Mission accomplished...Iran won.
1
You know what those ever-so frugal Republicans say about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq they blithely put on the govenment's credit card? Absolutely nothing.
Reminds me of an updated version of something the late Everett Dirkson said about spending the people's money: "A billion (now trillion) here, a billion (read: trillion) there. Before you know, you're talking about real money". Not much has changed except the price tag.
When it comes to Republicans thoughts on spending taxpayers money, there's never enough for the military and war, always too much for Americans in need.
DD
Manhattan
This is an unexpected great story, after years of horrors from Iraq!
It was Maliki who unleashed the greatest terror after the US withdrawal under Prez Obama. That was a disastrous decision, though it was Prez Bush who committed perhaps the greatest blunder in American foreign policy, which cost 4,500 American lives and half a million Iraqi lives with monetary cost of some $3 trillion, for nothing!
Then with the creation of ISIS the trail of destruction entered Syria causing another half a million or more deaths and displacing half of Syrians from their homes. The latter was from the irresponsible inaction of Obama.
I couldn't believe when Fareed Zakaria announced the progress in Iraq on May 6th.
There is no solution for bringing peace to the Middle East. It is not within the west's powers to negotiate or fight for peace. The Middle East doesn't want peace, will never tolerate the 'other' sect of Islam. Tribalism will not leave this area until there is nothing left. Islam is not a religion of peace as it enables/urges clerics to demand world domination. We are best left on the borders, defending the west and it's culture within our borders, not theirs.
What we did in Iraq was stupid. That's because we've become a stupid country ruled by greed, and we deserve whatever happens to us.
Have you all forgotten that the real reason for invading Iraq was to get control of their oil? Poor Saddam didn't know what him him. Well we are now enjoying the logical result of that kind of behavior.
I give you Trump. And the Republicans. And their wealthy and corporate campaign donors.
Enjoy.
Coker & Gladstone write that al-Sadr and company were: ".. implicated in widespread atrocities against civilians"
Isn't that a little oblivious, for we Americans are implicated in the deaths of about 200,000 civilians documented, in this "war" based on lies.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Does any American remember Iraq?
2
I'm absolutely certain the Trump administration will be delighted to work with al-Sader to make Iraq "great again". Al-Sader is definitely Bolten and Pompeo's kind of guy. A non-ideolog "bring-us-together" coalition maker.
And now folks should or may begin to understand the incredible stupidity of forcing regime change or getting involved with unending wars, wherever because we want the world to pattern itself after the U.S.A. Bottom line, the intelligent, patient and individual who read and understood history, aka Mr. Obama had enough common sense to ask, if we get rid of that head of any country, what's next? That's the difference between an adult approach to the real world versus the blind squirrel who might find a nut every now and then. There are no short cuts to diplomacy or the resolution of centuries old issues.
Given the foolishness of the costly Bush-Cheney adventure in Iraq, which is now compounded by a President who has made the word of the US worthless, the new regime in Iraq will no doubt consider partners to the east and north (Iran, Russia and China) more reliable and bankable.
1
Ha, ha. Very funny "American strategy in Iraq."
1
Finally some good news from the Middle East.
Iraq has the right to defend itself.
Well this is a surprise. The more sensible leaders want the US to stay, because that is where the money is. We pay them quite well to fight our enemies and some of the payroll will slosh around a bit of course. Whatever will they do without us? They will be forced to compromise with the terrorists in order to even move their oil. It is a sad day no doubt for the people of Iraq.
1
Can we finally once and for all get over the idea that any nation that doesn’t at least share the broad outlines of our cultural values is an ally? In Afghanistan, the rebels we’d armed to fight the USSR went on to join the Taliban. In Iran, we ended up arming a hostile foreign power as part of Iran Contra (thanks Oliver North now NRA president). In Egypt, the people voted the Muslim Brotherhood to power after Mubarak was toppled. Our so called ally Saudi Arabia exports almost as many terrorists as barrels of oil and in conjunction with OPEC gouged Americans for years with outrageous oil prices.
Turkey has embraced authoritarianism. Pakistan is harboring the Taliban (just as they harbored Bin Laden). Quite simply every single one of these countries is our enemy.
Moktada al Sadr, wasn't a Bush/Cheney loyalist who profited from the greed-fest that was the Iraq invasion and occupation. He was, and is an Iraqi loyalist.
