U.S not finished in Iraq
Uncertain future. Barack Obama draws U.S. combat forces out of a country still marked by blunders committed by George W. Bush in 2003. Each lifting is so important that they have met almost no matter what happens. Barack Obama has now fulfilled his promise that the last American combat troops to pull out of Iraq by 31st of August.
Rising skepticism about warfare in the U.S. population contributed significantly to Obama winning the last presidential election. At the end of next year there will be no U.S. troops remaining in Iraq. When is the United States at the beginning of a new campaign. Iraq helped Obama to victory in 2008. He can not take the chance that Iraq prevent the re-election in 2012.
A weak state.
The U.S. timetable for withdrawal seems simple and straightforward, as long as the situation is fairly under control. Unfortunately, Iraq is neither particularly peaceful, or stable. It is an open question whether the country can be encountered on its own.
The alarming extent, Iraq is still marked by decisions taken during the prelude to the invasion 20 March 2003 and the period immediately afterwards.
One thing is that the administration of President George W. Bush defended the invasion of unfounded allegations that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that the dictator in Baghdad was a supporter of the terrorist network Al Qaeda. The discussion about the legitimacy of the invasion, however, should lie in this context.
Would prove the theory.
When the war was only a fact, had the wrong assessments of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his circle of far greater importance.Rumsfeld wanted to make Iraq an example of modern, efficient and “economic” warfare. Therefore, power demand on the American side strongly underestimated.
Even worse was the lack of well-considered plans for what to do after Iraq was invaded and overthrew Saddam. Far-reaching decisions were taken on the fly, often as an acute crisis to be solved in a hurry.Mistakes from that period still haunts Iraq.
First, the Iraqi army disbanded. Thus Mon rid of an important part of Saddam’s apparatus of violence, but also support Walk the many officers – some of them very good – that could be useful in a reorganized army. At the same time significant quantities of arms and equipment lost. The effect was that U.S. opponents had a noticeable contribution of people and materials.
Secondly, members of the Baath party cleared out of the state apparatus. It removed many opportunists, of course, but also a lot of competent people. Membership in the state bearing the party was after all a prerequisite for making careerists `re under Saddam. The result was that a civil service that had received hard criticism during the war was further weakened.
Thirdly, it was decided that Iraq would be under direct occupation and not governed by an interim transitional government. This decision meant that politicians who had lived in exile – many with little support and even less credibility – had a chance to establish themselves.Several earlier exile politicians are leading players in the power struggle taking place today.
There are clear signs that Iraq has been a political class with a weak foundation in the people. Almost six years after the election 7 March, the political leaders still failed to form a government. If they are pushed to the agreement, there is a danger that the government becomes a paralyzed compromise product.
After 31 August will be the 50,000 remaining U.S. troops go into an advisory, non-combat role. When they are gone for roughly a year’s time, the official U.S. presence, according to The New York Times include a staff of around 2400 people administered by the Foreign Ministry.
In addition, it will be up to 7000 security guards from private companies. These will work on the contract, an arrangement that has previously proved controversial. According to U.S. media will Obama administration is reluctant to speak about the need for action beyond this. A certain military presence seems likely, not least because Iraq has acquired advanced American weapons that require specialists to operations and training.
Obama inherited the Iraq war from Bush and with some justification claim that he is bound by his predecessor adverse dispositions. Yet politics seems laws so that there is an incumbent who is responsible.It is he who gets the blame if something goes seriously wrong.
The most recent Obama now need is that Iraq will revert to turmoil and internal strife, as it has been a tendency in recent months. If this continues, it can also create new uncertainty about the commitment in Afghanistan. The president has invested much prestige in the United States to begin the withdrawal from there in July next year.
A translated article Norsk by Per Kristian Haugen – in Aftenposten, a leading Norwegian newspaper.
Join the Conversation
Do you really believe this? They know from the beginning that they are (and still) systematically destroying Iraq… they never intended to rebuild Iraq, but to control the oil of the whole region through occupying Iraq.
you forget that i was inside Iraq when america entered and i think i know that mostly they were trying to help ,we need to separate between our illusions with the conspiracy and facts ,their were many mistakes and most of them was the result of bad informations provided by the Iraqi leaders who formed later the governing council ,most of them are agents of powers that make profit from the US mistakes in trusting those leaders , and why you do not ask also why our Muslim neighbors finance Iraq destruction and separation ?why they benefit from sending militia to kill the educated people ?who is today the source of all the death inside Iraq ?not USA but the real powers who invaded Iraq in the last 4 years and planted sectarian and corruption inside Iraq