A country with a Sunni leadership and Shia minority.
Shia and Kurds oppressed.
Invade.
Nothing to do with 9/11, but apparently WMDs and a bad guy to his oppressed people.
Invasion complete, eventually Sunni leader dead, "democratic" elections, Shia new Iraq leadership.
US leaves.

Did anyone think that was really going to be "The End"?


The second the US soldiers left the stage was set for a civil war conflict. There's a reason Saddam ruled with an iron fist. Now that was by no means a good country back in 2003 with Saddam in power, but after billions of dollars and thousands of US soldier lives dead, was it really worth it? Has anything changed? Is Iraq and the world really better off today than they were in 2003?

The whole situation is terrible. One million+ displacements / refugees. It breaks my heart to see this:

http://s27.postimg.org/736lmgq9f/140...al_gallery.jpg


and this:

http://s2.postimg.org/d7yst9pp5/1406...horizontal.jpg


The biggest critical failure recently has been the Iraqi security forces and local police putting down their guns and running. They're cowards and the country is paying for it deeply now.

I thought the important benchmark of victory was the number of McDonald's and KFC franchises established. :p

Isn't that what brought the wall down? ;)

"The second the US soldiers left the stage was set for a civil war conflict"

Obama wanted out. He announced his desire and his time line.

Intransigence from Maliki is simply cover for Obama. He can, like the coward he is, lay off the blame for the disastrous sequelae of his choices on others.

Iraq was a much better place at the end of Bush's tenure. It's a disaster now.

I wonder how many Americans like it that thousands of soldiers are dead and wounded for NOTHING?

If Dear President was more of a leader than a poser, he would have found a way to forge a Status of Forces agreement.

I'm sick to death of how so many poo-poo Bush's efforts to get a multi-national buy-in for his actions...but when our President flips off other countries because he's not "interested"..(read "Ukraine", "Iraq")...then that's just peachy. Never mind that Obama isn't a war-monger, he can't even keep the peace when it's handed to him...

Eventually wars are going to be run like they used to be-winner take all.

Until then we are going to do it like we have for the last 60 years and try to make a silk purse from a sows ear.

I would say the policy for the last sixty years has been largely ineffective.

They imply, first of all, that it must be a peace without victory.

Woodrow Wilson

First World War.com - Primary Documents - Peace Without Victory, 22 January 1917

history
 

Here is a video of some of the empires that have controlled this area over time:

Imperial History of the Middle East

Notice that the modern borders have very little connection to any historic polities. These borders are artifacts of British and French imperialism, they have no meaning to the people who live within them, and they are going to be redrawn. We have to accept that.

WW

Really? You blame Obama for this debacle? I can barely stand the man myself but to place this disaster at his feet and then let Bush off the hook is far fetched at best.

When viewed in the same light as the Middle East...yes.

I should have been more specific...meaning Vietnam.


atp