I take no joy from being proven right, but it appears that I–and other advocates of a continued American military presence in Iraq–were right to warn of the dangers of withdrawal. The Associated Press reports from Baghdad:
June was the second-deadliest month since U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in mid-December as insurgents exploited the political struggles between the country’s ethnic and sectarian factions. More significant than the numbers was the fact that insurgents appeared able to sustain the level of violence over a longer period than usual. There was a major deadly bombing or shooting rampage almost every three days, many targeting Shiite pilgrims.
The violence has brought the weakness of Iraq’s security apparatus into sharp focus even as deepening political divisions dim the prospects that the country will emerge as a stable democracy after decades of war and dictatorship.
Indeed, 50 more Iraqis died on Tuesday in a fresh round of bombings.
Not all is gloom and doom to be sure. The New York Times reports, for example, on the opening of new Western-style shopping malls in Baghdad. But with violence levels rising and with Prime Minister Maliki increasingly accumulating dictatorial powers–the two trends are related because the more the political system breaks down, the more likely it is that various parties will resort to violence–the outlook for Iraq is a good deal less bright than it was a year ago when it appeared likely there would be a residual American troop presence past 2011.
Are Iraq and Syria devolving into Iran's permanent Vietnam? We need to send more gasoline to that fire.
Ugh, please, is there no depth to your thinking? Iraq was OUR great experiment (so, if a "Vietnam" to any, to us), and, in a logical world where America did things in its own interests, would still house a great many American troops (from which we could launch our troops and influence). n nAs well, you should note that Iran is mostly a notable enemy for only three reasons: the first is its illicit pursuit of nuclear weaponry, which is the biggest general and immediate concern due to Iran's certain/uncertain current/future nature (to say nothing of anything) and the uncertain nature it would send the region into (perhaps causing many therein to want such things of their own). We all know that it will be direct military action (though probably that of Israel) that keeps Iran from obtaining the bomb anyway. (We also shouldn't pretend that anything other than obtainment of the bomb is the true victory for Iran's regime and its influence). The second is Iran's support of terrorism. (Being the largest state sponsor of terror I'm sure means that Iran has large influence in conflict-areas for low prices anyway–I don't think "drainage" scenarios accurately assess what Iran gets with its dollar.) We also, quite frankly, have enough legitimate reason to attack Iran anyway–why rely on an abandoned Iraq to harm Iran at all? (The "war on terror" should have properly included Iran.) The third and last reason Iran is at all a problem is because of its regional ambitions, but that kinda goes hand in hand with the nuclear weapons programs and is also related to the sponsorship of terrorism. In this area, doesn't a strong Iraq allied to the US thwart Iran more than a weak and sectarian Iraq full of ideologues and pragmatists willing to cut deals with Iran? n nThe biggest reason why Iran is such an enemy in our calculations (I reiterate) is not because of the long-held stances it has taken, but because of the eternal threat it will very well become if not dealt with in the short term–the limited window of opportunity in dealing with Iran is what makes it something to be reckoned with. There is no need to play chess against Iran when Iran is developing capabilities to destroy the board. n nIran is not the USSR: it is not an enemy that can't be removed, that is in its final state (although it approaches this). We don't have to strategically sacrifice things pragmatically for posture against it. (The Cold War was something of a war of ideals though…) n nTwo parting notes: one, Iran wasn't mentioned in the piece. It's a leap to assume that Iran is behind everything in Iraq. If autonomous internal forces are at all responsible, then those forces can somewhat effectively destabilize Iraq with Iran getting great influence on the cheap. (As well, I've made note of this before, although I don't think I clarified it as such: this is a neocon site, and we are generally hawkish. We also tend to be big budget defense spenders. You somehow think we can fuel conflicts on the cheap and in our own interests, and even advocate such in Syria [and most preposterously in Iraq], but think that nations like Iran and Russia can't [albeit it is true in Syria that those states have felt it necessary to defend their client].) Two, Iran (much like Syria) has had autonomous entities within rise up against the despots we hate, while any similar entities within Iraq rose up with a costly amount of blood and treasure. You are at the least willing to "sacrifice" both the Iraqi and Syrian entities to gain position against Iran.
well dont count on Israel to pull the west's chestnuts out of the fire.
Unfortunately the Obama foreign policy mantra seems to include the snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory as a central tenet. It's as though either they are incompetent or they are consciously trying to make the world a worse place than when they found it.
This is another stupid "I told you so article"…. 50 people dead in a country the size of Iraq is nothing. …. There are literally single nights when 40 people are shot in Chicago… yes… literally…
well yeah but not by bombings….folks there just shoot each other over drugs, tats, and graffiti. because America is racist don't you know. Oh yeah, and that white Hispanic guy Zimmerman. Hm too. Oh, and the banks.
Taking this post at face value, let's hope that in 2013 the U.S. starts to strengthen its ties with the Kurds in Iraq as well as Syria and Iran.