Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Tim Arango, New York Times: When the United States invaded Iraq 14 years ago to topple Saddam Hussein, it saw Iraq as a potential cornerstone of a democratic and Western-facing Middle East, and vast amounts of blood and treasure -- about 4,500 American lives lost, more than $1 trillion spent -- were poured into the cause. From Day 1, Iran saw something else: a chance to make a client state of Iraq, a former enemy against which it fought a war in the 1980s so brutal, with chemical weapons and trench warfare, that historians look to World War I for analogies. If it succeeded, Iraq would never again pose a threat, and it could serve as a jumping-off point to spread Iranian influence around the region. In that contest, Iran won, and the United States lost.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Over the past three years, Americans have focused on the battle against the Islamic State in Iraq, returning more than 5,000 troops to the country and helping to force the militants out of Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul.

But Iran never lost sight of its mission: to dominate its neighbor so thoroughly that Iraq could never again endanger it militarily, and to use the country to effectively control a corridor from Tehran to the Mediterranean.

The country's dominance over Iraq has heightened sectarian tensions around the region, with Sunni states, and American allies, like Saudi Arabia mobilizing to oppose Iranian expansionism. But Iraq is only part of Iran's expansion project; it has also used soft and hard power to extend its influence in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, and throughout the region.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Thanks Dubya.

#1 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-16 08:08 AM | Reply

Thanks Dubya.

#1 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

It's what Democrats wanted, they voted for it, Obama delivered it.

Bush predicted it...

youtu.be

He may not be smart, but he's smarter than anyone that wanted to leave.

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-16 09:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#2

Jeez. He's a coward as well as an Idiot. The man we farts from his mouth. Donald has taken every contradictory position twice.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2017-07-16 09:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's what Democrats wanted, they voted for it, Obama delivered it."

Bush negotiated it, and signed it.

And anyone who doesn't believe Bremer's idea of decimating the entire middle class--while letting them keep their guns--created ISIS, is an idiot.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-16 10:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Bush negotiated it, and signed it.

And anyone who doesn't believe Bremer's idea of decimating the entire middle class--while letting them keep their guns--created ISIS, is an idiot.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-16 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeppers sure did.

www.state.gov

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-16 10:51 AM | Reply

It's always amusing that President Bush gets credit for getting US troops out of Iraq and President Obama gets blamed for what happened as a result.

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-07-16 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

He may not be smart, but he's smarter than anyone that wanted to leave.

#2 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

You do know that the withdrawal was according to a plan put in place by Bush, right? At the insistence of the Iraqi government because they wanted to prosecute...I mean throw chocolates at the troops.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2017-07-16 12:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 6

He may not be smart, but he's smarter than anyone that wanted to leave.

Then why did he sign the deal that made the troops leave? Was that part of being so smarter?

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-17 09:05 AM | Reply

Bush predicted it...

The Powell doctrine predicted it before Dubya and Cheney conspired to get that oil, but they MADE him rationalize the non-existent need to invade with cartoons in front of the UN.

Dubya wanted his legacy and ISIS is it.

Cheney wanted the oil and the contracts for his company.

Sideshow Don wanted to take the oil to pay for the disaster. How's that going?

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-17 09:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It's always amusing that President Bush gets credit for getting US troops out of Iraq and President Obama gets blamed for what happened as a result.

#6 | Posted by REDIAL

Not quite the way it worked red.

#10 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-07-17 01:03 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Not quite the way it worked red."

Well, Dubya signed the deal, and the precondition for Obama staying beyond was soldiers would be subject to local laws, something we've NEVER agreed to before.

Which part of this are you against? Other than taking responsibility, of course; that much is a given.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 01:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the precondition for Obama staying beyond was soldiers would be subject to local laws

And President Obama tried to renegotiate that part but Iraq wouldn't budge. Those were the heady days when the right was blaming him for trying to keep troops in Iraq and then blaming him for taking them out at the same time.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-07-17 02:29 PM | Reply

#11 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Don't bother. Military doctrine dictates that Snipers displace once directed fire has been called in.

They are unsupported and, generally, without recourse.

Put simply: they are woefully unprepared to engage in a stand-up fight.

#13 | Posted by worldasifindit at 2017-07-18 11:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Cheney got some oil from the Kurds. As for the rest of Iraq, BushII signed a peace treaty on Iraqi terms, after declaring victory to those who would still listen to him. Obama continued the US NeoCon military thrust into Libya and Syria, while trying to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, without any success based on our stated reasons for invading. If chaos is our aim all these depraved moves have been a success. Obama relied more on drones in order to minimize troop death and dismemberment. Millions of innocent murdered and displaced for immoral failed reasons. Trump has already lost more US troops than Obama did in his last two years.

