Iraq War to officially end today

Link to BBC article.

The US flag is to be lowered in Baghdad, formally marking the end of US military operations in Iraq after nearly nine years of war.

 

 

Most of the 5,500 remaining soldiers have now left Iraq, with security in the hands of the Iraqi authorities.

 

President Barack Obama, who came to office pledging to bring troops home, said the US left behind a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq".

 

 

Some 4,500 US soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqis have died in the war.

 

 

It has cost the US some $1tr.

 

 

 

Well, I'm glad it's over - but it never really should have started. The war set some very dangerous precedents. Pre-emptive doctrine, governments conspiring against their own people, and a policy of shoot anything that moves during the initial rush to Baghdad.

Anyone with a brain could see that the motives for this conflict were extremely questionable, something that hasn't gone unnoticed in the Arab world. Just how many extremists did this imperialist jaunt create?

The west, particularly the UK and the US, lost a lot of moral authority on this - and let's not forget the amount of lives lost or irreparably damaged as a consequence.

Was it worth it? I think not, but as always, up for discussion.

The War might be over for the western forces but the killing, bombs etc will continue. It will be rarely mentioned in the future

unless there is some major atrocity.

4500 amercian soldiers killed GB forces over 200 and many more including civilians . Was it worth it . Time will tell I guess.

I had a mate who died in Iraq first time round

The War might be over for the western forces but the killing, bombs etc will continue. It will be rarely mentioned in the future

unless there is some major atrocity.

Think you're on the money with that comment. The same sort of thing was/is happening with respect to Northern Ireland ( e.g. a lot of sectarian stuff was still going on post Good Friday which wasn't widely reported ).

4500 amercian soldiers killed GB forces over 200 and many more including civilians . Was it worth it . Time will tell I guess.

I had a mate who died in Iraq first time round

The conservative estimate is 100,000 Iraqis, but other sources have cited deaths as a result of the conflict - and the numbers go way higher ( over 1M according to this ).

Sorry to hear about your mate, VW.

I guess the only thing we can look at is what have we achieved:

Well, we got rid of a very bad evil man responsible for genocide of his own people, that's a plus. So prevention of loss of life and other atrocities.

We gave the Iraqis a new chance post war, that's a plus.

But what are the downsides:

Years of civil war.

Loss of life was huge.

Loss of trust worldwide.

Cost.

Creation of extremism maybe, there were some interesting Iraqi opinion surveys on this kind of stuff a couple of years back. They were reasonably positive though the situation has probably deteriorated since then.

A stronger Iran within the region because no Iraq to counteract it.

Two thoughts occur:

1. How "stable" is Iraq now really, and what is stopping Iran taking over now ?

2. Its very easy to slag the US off for starting this, but the US clearly had an insecurity/revenge complex post-911 and who can blame that nation for collective loss of rationale at that time ? Americans arent stupid, despite what certain elements of the media tell us. Bear in mind that the last time something like this happened, 7th December 1941, we benefitted from it greatly.

Trouble with Baddies is that you have to act against all or none. If you just pick out the odd one to invade and displace, ignoring the others you tend to look like self serving foreigners starting an unjustified war and killing innocent people.

We heroically 'dealt' with Saddam who had oil but no WMDs - but ignored the Arab Spring countries except for Libya (who weirdly enough also had oil). Meanwhile Mugabe has destroyed Zimbabwe over 30 years, as has the junta in Burma, Somalia has slid down the toilet and there are a dozen other examples with no tangible western action. Afghanistan jars as making no sense for me. I understand the Al Queda rationale, but dont buy it. Al Queda have been destroyed by forensic accountants grabbing their assets, not by troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

Trouble with Baddies is that you have to act against all or none. If you just pick out the odd one to invade and displace, ignoring the others you tend to look like self serving foreigners starting an unjustified war and killing innocent people.

 

We heroically 'dealt' with Saddam who had oil but no WMDs - but ignored the Arab Spring countries except for Libya (who weirdly enough also had oil). Meanwhile Mugabe has destroyed Zimbabwe over 30 years, as has the junta in Burma, Somalia has slid down the toilet and there are a dozen other examples with no tangible western action. Afghanistan jars as making no sense for me. I understand the Al Queda rationale, but dont buy it. Al Queda have been destroyed by forensic accountants grabbing their assets, not by troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a sh*thole in the middle of nowhere with nothing of value except a reasonably strategic location, but at one time or another, it has attracted the attention of every world superpower for the past 200 years, excpet China (give it time, their hegemony is still young..)

The only other point it may be related to is that it is responsible for a huge percentage of the worlds heroin manufacture..

Afghanistan is a sh*thole in the middle of nowhere with nothing of value except a reasonably strategic location, but at one time or another, it has attracted the attention of every world superpower for the past 200 years, excpet China (give it time, their hegemony is still young..)

 

The only other point it may be related to is that it is responsible for a huge percentage of the worlds heroin manufacture..

It is a ****hole and it is a centre of herion production - but neither of those two facts were ever going to be solved by putting troops in. People still grow cannabis in the UK despite a blanket police presence. Stopping opium production in a country where NATO troops notionally control perhaps 30% of the territory at any one time is a practical impossibility. You'd be better off spraying the fields from the air with some kind of defoliant.