Read National Book Award Finalist "Imperial LIfe in the Emerald City" or FIASCO....or any number of other well written and researched books on the occupation and you get a pretty clear picture of what we did and who benefited.
We expect America First, why shouldn't they expect Iraq First?
I remember at the time reading about Moktada all-Sadr and Ali Al Sistani and thinking they sounded like true leaders that we should have been supporting. Instead we chose Chalabai, the corrupt playboy "they" could relate to.
“We can’t allow one man to change the course of the country,” Mr. Bush said in a video teleconference. Spoken without irony by the one man who singlehandedly destroyed the country. It was his decision, and he made it wrong.
I wonder if there is a silver lining to the post-2003 Iraq campaign. Surely Iraq has hardly become the shining democracy on the hill the Bushies were hoping for when they first invaded, but there might be some positive takeaways. Despite arguments about WMDs and oil, or where to place blame, one aspect that is a consistent problem throughout the middle east is unrepresentative governments. They are often corrupt as well, but their inability to represent the people leads to poor governance, which leads to continued poverty and failures on institutional levels. In the absence of any real government services, the young unemployed often turn towards more radical agendas.
Many countries founding stories begin by breaking free and asserting their independence. Perhaps the conflict in Iraq is serving such a role, helping to create a national identity forged in a common conflict, even if America was the adversary for many of them. The neocon objective was to start in Iraq and remake the middle east in our image, spreading democracy. Surely, this democracy like any other is still a work in progress, but "voters punishing political blocs for their failures" sure sounds like democracy in action to me.
2
"American officials are now uncertain — though not yet worried "
They should worry since this vocally anti-American, populist cleric Muqtada al Sadr has just won Iraq’s parliamentary election and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has phoned prominent Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to congratulate him on winning the elections. Sadr has been highly critical of American airstrikes in the country against the ISISs. He is not going to allow American troops to remain in Iraq however, I am sure he would be thanking Geroge W.Bush and Dick Cheney for all their help in bringing to him to power and for establishing "democracy" in Iraq.
2
Look at history. In the late 1920s, the US was trying to capture and kill Mao in China. They chased him all over the country. He ended up becoming the premier and relations after that were never good.
History repeats itself.
1
First his own city, now his own political coalition. His head must be as big as Trump's. Best be careful at noon prayers bowing it, might not be able to get it back up.
I served 3 tours as Marine infantry in Iraq. My battalion had the pleasure of fighting Sadr in August 2004 in An Najaf. Many of my friends are disappointed that we didn't kill him during a raid on his home that month. I doubt it would have solved anything. Few Americans know the names of Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr and Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr and that's more than likely what "the Chest" would have become.
Iraq was never ours to control. The clownish and imperialist belief held by generals, papers like NYT and braindead politicians in both parties always expected that Iraq would behave. They clearly never knew what Iraq was like then or now. Citizens are exhausted with the corruption, failed promises of American occupation and the wars that don't end. They elected an outsider, much like our 2016 election, even if he is Al Sharpton with heavy weapons. I wish them all the best knowing that they have an inherit right to pursue any future.
12
Sadum Hussain or the present mess. We could have had Sadum, now we can't.
1
Will the W administration's lies about WMD in Saddam's Iraq ever cease its deliverance of our own blood and treasure -- plus Iraq"s and other countries 'throughout' the Middle East -- into evil, death & (never ending?) destruction?
P.S. Unconscionable as was the premise, the follow up -- disbanding Iraq's army, terminating their 'pay' and thus inviting insurgency; failing to protect Iraq's cultural treasures, etc. -- was just as unconscionable (and has served as an even greater measure and evidence of 'our' ignorance and incompetence).
1
Considering America's support of the slaughter in Palestine, the Iraqis better get the toughest leader they can. Sadr has the history Iraq needs as America cannot be counted on for anything. Anything for Iraq, anything against Iraq .... anything at all.
2
There needs to be a #MeeToo movement for foreign countries to bring charges against our violations of their sovereignty. There are definite parallels in our approach to both women and foreign countries. In both cases we choose brute force over winning hearts and minds. Which explains why Iran has by far more influence in Iraq than we do.
1
more importantly he is also anti-iran
“We can’t allow one man to change the course of the country,” Mr. Bush said in a video teleconference.
Oh, that's rich coming from a naive POTUS who allowed his VP to talk him into the illegal regime change of that same country.
And now we are witnessing what happens when an openly bigoted, fiercely anti-Muslim POTUS Schlump makes military and political choices with zero consideration for what happens to the civilians caught in the middle.
