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.
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.