******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
" By contrast, he left Iraq in a hurry, which contributed to the rise of Isis." I have heard this claim repeated in many places. I find it difficult to take seriously. The Obama Administration pledged billions of dollars to the Iraqi regime during and after the removal of ground forces. It supported every repressive measure the Iraqi government could put into place. The idea that they removed the troops and consequently ISIS appeared seems to imply that there is something good and noble about the presence of US troops in Iraq, as though this would not have happened if US troops had stayed. I find that difficult to believe. Even when US troops were in Iraq at their highest numbers they could not control armed groups that opposed them and their allies. Even the "troop surge" was primarily aimed at disarming Sunnis and leaving them to Shi'a militias rather than actually clamping down on their opponents, who essentially won control of Iraq at that point. It seems more reasonable to me to think that that episode -- which happened during the surge rather than the pull-out -- combined with the complete corruption of the sectarian regime that the U.S. installed plus the opening of a new front in Syria were what culminated in the rise of ISIS. If U.S. troops had been there, I doubt they would have been able to meaningfully affect ISIS' rise any more than they could stop the insurgent bombings in 2005-06. But some of you know more about it than I do, so I'll let you weigh in. Amith R. Gupta _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