Afghanistan is a sh*thole in the middle of nowhere with nothing of value except a reasonably strategic location, but at one time or another, it has attracted the attention of every world superpower for the past 200 years, excpet China (give it time, their hegemony is still young..)

 

The only other point it may be related to is that it is responsible for a huge percentage of the worlds heroin manufacture..

Good points there. The US has a bit of previous for running drugs to finance black operations.

However, did you know about the pipeline that was meant to go through Afghanistan ( to be controlled by Unocal )? Some interesting context in this Salon article from 2002.

A quote to whet your interest:-

Atef’s memo shines new light on what al-Qaida knew about U.S. efforts to normalize relations with the Taliban in exchange for the fundamentalist government’s supporting the construction of an oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan. As documented in the book I coauthored with Guillaume Dasquie, “Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth,” the Clinton and Bush administrations negotiated with the Taliban, both to get the repressive regime to widen its government as well as look favorably on U.S. companies’ attempts to construct an oil pipeline. The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands.

I always thought Afghanistan was about destroying Al Qaeda as an actual structural entity.

I always thought Afghanistan was about destroying Al Qaeda as an actual structural entity.

That has never really worked with terrorists before, Andy. For starters, many organisations have a cellular structure that is by design, extremely difficult to destroy.

Iran is inevitable I fear, Obama wants his frone back and the Iran government will not back down. I see a recovery operation in the future that heightens tensions followed by sabre rattling and finally military intervention. I'll give you good odds that the Brits get suckered into it somehow.

That has never really worked with terrorists before, Andy. For starters, many organisations have a cellular structure that is by design, extremely difficult to destroy.

Al Qaeda will never be destroyed. It will always exist in some capacity with pockets of support in isolated places around the world. The problem with Talliban Afghanistan was it was basically a summer holiday camp for wannabe terrorists. Would be Jehadists could get there fairly easily and learn bomb making, marksmanship and a variety of other terrorist skills. Are we safer in the West because we invaded Afghanistan. We will never know, because there is no parallel universe in which to compare the last decade without the invasion of Afghanistan. For all we know we could have prevented the next 911.

I guess the only thing we can look at is what have we achieved:

 

Well, we got rid of a very bad evil man responsible for genocide of his own people, that's a plus. So prevention of loss of life and other atrocities.

We gave the Iraqis a new chance post war, that's a plus.

 

But what are the downsides:

Years of civil war.

Loss of life was huge.

Loss of trust worldwide.

Cost.

Creation of extremism maybe, there were some interesting Iraqi opinion surveys on this kind of stuff a couple of years back. They were reasonably positive though the situation has probably deteriorated since then.

A stronger Iran within the region because no Iraq to counteract it.

If that was the actual reason for invading, then why haven't we done anything with Zimbabwe or Syria?

It's no coincidence that the countries we invade to 'save' (Iraq and Libya) have vast oil fields...

Al Qaeda will never be destroyed. It will always exist in some capacity with pockets of support in isolated places around the world.

I dont think thats true - history is littered with groups which grow quickly and disappear just as quickly once the idelogy becomes stale or the money runs out. Where are the Khmer Rouge, Tonton Macoute and Mau Mau now?

As to the point about Afghanistan being used for terrorist training, sure some has taken place there but the majority of convicted terrosrists in the UK report being trained in Pakistan.

The war in Iraq wasn't justified in the outset and cost us lives and treasure and for what?

If anyone has the answer I'll give them the address of my mate whose son was KIA aged 19 in 2003 and they can explain it to him as he's never been able to work out what his son died for and I'll be fu cked if I know.

That has never really worked with terrorists before, Andy. For starters, many organisations have a cellular structure that is by design, extremely difficult to destroy.

Oh, I agree, they can bomb the actual camps and what not... there is a role for that(which is why I am more inclined to support afghanistan as the Taleban were unwilling to take down the camps themselves and hand over the perpetrators of 9/11), but ideas are bulletproof... dialogue is absolutely key. Al Qaeda is more of an ideology these days rather than any one group, anyone can be a member.

If that was the actual reason for invading, then why haven't we done anything with Zimbabwe or Syria?

 

It's no coincidence that the countries we invade to 'save' (Iraq and Libya) have vast oil fields...

It wasn't the original reason we invaded, it was a sort of sub reason to back it up. Though, I say just because you can't do anything in all cases, why not do it when you can..... And when vast strategic oil reserves are at stake! Double win!!!!! Quite clearly sarcasm, but I think we were right to go into Libya on balance. Afghanistan has no oil.

Iran is inevitable I fear, Obama wants his frone back and the Iran government will not back down. I see a recovery operation in the future that heightens tensions followed by sabre rattling and finally military intervention. I'll give you good odds that the Brits get suckered into it somehow.

And it'll go something like this.

US Prez: "We're invading Iran. You are going to help us"

UK PM, finally, after clearing his mouth of penile material : "Yes, sir".

A war with Iran is a war where I fear it'd be hard to remain neutral for too long. The consequences for everyone would be too large.