Not just yesterday. In stepping up the already inexorable demise of ISIS, The Dottled has allowed the indiscriminate killing of Innocents for political expediency.
From February to June of 2017, roughly 10,000 civilians were killed in the "final push" to take back Mosul.
President Obama, like Patton did in the retaking of European towns from the Nazis, sought to minimize collateral damage, not just because innocent lives are more valuable than time, but as political calculus: it is impossible to negotiate in good faith later when you prove you don't care about anyone else but yourself.
The so-called president we have today has been doomed for this reason alone, nevermind his administration's rampant corruption.
The world watches. The world sees.
The world remembers.
10
More than 4 thousand Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died so that Iraq could be governed by a religious terrorist.
This is what Republicans give us
2
Saddam Husein rises from the ashes--an Iraqi Phoenix.
The Bush/Cheney war like the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon war murdered millions for nothing--
Replacing gas chambers with bombers.
Let's not make America that "great" again. Keep your eye on Trump and Trumpies.
3
Think this makes Iraq a mess? Just wait till the same people who brought us the invasion of Iraq do the same with Iran. Trump has claimed the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, yet he has filled his government with the same people - Bolton being the latest.
So just like 'draining the swamp' he says one thing but does the exact opposite. There will be no peace in the Middle East under a Trump regime.
And wouldn't it be fitting that a man and his movement reviled for fighting the invasion of their country are the ones to actually put it back together - sans American and Iranian proxies.
2
The estimated cost of Iraq that we were lied into and Afghanistan that we won in the first six weeks is 6-7 trillion dollars.
Our children will have to pay this off for us because the baby boomers arguably the worst generation in the history of our country are to greedy and selfish to pay for their own lazy stupidity letting our country get stolen by the military industrial complex and oligarchs.
2
How will the Sunni minority in Iraq now respond to the election of a Shiite rabble rouser as head of the country? Religion is the scourge of humanity and in the Middle East religion can be deadly.
4
Let’s file this under: stuff Republicans and Neocons should know, but don’t. (Right next to: there are multiple groups within any entity. As they discovered Sunnis and Shiites AFTER invading Iraq under Dubya...)
Mustache guy is speaking about regime change in Iran. Bolton should worry about losing Iraq first.
3
Moktada al-Sadr is most likely once again the kingmaker in the new Iraqi parliament. He’s no political newcomer, gaining influence, when his Sadr Bloc joined a coalition – the United Iraqi Alliance – which won big in the 2005 elections. His supporters did well in local and parliamentary elections in 2009 and 2010.
Sadr was no friend of the mercurial Nouri al-Maliki, whose de-Baathification of former Iraqi government and military personnel under Saddam Hussein were the cause of sectarian violence and the rise of ISIS. Persuaded by Iran, he dropped his objection to Maliki’s reappointment in return for eight posts in the cabinet.
Sadr has his base to thank for his political power. He led a network of Shia charitable institutions founded by his father. In the first weeks following the US-led invasion, his followers patrolled the streets of Baghdad's suburbs that were homes of impoverished Shia Muslims, distributing food, providing healthcare and taking on many of the functions of local government.
This is how the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah gained political influence.
4
It would really help foreigners such as myself ( a Canadian) with some clear distinctions between the various groups in Israel, Iran and Iraq. Not a lengthy tome: Just clarification of who, what, where, when and why these disparate groups continue to battle.
******************
On a separate topic, is the Donald trying to negotiate a better deal with China in order to enhance the production and sale of his and his daughter clothing, etc.?
Just checking.
*********************
In B.C we are experiencing floods akin to the 1948 disaster. Perhaps you can send Ian Austen (with a canoe) over here to take a look. Cheers.
2
This is the direct result of Obama's misguided policy. I was in Iraq in 2008 and at that time the US had unqualified support of the majority of Iraqi's and Sadr was considered a renegade. Obama's failed policy betrayed the supporters of the US, undermined US creditability and allowed Sadr to consolidate his power with Iranian assistance. At least Trump, by defeating ISIS has brought relative peace to the region and gained some foothold for US creditability.
1
Sorry to say but there is so much wrong with this comment not least of which is, "At least Trump, by defeating ISIS" - they are still there and their leadership is intact. So Trump has defeated nothing and just what has Trump done to solidify Iraq besides have his friendly media blame everything on Obama?
And the only people who considered Sadr a renegade were the American supported Iraqis and the Iranians who could not control him.
