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.
*
In December 2008, Bush flew to Baghdad to sign a document that called for
US forces to be out of the country by the end of 2011.
"All US forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace
no later than the 31st of December of 2011," reads the Status of Forces
Agreement signed by Bush with the Iraqi government. "The United States
admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the
departure of the US forces from Iraq at anytime." At the time, the US
expected a subsequent agreement would be reached to allow some troops to
stay beyond that deadline. But first Bush, then Obama, failed to convince
Maliki, the Iraqi leader.
The central sticking point was the refusal of the Iraqi government to
give blanket immunity to U.S. troops for crimes committed against the
people of Iraq. In other words, Obama could have continued the U.S. war and
kept US troops there if he had been willing to let the Iraqis prosecute
criminal acts committed by Americans in Iraq.
Maliki wouldn't budge on the issue, and probably couldn't have gotten
parliament to go along anyway. Unwilling to allow *foreigners* to prosecute
U.S. troops accused of murder, rape, and torture, Obama reluctantly settled
for withdrawal of all but the tens of thousands of troops to ‘guard’ the
U.S. embassy in Iraq.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:40 PM A.R. G via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> " 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.
>
>
>
_
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
