The fallback argument was WMD, bring democracy and prosperity.
Instead we got ISIS.
I was very surprised that this was released as it adds to the evidence that the decision to attack Iraq and to dismantle its security services was based on lies and deception.
The timing of the release, when the repercussions of creating political and military instability in the region are becoming more frequent in Europe and the US is what surprises me the most. Perhaps the US has reduced its energy dependence on the middle east sufficiently to begin focusing on Saudi Arabia?
With this release and the Chilcot report, the leaders of US/UK have created a serious deficit in credibility and trust.
I don't feel any different before / after. As far as I'm concerned the whole thing was a set-up from day #1 (the Iraq war, not 9/11, obviously), after Dr. Kelly's death and the Plame affair there was very little doubt we were being railroaded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-k...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._B...
It wouldn't surprise me if there are private prosecutions of Tony Blair in the UK along similar lines [NB I don't think there is any chance of an actual prosecution of GWB in the US].
Absolutely true, technically. Also a completely useless and misleading statement.
The ISIS group splintered and grew out of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq after its defeat during the Anbar Awakening[1]. Ironically, the Iraqi goverment's behaviour towards the awakening groups[2] directly contributed to this.
Many of the same people involved in Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Anbar Awakening groups as well as the Ba'ath party ended up fighting for ISIS.
There is plenty of blame to go around, but the range of possible actions and outcomes Obama had was much smaller compared to that Bush had.
Please do not try to re-write history in a way that suits your narrative, it is pointless and counterproductive.
There's a lot of room between keeping support troops on hand and a full-scale military occupation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/united-st...
After reading the article and learning some of the intricacies I really don't feel ready to blame anyone in particular. It seems to be a "system outcome" of the interactions and the (local) conditions.
Let's not forget a lot of Irakis wanted the US to leave, fully and completely:
> Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to return in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation,...
That "some" is about the politicians, the mood in the streets wasn't just "some" people who wanted all foreign soldiers to leave, if I remember anything from the news we heard at that time.
It doesn't even matter what they say anymore, as the realisation has set in that people won't actually read them - they'll wait for the headline and the related quotes from affected people and stop there.
So as long as you get there with a quote that states you're exonerated, it makes no difference what's actually been found.
So, exactly how much of their oil did the U.S. actually "steal"? You have a barrel figure for that? A rough estimate will do.
Oil. As in for "free market."
How much oil did the U.S. steal from Iraq?
Do you have an answer to that question or not?
No, I don't have to watch your video to determine that this didn't happen. Nor does anyone else.
Edit: can you point out to me on this chart where all the "stolen oil" shows up?
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
The video is much more nuanced than you imagine, as the goal was never to "steal the oil to bring it directly to the US" but merely to "control" the oil.
Here are the facts: if the goal was to "steal their oil", that could easily have been accomplished.
1) Secure oil fields and terminals. 2) Fly in Texans and Okies to run everything. 3) Shoot anyone who approaches. Leave the rest of the country to fend for itself.
That didn't happen. Why not?
And indirectly?
My opinion is that a branch of their government has gone rogue. But that puts SA elite in very uncomfortable position - their later kings are reformers and progressives (baby steps, baby steps) with somewhat strained relationship with the clergy. But they either cannot control their government - implying they are weak or admit they are involved - which is casus belli for the US.
If so then I really don't get why they would suppress these at all.