5
I was there the entire year and saw the exact opposite effect. Iraqis rallied in the hundreds of thousands throughout the country to boot the US out after enough failed occupation. GW Bush signed the SOFA in November 2008. That ship has sailed.
6
Wonderful. So after 15 years of fighting to get an American style democracy in Iraq, we now have someone who fought us in power. What a brilliant military venture Iraq has been. Sadr spent years fighting us with armed men and he has finally conquered Baghdad but he has done it by using the Democracy that we put into place. This is the ultimate state of US foreign policy.
1
So 'what could the matter be'? Just because we entered a 'war of choice' based on falsehoods, causing so much misery and death and leaving a country in tatters, Iraqis might not appreciate all we've done? Also, Shia Muslims were targeted for mass terror attacks and finally turned to Iran for protection and support and we resent that as well? Sadr might be a consequence for this whole episode which should have gone to The Hague for a closer look.
3
Let su not confuse "the US" with what is right. "The US" had absolutely NO RIGHT to invade, and bomb the Iraqi's. We are conditioned to stand behind our nation and NOT ASK QUESTIONS, Patriotism is wielded like a hammer upon us and it absolutely bulldozed the objections of the majority of our citizens. GWB and Cheney were and STILL ARE mass murderers regardless of their comfy morning show appearances now that the dust has settled somewhat.
8
Maybe it's a ploy .. but it looks like al-Sadr, at least from information here, is reaching out to other groups. The Sunnis, the Turks, our military .. At this point I am for whatever works and can keep the Islamic State & Al Qaeda out.
3
Democracy only works when "our guys" win. Otherwise, its better to have our dictator in place, see Egypt.
4
In order for such articles to make sense, it is imperative that numbers be included. "Won six provinces" means little; what is the tally?
1
Had Dick Cheney not succeeded in duping the world on 9/11, Iraq would not have lost millions of citizens to death by weapons bought and shot by the US.
2
It has to be a be-careful-what-you-wish-for sense of vindication for so many Iraqis. The story that Mr. Sadr’s political coalition could complicate the American strategy in Iraq involves ugly history and no small amount of irony.
When war criminals Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld launched their war in search of nonexistent weapons, their sense of having the upper hand was all that mattered. How's that chest-thumping and mission accomplished working out for you now Mr. Bush?
The arc of history is long; political snake oil has a short life. Maybe Mr. Sadr can pull it together, maybe he can't. At least they voted and nobody had a thumb on the scale.
3
The biggest problem with Sadr is the people elected a dictator. When someone has fought for this long using a personal army and as a populist he is never leaving power through the ballot box. Voting was fun in Iraq while it lasted. I predict the next vote to be somewhere between 95-99% for Sadr.
Was Bush talking about Trump when he said we should not let one man change the course of the country?
3
Iraq is turning out to be the typical Middle East "ally". Like everyone else, they smile and pay lip service to the US in exchange for protection, weapons to fight their enemies or good old-fashioned money--- while constantly undermining and sneering at the US at every turn. Sure some moneyed big-fossil interests are doing well- but where's the benefit? There is nothing to be gained in the Middle East- it will always cost more in blood and money than any tangible benefit. We need to stop acting like we need to be afraid of Iran and have to counter them in every theater- seriously?
1
“No one has the right to ignite a war and lead an occupation and armies to conquer people, invading them and make them suffer all kinds of torture, murder, expulsion, displacement, bombing and terrorism by different lethal prohibited weapons and then come and speak as the savior of the people or a defender of their rights.”
Do tell me, the “firebrand” who made these remarks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq doesn’t here make a whole lot of sense.
To those who say the Iraq war is over, I say: tell that to Iraqi mothers and fathers whose kids were killed by American bombs. For them, it’s just begun.
6
In the minds of the US owners these wars have been a success. The plan is to have continual chaos, to make sure that those in the business of war, profit. Peace is bad for MIC stock prices. Next is Iran, then Russia.
3
“We can’t allow one man to change the course of the country."
No. The American public allowed George W. Bush to change the course of two countries. One country is a problem. Two countries though? Go right ahead.
Anyway, Moktada al-Sadr might be a way for Iraq to move forward. No one can criticize him for being pro-American. I doubt this coalition will last. As they saying goes, nothing politics lasts forever. If they manage to soften Iraqi sectarianism without going too far off the hinge though, that will be enough.
