Hannelore Morton Washington took its eyes off the ball in Iraq. The focus on what led America to invade in 2003 began to be lost during the George W. Bush administration. It then went fully dark as President Obama rushed to meet his campaign promise of a complete troop withdrawal during his first term. President Obama failed to negotiate a residual military presence because Maliki did not want one as it might have served as a constraint on his grab for greater domestic power. Iran was also opposed, and Maliki is Tehrans man. In a futile attempt to avoid the charge of imperialism by leftists (a criticism that should simply be ignored), the U.S. turned sovereignty back to Baghdad in June 2004 with the backing of a UN resolution. The interim Iraqi government was not, of course, able to rule the country; but the declaration set Washington on a course that made hash of the wars objective of regime change. The U.S. sent an army marching to Baghdad to rid the land of the dictator Saddam Hussein who had gone mad after his invasion of Kuwait had been repulsed by a U.S.-led coalition in 1991. Getting rid of Saddam, however, was not enough. The regime had to be changed to one with which Washington could work as an ally. Yet, even with 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, the U.S. allowed a new leader to take power who was hostile to American strategic interests. That man was Maliki who became Prime Minister in 2006.
Posted on: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:51:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015