5 ms·

The power vaccuum happened when the troops were withdrawn.

• jacquesm 10y ago
  The troops would have been withdrawn sooner or later anyway, this was something that was known before the Iraq war was even started. Unless you want to argue that the US had plans for a permanent occupation of Iraq after getting rid of Saddam. Please do not try to re-write history in a way that suits your narrative, it is pointless and counterproductive.
  • Turing_Machine 10y ago
    Define "permanent" and "occupation". You mean like the way the U.S. still has troops in Europe after 75 years, and Korea after 60? Do those count as "occupations"? There's a lot of room between keeping support troops on hand and a full-scale military occupation.
    • eumoria 10y ago
      US troops do absolutely nothing on Korea and Europe other than as stand-by and a geopolitical deterrent. The troops in Iraq were acting as the fighting force for the official regime. These are very VERY different things. US toops were occupying Iraq, they are not occupying South Korea.
      • Turing_Machine 10y ago
        That's more or less my point, isn't it? It would have been possible to (attempt to) hand over responsibility to the Iraqi military while still keeping troops there in case things went south (as they did).
        • hx87 10y ago
          Given the state of the Iraqi military, things would have gone south immediately, and the troops would never leave.
          • Turing_Machine 10y ago
            Would they, though? I think it is a plausible argument that things would have been less likely to go south if the opposing force knew the U.S. forces were there to step in if necessary. While things might still have ended badly, I think there's no question that pulling the U.S. troops out so soon made the collapse a certainty.
        • brbsix 10y ago
          At the very least, ISIS would not have been armed to the same extent by fleeing Iraqi security forces.
        • Noseshine 10y ago
          This NYT article has some very interesting background: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/united-states-and-iraq-had-not-expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FStatus%20of%20Forces%20Agreement 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.
  • im4w1l 10y ago
    You only get to shift blame to your predecessor if you predict and warn about the unavoidable problems and state your plan for how to handle it.