I do find the faint echo of Trumpism in Iraq creepy. "Iraq First?" There's a chance the al-Sadr arrangement could go very far south.
3
Marty Dempsey, his troops and tanks blasted many hundreds of the Mahdi fighters into oblivion during the 2004 uprisings, though that will never compensate for the loss of the smaller number of Americans killed (most reports were under 20). The Iranian Quds forces, commanded by a dark genius of unconventional warfare, Soleimani, were more lethal to US forces and sadistic in how they tortured and killed any they captured. But this did not prevent various US governments from later being on civil and even friendly terms with certain Iranian officials (Kerry's bromance with the suave Iranian foreign minister, Zarif, for example) and even cooperating with Iranian militia forces while fighting ISIS. The anti-American antipathy of many Iraqis is a tragic, predictable legacy of the American occupation, during which tens of thousands of unarmed Iraqis were killed or captured (or worse, as we saw with Abu Ghraib) based on dubious intel. Sadr has since evolved from a hunted fugitive, to an Iranian pawn, to now an avowed champion of ridding Iraq of both American and Iranian influence. Americans not only underestimate how deeply we are hated by Iraqis, but also how resented the Iranians are as well. Ultimately, Sadr may not be with worst choice for Iraq, and even for US interests in the long run. And he has much less American blood on his hands than Soleimani and Iran do, not that that makes him especially admirable
4
Sadr has certainly ties to Iran, but seems to be more capable than those "ordinary" mullahs in Iran.
1
Iraq is turning out to be the typical Middle East "ally". Like everyone else, they smile and pay lip service to the US in exchange for protection, weapons to fight their enemies or good old-fashioned money--- while constantly undermining and sneering at the US at every turn. Sure some moneyed big-fossil interests are doing well- but where's the benefit that outweighs the cost? There is nothing to be gained in the Middle East- it will always cost more in blood and money than any tangible benefit. We need to get out of there. So what if they vote for someone who hates americans, they all do..... all of our so-called allies.
My recollection of al Sadr during the early years of our occupation was that he was the most popular leader in the country. He was a strong nationalist at a time that the US wanted a docile and compliant Iraqi government.
I may be wrong about this, but I always thought that al Sadr's supporters were the real target of the "Surge".
8
It was reported elsewhere in your column that Sadr has ordered his followers to support the idea of a secular, nationalist government run by “technocrats,” experts who are not career politicians and supposedly will be able to solve Iraq’s ills, touting the rule of law and civilian power.
If true it's about the most significant development for the sectarian driven country.
It's positive to read that the Iraqi new political class moving away from the narrow sectarian agenda to form a government with radically new priorities, clearly indicating of massive changes ushered in by the fourth industrial revolution.
The radical new development reminds me of positives of the revolution underway. Klaus Schwab, chairman of the World Economic Forum said very pointedly that "We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before."
7
"That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars
And whether they had one, or not, upon thars."
"Mission Accomplished !"
Heckuva' job, Republican Confederacy of Absolute Dunces.
41
What was it ? 23 ..25 Democrats that voted for the war resolution.
2
Doctor Woo....Democrats voted for the war resolution based on fabricated Bush-Cheney yellowcake uranium Nigerian 'evidence'.
Nation-and-truth-destroying at home and abroad: GOP 2018.
Nice GOPeople.
1
Gee I find that pretty amusing ... I am not in the Senate and neither are the 100 million people around the world who protested against the invasion. But I knew there was no evidence & Saddam was never a threat.
Thank you George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all the rest of the ignorant Neo-Cons who brought us the Iraq war and ISIS.
48
True Democracy results in strange unexpected winners. So be it. There should be no surprise that the popular Shite cleric Moktada ali- Sadr. If one recalls when Saddam was being hanged the people around the noose were shouting Moktada Moktada not Bush Bush. The US armed forces with Bush as the the commander in chief made the defeat and capture of Saddam possible and who gets the accolade Moktada. We never learn from worthless wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Now how many US brave US soldiers laid down their lives and were injured, TNTC (too numerous to count)? How many innocent men, women and children died in the war in Iraq. TNTC. and who was hailed as a hero for the hanging of Saddam?? pro-Iranian, Moktada. Stay tuned for peace in the divided middle east is further away with Sunni countries and Shia countries resolutely at each others throats.
22
I see Donald Trump's foreign policy is working perfectly, it looks like there will be no Trump Hotels or Golf Courses in Iraq, anytime soon.
