between Nouri el- Maliki and Iyad Allawi if not resolved might soon trigger a major political upheaval, something that may cause the Iraqi government with its fragile coalitions to collapse; the last thing the Obama administration needs while withdrawing the troops.
It took 21 days for the U.S. armed forces to reach Baghdad and topple Saddam Hussein, but leaving Iraq is proving to be more complicated than invading it.
Follow Jamal Dajani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamaldajani
Now if we can get those Iraq's out of their cars & return to camels & donkeys for transportation before they use-up all "our" oil our young died for!
As dark as the region seems to be, I do hope & believe that the Iraqis will endure, make a comeback, maintain the integrity of their culture shaped by the influences of several millennium.
I fear for the future & well-being of our society. Our political & media leadership promotes the status quo in the region regardless of how much harm is being done to the American people. We can't afford these wars morally, as they are leading to corruption, perversion of our ideals, nor can we afford them in any pragmatic way as well. If we are to rebuild our society, our leaders will have to focus their attention here, not on endless wars that lead to nothing but misery for everyone, including the American people.
Saddam was a very benevolent leader too bad he was toppled
LOLs
About the contued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. We are not exactly discussing inexorable geologic forces. All it would take for the U.S. to leave Iraq is for the U.S. to leave Iraq. its that simple. It could happen tomorrow if someone just issued the order. Do you recall how quickly we got out of the Phillipines in 1992? Sure, it took a volcano to drive them out but once they started going they went pretty darned fast.
1. USA
2. Belgium
3. Israel
Especially when staked their reputation on seven years of adamant assurances that U.S. will lose.
We understand.
At the same time I applaud U.S. and their allies for winning this unnecessary war.
Sorry if this is too complex for you.
So, Iraq was invaded because they staked their reputation against "USA" that's why we must invade the country to show them how powerful we are?
I don't buy that you are on the side of peace when you contend such an ignominious thing as saying we, or anyone, has to stay in Iraq, except for Iraqis.
Saying that we owe the Iraqis the obligation to say is ridiculous because we are one, if not the, source of the problem, and when you say the country will explode, well, then, in a word so be it because it's got to be up to the Iraqis. The only responsibility the US has is to help prevent outside interference, which they can do by setting an example, but the US is an imperial monster with no thoughts or consideration for her people.
Leaving 50,000 soldiers behind (which is what is about to happen) isn't "leaving." Leaving tens of thousands of military contractors behind also isn't "leaving." It's just spin.
If you think it's about radical Muslims, or "saving" people, just ask yourself: Why aren't we in Sudan? Why have we not been in Sudan for some time?
It's all about the money. It's always been all about the money. There are few things in this world that move money from government coffers into the hands of special interests as fast as oil plus military action.
If we actually wanted to solve the threat revealed on 9/11, we would have (1) armored and isolated the cockpits of all commercial aircraft from the passenger section, with no link to the cockpit but a button the chief of the passenger section could press that would illuminate a "medical landing required immediately" indicator in the cockpit; and (2) bombed a sufficient number of Muslims into paradise.
That would have saved huge numbers of lives, avoided all the patriot act and homeland security and Guantanamo idiocy, and dealt out adequate retribution in like manner. Done. And we'd still have our liberties.
Ahh yeah, money and power. Gasp... unbelievable. I am sure dude you're into like toallty tubular things like love and peace. Harrumph..
What else is it supposed to be about? Charity? Come on, dude, try to think....
That is true for all sides-- for Hussein who invaded Kuwait over fig-leaf dispute about an oilfield. And the war between Iran and Iraq. And Ayatollah's take over of Iran. And LA Qaerda thinsting for control of Sauid opil fields.
And various OPEC shenanigans. And the reason why the West tolerates the Wahhabi pandemic spreading around the world like a malevolent fungus.
Next time, read for comprehension.
Then tell the world, " anybody got a problem with that ?"
Although I don't have a specific problem with nukes, they just aren't necessary here. We have conventional weapons that have extremely high explosive yields (look up FABs and the MOAB for instance) not to mention well covered ranges of yield right down to simple grenades, and it would be technically no problem at all to reach out and kill some specific number of Muslims from one to hundreds of thousands, whatever deemed appropriate, without the inevitable public hysteria consequent to going nuclear.
What I *am* certain of is that the way it was actually handled - massively trampling our liberties, losing yet more American lives, destabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, spending unconscionable amounts of money, engaging in conventional war on the ground, abusing the sympathies the rest of world reasonably offered for our losses - was outright idiotic.
U.S. soldiers from the last combat brigade in Iraq departed from Baghdad on Friday. Last year, U.S. President Barack Obama ordered all but 50,000 troops to leave Iraq by August 31. All U.S. troops are to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. http://www.newslook.com/videos/241468-raw-video-last-us-combat-troops-leave-baghdad?autoplay=true
Sigh... some people are better off breeding rabbits than posting online.