October was Iraq's deadliest month since April, 2008. In those five and a
half years, not only has there been no improvement in Iraq's security situation,
but things have gotten much worse. More than 1,000 people were killed in Iraq
last month, the vast majority of them civilians. Another 1,600 were wounded,
as car bombs, shootings, and other attacks continue to maim and murder.
As post-"liberation" Iraq spirals steadily downward, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki
was in Washington last week to plead for more assistance from the United States
to help restore order to a society demolished by the 2003 US invasion. Al-Qaeda
has made significant recent gains, Maliki told President Obama at their meeting
last Friday, and Iraq needs more US military aid to combat its growing influence.
Obama pledged to work together with Iraq to address al-Qaeda's growing presence,
but what was not said was that before the US attack there was no al-Qaeda in
Iraq. The appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq coincided with the US attack. They
claimed we had to fight terror in Iraq, but the US invasion resulted in the
creation of terrorist networks where before there were none. What a disaster.
Maliki also told President Obama last week that the war in next-door Syria
was spilling over into Iraq, with the anti-Assad fighters setting off bombs
and destabilizing the country. Already more than 5,000 people have been killed
throughout Iraq this year, and cross-border attacks from Syrian rebels into
Iraq are increasing those numbers. Again, what was not said was that the US
government had supported these anti-Assad fighters both in secret and in the
open for the past two years.
Earlier in the week a group of Senators - all of whom had supported the 2003
US invasion of Iraq - sent a strongly-worded letter to Obama complaining that
Maliki was far too close to the Iranian government next door. What was not
said was that this new closeness between the Iraqi and Iranian governments
developed under the US-installed government after the US invasion of Iraq.
Surely there is plenty of blame that can be placed on Maliki and the various
no-doubt corrupt politicians running Iraq these days. But how was it they came
to power? Were we not promised by those promoting the war that it would create
a beach-head of democracy in the Middle East and a pro-American government?
According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, in early 2001 as the
new Bush administration was discussing an attack on Iraq, then-Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld said, "Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam
and with a regime that's allied with US interests. It would change everything
in the region and beyond it. It would demonstrate what US policy is all about."
We see all these years later now how ridiculous this idea was.
I have long advocated the idea that since we just marched in, we should just
march out. That goes for US troops and also for US efforts to remake Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, and everywhere the neocon wars of "liberation" have produced
nothing but chaos, destruction, and more US enemies overseas. We can best improve
the situation by just leaving them alone.
The interventionists have unfortunately neither learned their lesson from
the Iraq debacle nor have they changed their tune. They are still agitating
for regime change in Syria, even as they blame the Iraqi government for the
destabilization that spills over. They are still agitating for a US attack
on Iran, with Members of Congress introducing legislation recently that would
actually authorize US force against Iran.
It looks like a very slow learning curve for our bipartisan leaders in Washington.
It's time for a change.