A war with Iran is a war where I fear it'd be hard to remain neutral for too long. The consequences for everyone would be too large.

Good point. The US might not like them, but Russia and China do have decent enough relations with Iran. Can't see them standing idly by.

It wasn't the original reason we invaded, it was a sort of sub reason to back it up. Though, I say just because you can't do anything in all cases, why not do it when you can..... And when vast strategic oil reserves are at stake! Double win!!!!! Quite clearly sarcasm, but I think we were right to go into Libya on balance. Afghanistan has no oil.

But they did provide a safe-haven for Al Qaeda, so that war is slightly justified.

The original reason we invaded never actually existed and our government knew that all along. We went in to secure the oil fields, though Bush and Blair could hardly come out and say as much, hence the 'sexed up' documents etc...

Good point. The US might not like them, but Russia and China do have decent enough relations with Iran. Can't see them standing idly by.

There will be no outright war on Iran...be assured of it, what there will be is a series of mysterious explosions in arsenals,odd scientists driving over ravine edges and the odd drone strike on known Iranian courriers to Pakistan.In fact things that are already happening right now.Wouldn't be at all surprised if the RQ170 that went down almost intact is in fact a modern form of the Trojan Horse.When they try to exploit it's technology they'll catch something particularly nasty that they won't even notice.

There will be no outright war on Iran...be assured of it, what there will be is a series of mysterious explosions in arsenals,odd scientists driving over ravine edges and the odd drone strike on known Iranian courriers to Pakistan.In fact things that are already happening right now.Wouldn't be at all surprised if the RQ170 that went down almost intact is in fact a modern form of the Trojan Horse.When they try to exploit it's technology they'll catch something particularly nasty that they won't even notice.

Nice idea, especially if it ended up in China like the F-117 that was shot down in Serbia, but I doubt that the US would expose billions of dollars of Stealth technology development unecessarily. I mean, look at the RQ-170, its a scaled down B-2 Spirit, FFS...

There will be no outright war on Iran...be assured of it, what there will be is a series of mysterious explosions in arsenals,odd scientists driving over ravine edges and the odd drone strike on known Iranian courriers to Pakistan.In fact things that are already happening right now.Wouldn't be at all surprised if the RQ170 that went down almost intact is in fact a modern form of the Trojan Horse.When they try to exploit it's technology they'll catch something particularly nasty that they won't even notice.

Putting my largest tinfoil hat on that I own, isn't Tehran on some major tectonic fault lines?

but I doubt that the US would expose billions of dollars of Stealth technology development unecessarily. I mean, look at the RQ-170, its a scaled down B-2 Spirit, FFS...

and thus built to auto-destruct if downed in hostile territory.Something very odd about this case,far more than meets the eye.It's a new form of warfare in Iran.

Putting my largest tinfoil hat on that I own, isn't Tehran on some major tectonic fault lines?

Dont worry. Window Cleaner has given us a categoric assurance there will be no war in Iran.

Dont worry. Window Cleaner has given us a categoric assurance there will be no war in Iran.

I think he was suggesting that provoking a seismic event around Tehran might be an option.I do remember seeing an article in

some scientific revue connecting electromagnetic radiation from the HAARP generator and the last and oh so destructive quake in Japan. Can't remember what the conclusion was,probably not guilty but I'd have to look it up again to be sure.Earthquakes can in theory be artificially induced under certain conditions, not that you'd want to do that mind you.

and thus built to auto-destruct if downed in hostile territory.Something very odd about this case,far more than meets the eye.It's a new form of warfare in Iran.

So maybe the Iranians are telling the truth that they electronically hijacked it ? Maybe it never received a self-destruct command, or it was countermanded.

So maybe the Iranians are telling the truth that they electronically hijacked it ?

could well be,cos normally the controllers can destroy rogue drones,if they'd lost control of it though it wouldn't be possible.

Then again it's a question of did he jump or was he pushed.I guess we'll never know, unless a new form of Stuxnet or something even more destructive starts showing around those parts I suppose.

There will be no outright war on Iran...be assured of it, what there will be is a series of mysterious explosions in arsenals,odd scientists driving over ravine edges and the odd drone strike on known Iranian courriers to Pakistan.In fact things that are already happening right now.Wouldn't be at all surprised if the RQ170 that went down almost intact is in fact a modern form of the Trojan Horse.When they try to exploit it's technology they'll catch something particularly nasty that they won't even notice.

There have been a number of assassinations in Tehran - some of them drive-by motorcyclists attaching explosives to cars - of prominent nuclear physicists and nuclear personnel, as well as mysterious explosions at military installations and cyber-attacks on nuclear-related software.

So it's already happening.

There have been a number of assassinations in Tehran - some of them drive-by motorcyclists attaching explosives to cars - of prominent nuclear physicists and nuclear personnel, as well as mysterious explosions at military installations and cyber-attacks on nuclear-related software.

 

So it's already happening.

Any indication as to whether it's Mossad or CIA?

Any indication as to whether it's Mossad or CIA?

A rose by any other name. Both are intent on destroying the ayatollahs from within.Just need to buy time,quite a lot of it though unforunately.