Meanwhile China is investing heavily in all the regions the US wages war and will come out on top for it.

#14 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-07-18 11:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Obama continued the US NeoCon military thrust into Libya and Syria, while trying to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, without any success based on our stated reasons for invading."

No part of that sentence is true. Liar. After Bush destabilized the entire ME, Obama tried to deal with the aftermath which was ISIS which would not have existed had Bremer not fired all of the Iraqi military and police.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-19 10:04 AM | Reply

It's what Democrats wanted, they voted for it, Obama delivered it.
Bush predicted it...
youtu.be
He may not be smart, but he's smarter than anyone that wanted to leave.

#2 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Why do Republicans ALWAYS lie. They can't ever post anything BUT lies on this site.

BUSH negotiated it. Obama had no choice but to follow it. REPUBLICANS cheered it.

Stop posting lies.

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-07-19 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"He may not be smart, but he's smarter than anyone that wanted to leave."

He sure as hell isn't smarter than those of us who said at the time this was a gift to Iran. Anyone that voted for him and/or supported the Iraq invasion should just shut the hell up and let the smart folks talk.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-19 11:19 AM | Reply

BayViking is absolutely right. Danni, go find someone else to call a liar. You are delusional. Obama, wether knowingly or unknowingly, followed the neocon playbook to a T. So too would've Hillary if she got in the WH. As much as Trump is horrid, look at the front lines of the people attacking him-- mostly neocons.

From the beginning this has all been about sowing chaos and creating a larger form of the Gaza Strip in the Middle East. The conservative ideology (PNAC et al) has its talons firmly entrenched in the backs of our politicians and our pundits both right and left. Many are no more than useful idiots who think they are somehow helping the situation overseas with constant American military presence. Meanwhile the reverberations of our militarization and hyper-inflated sense of hubris are increasingly felt back home.

#18 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-07-19 11:22 AM | Reply

As much as Trump is horrid, look at the front lines of the people attacking him-- mostly neocons.

#18 | Posted by pumpkinhead

Neocons are the only REPUBS attacking him. Anyone with a real brain (and therefore not a republican) has been attacking him as well.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-07-19 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Obama did not put military troops into Libya, we cooperated with our allies, France and England, who had supported us in Afghanistan by taking part in the no fly zone over Libya. Today, I wish we had listened to Hillary Clinton and done the same thing in Syria. That is a far cry from invasion and occupation which only George Bush is responsible for in Iraq. Pretending Barrack Obama is responsible for Bush's completely disastrous war is ridiculous. Obama simply tried his best to minimize the damage. He had to acknowledge the Iraqi desire to make American troops subject to Iraqi courts so he removed the majority of them as he most certainly should have done. We had zero troops in harms way in Iraq or Syria pre-George Bush, don't ever try to blame Obama's attempt to pull out of a terribly complicated war on him, he inherited that idiotic, disastrous, criminal war. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Bremer should all be in prison today and everyone that voted for Bush/Cheney should just shut up.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-19 12:01 PM | Reply

"Neocons are the only REPUBS attacking him. "

Uhh, because they are not real repubs. There are very few "real" Republicans. Most of them are big business groupies or military cultists or Christian/Jewish Zionists who care not a lick for limited government.

#21 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-07-19 12:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Uhh, because they are not real repubs. There are very few "real" Republicans. Most of them are big business groupies or military cultists or Christian/Jewish Zionists who care not a lick for limited government.

#21 | Posted by pumpkinhead

Then don't vote for them.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-07-19 01:12 PM | Reply

"Why do Republicans ALWAYS lie. They can't ever post anything BUT lies on this site."

Like trained seals. That is what they have been taught to spout.

They have been watching Fox News so long that any real news seems fake to them.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-07-19 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why do Republicans ALWAYS lie. They can't ever post anything BUT lies on this site.

Because they're simply going about their father's business, and lying is their native language.

#24 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-07-19 05:27 PM | Reply

"Then don't vote for them"

Never have. The only time I voted for either an R or a D was back in 2010 when I voted for Barbara Mikulski. Anti-neocon. I'll prolly never vote for another D again. Bless her heart. She deserved it.

#25 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-07-19 05:29 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort