> a departure celebrated as a victory by Iran and its allies who now have deep influence in the country where 4,500 Americans died during more than two decades of war.
Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
Usually when the US forces exit a theater it's a prelude to war, like the Afghanistan withdrawal was so that they couldn't be retaliated against. I caution people not to get too excited about this.
The whole region is a energy drain for any empire involved. When the empire-exits, all the regional empire start butchering one another. Usually this is start of a culling of the locals by other locals. There is a reason people in empire border regions (balcans) are at each others throats 24/7.
Did it? How did the world gain oil from the invasion and occupation of Iraq? It’s not like Iraq wasn’t exporting oil before. That makes no sense to me even under the most cynical interpretation.
Why is this article written like an op-ed, despite being Reuters?
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
I somewhat agree - not necessarily with your content here, but that the article is written ... strangely.
For instance:
> US forces leave country where 4,500 of them died in worst US war of 21st century
I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war. Perhaps the Iraq war was objectively worse, but since the sudden withdrawal in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge, I am not so sure which war was worse. I am not even sure how to qualify it, so Reuters stating this was the worst war is ... indeed a strange label to use. Wasn't Reuters indeed more objective in the past? And with that I mean objective at all times, not white-washing or black-washing.
I now finished reading the article and it indeed seems op-ed. The reader now thinks that the war against Iran must continue. I still fail to understand why the USA invaded the area. Other than some making enormous profits, of course. If 911 was used as a rationale, why was not Saudi Arabia attacked?
I also tripped over that line but I think it’s content is very specific and the number of deaths is the clue: in terms of deaths the Iraq war is definitely the worst war of the US in the 21st century. You have to very literally read that line. And in that context that claim makes sense: In terms of deaths the Iraq war was the worst war.
Now, there are certainly other axis along which you can judge a war.
The US had a clear reason to be in Afghanistan. It was a brutal quagmire with thousands of dead, but one could at least argue there was purpose in the beginning.
Iraq was 4500 dead for one Texan trying to imitate daddy while listening to his CEO buddies.
One thing that people for some reason don't like to voice out loud: America won this way. Maybe it has become politically incorrect to even voice anything positive at all, like doomerism grasped all sides of society?
Baath party is destroyed and no longer exists, political and underlying ethnic groups that propped it up are deeply marginalised and sidelined, political regime in place in Iraq is exactly the one America wanted to have there, and it WORKS: they have regular competitive elections (in the strictest sense of it: before the elections, no one can predict results in advance) and a well-functioning civil society where people can advocate for, or protest against things without it devolving to tribalism (not "Shia vs Sunni" riots or similar). Iraq as it currently is, is created by America and stands firmly on its feet.
Judging by what is newly happening in Venezuela, I think its unlikely USA will cede control over Iraq's oil/money as the mentality of the US state is unchanged. And USA is in debt/various individuals profiting personally.
Given the geostrategic situation there, either the West or Iran meddles in Iraq. Full sovereignty is hard to achieve in such a neighbourhood unless you are one of the traditional powers (Iran, Turkey).
Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
I am curious what did the world gain from this?
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
We have too many labels. That’s not good for a species which hates others based on different labels.
For instance:
> US forces leave country where 4,500 of them died in worst US war of 21st century
I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war. Perhaps the Iraq war was objectively worse, but since the sudden withdrawal in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge, I am not so sure which war was worse. I am not even sure how to qualify it, so Reuters stating this was the worst war is ... indeed a strange label to use. Wasn't Reuters indeed more objective in the past? And with that I mean objective at all times, not white-washing or black-washing.
I now finished reading the article and it indeed seems op-ed. The reader now thinks that the war against Iran must continue. I still fail to understand why the USA invaded the area. Other than some making enormous profits, of course. If 911 was used as a rationale, why was not Saudi Arabia attacked?
Now, there are certainly other axis along which you can judge a war.
Iraq was 4500 dead for one Texan trying to imitate daddy while listening to his CEO buddies.
It reports on some reactions.
Baath party is destroyed and no longer exists, political and underlying ethnic groups that propped it up are deeply marginalised and sidelined, political regime in place in Iraq is exactly the one America wanted to have there, and it WORKS: they have regular competitive elections (in the strictest sense of it: before the elections, no one can predict results in advance) and a well-functioning civil society where people can advocate for, or protest against things without it devolving to tribalism (not "Shia vs Sunni" riots or similar). Iraq as it currently is, is created by America and stands firmly on its feet.
https://thecradle.co/articles/why-does-the-us-still-control-...
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-control-venezuelan-oil-revenue-...
Classic Chappelle show skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFERPDn3i0o
I remember a speech at the UN, with a certain vial being held..
The last 5 years will be 5 chapters in history books