5
Yes, but he just got the Chinese government to pony up $50 million for one in Indonesia.
1
While our 15+ years of nation building in the Iraq are in tatters, now, our new brand of neocons is contemplating a larger fiasco in Iran.
34
Let us hope that the coalition of Moktada al-Sadr will ask the United States to leave Iraq, and that we do so.
32
It strikes me that Mr al-Sadr's brand of nationalism and the overcoming of sectarian divisions is what is needed in Iraq just now. It should be remembered that prior to the disastrous (for both parties) Iraq-Iranian war, Iraq was one of the leading economies in Southwest Asia and its people enjoyed one of the highest standards of living and education in the region....
Let us hope that in the not-too-distant future, such a situation will once again prevail in a peaceful Iraq....
Henri
11
The article states that Mr. Sadr "cannot become prime minister himself." Why not? Such a statement needs an explanation.
11
Trump has been winning some points lately because his thugish bellicosity that accompanies his otherwise unpresidential manner is believed by some to have resulted in advancements on the Korean peninsula, and in new, "improved" strategies in Iran and Israel.
Well even a blind squirrel finds an acorn from time to time.
Trump and his warhawk cabinet are a more believable threat of regime change than certainly Obama was but what we are witnessing now, on the ground in Iraq is that REGIME CHANGE DOESNT WORK.
Oh yeah we're good at getting rid of the last guy. That's easy! Mission Accomplished!
But if nothing else the American blunder in Iraq should serve as the final exam on regime change. With all our military might, and even though the soil of Iraq is rich with the blood of young American sons and daughters, America can't pick the next successor. Changing the behavior of regimes is harder, but it's holds more promise of success than any regime change.
So witness the regime change consequences of the previous Republican president, Dich Cheney. Was it worth the few less young people, perhaps with spouses and young children who aren't at my back yard cookouts because theyre in military graveyards somewhere?
Was it worth it?
20
For every soldier who served in Iraq, for every soldier who was injured while fighting to liberate Iraq, for every soldier who died fighting in Iraq to give Iraqi the freedom to vote, for the families of every soldier who died fighting in Iraq, for every widow, orphan, gold star Mother, I say for you that this is a slap in the face and absolute disgrace. from this moment on no American soldier should risk one ounce of blood in the cause of 'Nation building" in any Arab state. What's more Iraq should repatriate every dollar the United States spent fighting that war, we liberated a country only to have the people of that country spit right in our faces.
8
I agree with the beginning but they did not request our involvement. Why would they paid a bill for an unrequested service?
3
I understand this sentiment. But the US had no reason to be in Iraq in the first place. The US invaded Iraq for no reason, no evidence of anything. The US invaded while Saddam was cooperating with international investigators. Wasted blood and treasure brought to Iraq and America by the GOP and our Supreme Court.
Hey, let's do it again. Vote Trump. He will shake things up.
MAGA.
6
Before 9/11, Dick Cheney met with representatives of global oil corporations, and divided up a map of Iraq between them. The map was later leaked.
By 9/12, Cheney was already saying 9/11 was a good excuse to invade Iraq.
Nine months before the invasion, the head of British Intelligence returned from meeting with the Bush Administration and wrote a memo to his Prime Minister saying that Bush had already decided to go to war, and that "intelligence was being fixed around that decision." (See the Downing Street Memo.)
General Shinseki told Rumsfeld and news outlets that at least 500,000 troops (approximately what was used to liberate Kuwait in 1991) would be necessary to impose order in Iraq after the invasion. Rumsfeld forced him to retire and went in with a quarter of that number.
If they were looking for WMD, in the first hours of the invasion special forces would have been tasked with going to weapons depots and other suspected sites to find and secure WMD. Instead they were tasked with securing the country's oil facilities.
With not enough troops to secure even our own supply lines, which were repeatedly attacked, we should have deployed the defeated Iraqi Army to the borders, and took control of the Iraqi Police to keep order. Instead we fired then and sent them home with their weapons, but no pay. Many of these people joined the new Al Qaeda in Iraq, soon to be ISIS.
Cheney wasn't nation building. He was causing chaos to steal the oil and cash.
9
Any time it is written “responsible for atrocities against civilians” in a war in which the US was or is a part it should also be written that US forces were also, because that is always the case.
21
I would vote for his coalition if I was Iraqi, from what little I know. This is what happens when people are left alone - they start to heal. Here's hoping Iraq can defeat its colonial past. I hope they are sincere and wise.
28