> a departure celebrated as a victory by Iran and its allies who now have deep influence in the country where 4,500 Americans died during more than two decades of war.
Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
For Israel, oil from Kurdistan: The revival of the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline fell through but Turkey stepped in to enable transport.
For both, the neutralization of a regional actor. The chaos that also weakened its neighbors. Eventually, the destruction of Syria. A base and flight path to attack Iran.
It was not about oil. That is a harmful lie. The reality is more sobering and dangerous: it's the neocon agenda that led the invasion. There are people who fundamentally believe in nation building as national duty. That ideology should be addressed and resisted directly.
Distracting people with the oil excuse gives cover to ppl who need it least.
Did it? How did the world gain oil from the invasion and occupation of Iraq? It’s not like Iraq wasn’t exporting oil before. That makes no sense to me even under the most cynical interpretation.
It's not just about the supply but who actually controls the production and distribution ... to paraphrase what somebody once said, "Aren't Americans darn lucky that wherever they go to spread democracy, they find oil?" ...
There's no evidence the US's motive or achieved outcome of the war was oil.
Seems "he tried to kill my father, now there's an excuse to take him out and turn his country into a democracy in the region, and a US-aligned entity" explains most of it.
Much like Trump, it's pettiness and prestige and a notion of more points on the board. (Though Trump did in fact attack Venezuela for oil, or possibly more so just to publicly boast about taking their oil and seem strong to his fans.)
There were no US oil companies operating in Iraq after nationalization of the oil industry in the 1970s and Western sanctions and what not. That is, of course, when that changed in 2003.
There was certainly an argument to be made about the oil factor. [0]
Also look up the Halliburton controversy with respect to conflict of interest in the administration.
Well, in the large theme of things, its irrelevant. The region butchers itself regularly- with the us involved or without. If they spend a 100 years undisturbed doing local wars - it would have been no different.
Downvote all you want, but the region had its first "nuclear" war in 2016 - with proliferation tracking "nukes" so really who cares. It blew itself up, it will blow itself up again.
Warrior cultures "Klingons" do not go to space, they go to heaven. All warrior cultures! Yes, that includes the whole viking-wotan setup too!
Usually when the US forces exit a theater it's a prelude to war, like the Afghanistan withdrawal was so that they couldn't be retaliated against. I caution people not to get too excited about this.
The whole region is a energy drain for any empire involved. When the empire-exits, all the regional empire start butchering one another. Usually this is start of a culling of the locals by other locals. There is a reason people in empire border regions (balcans) are at each others throats 24/7.
Why is this article written like an op-ed, despite being Reuters?
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
Shouldn't there be some quotes from the US leadership? Normally this would be a chance to claim a military victory, a "mission accomplished".
Perhaps the US are trying not even to acknowledge it. A reputable newspaper would normally include "the Department of War was contacted for comment" but maybe that's not appropriate for Reuters.
I don't support the Iran War but I do support global US hegemony because I believe the other two possible candidates, China and Russia, would be worse. And I think retaliation against Iran for their massacre of protesters was morally warranted, even if that was only a pretext for the war by Trump rather than an actual moral consideration, and even if moral merit alone does not justify major intervention or war.
"Slightly geopolitically neoconservative" is the short way to describe that.
My apologies, I should’ve been clearer. I’m in no way criticising you nor do I think your post was egregious in any way or that you are personally at fault, it just so happens that your post “clicked” the label exhaustion and I “typed out loud”.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position.
I somewhat agree - not necessarily with your content here, but that the article is written ... strangely.
For instance:
> US forces leave country where 4,500 of them died in worst US war of 21st century
I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war. Perhaps the Iraq war was objectively worse, but since the sudden withdrawal in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge, I am not so sure which war was worse. I am not even sure how to qualify it, so Reuters stating this was the worst war is ... indeed a strange label to use. Wasn't Reuters indeed more objective in the past? And with that I mean objective at all times, not white-washing or black-washing.
I now finished reading the article and it indeed seems op-ed. The reader now thinks that the war against Iran must continue. I still fail to understand why the USA invaded the area. Other than some making enormous profits, of course. If 911 was used as a rationale, why was not Saudi Arabia attacked?
I also tripped over that line but I think it’s content is very specific and the number of deaths is the clue: in terms of deaths the Iraq war is definitely the worst war of the US in the 21st century. You have to very literally read that line. And in that context that claim makes sense: In terms of deaths the Iraq war was the worst war.
Now, there are certainly other axis along which you can judge a war.
The US had a clear reason to be in Afghanistan. It was a brutal quagmire with thousands of deaths (and many more Afghani deaths), but one could at least argue there was purpose in the beginning.
Iraq was 4500 dead for one Texan trying to imitate daddy while listening to his CEO buddies.
This seems like weird timing to this amateur seeing how they're at war with Iran and Iraq was recently used to stage attacks against Saudi oil infrastructure.
> (the) departure (is) celebrated as a victory by Iran and its allies who now have deep influence in the country
Although the Iraq war was based on a lie and caused tremendous suffering, it did demonstrate the US's willingness and capability to handle a brash dictatorship. In this sense, at least at a macro level, it has tempered (as opposed to emboldened) other dictatorships like Iran and North Korea.
Not getting themselves in over their heads expending loads of money and blood is somehow a bad thing now? Historys proven the doubt right outside some really niche circles.
Judging by what is newly happening in Venezuela, I think its unlikely USA will cede control over Iraq's oil/money as the mentality of the US state is unchanged. And USA is in debt/various individuals profiting personally.
These are facts. American bases are destroyed or being withdrawn. USA can no longer protect its allies from Iran.
Hence, Iran is becoming the only power in the region.
P.S. I have no idea what is Iranian state media or how to watch/read it.
Iran is best mates with the other Superpower country, China. And via China, Russia and the Brics and other China allies.
So Iran with these partners and the population size and natural resources, its reasonable to say it is a regional power. And not a 'new' one, but has been for some time.
Given the geostrategic situation there, either the West or Iran meddles in Iraq. Full sovereignty is hard to achieve in such a neighbourhood unless you are one of the traditional powers (Iran, Turkey).
What military assets? Did that school contain those scary Iran nuclear weapons?
BTW, where did Iraq store their WMD after all? In the oil wells, right?
Iraq is a country of more than 40 million of inhabitants. They can take care of theirselves. Using an argument of some "sleeper cells", come on, it's silly. Is the US army only thing holding up their government? If yes then what do you expect? Either it falls the same way as in Afganistan, or it fights for itself.
One thing that people for some reason don't like to voice out loud: America won this way. Maybe it has become politically incorrect to even voice anything positive at all, like doomerism grasped all sides of society?
Baath party is destroyed and no longer exists, political and underlying ethnic groups that propped it up are deeply marginalised and sidelined, political regime in place in Iraq is exactly the one America wanted to have there, and it WORKS: they have regular competitive elections (in the strictest sense of it: before the elections, no one can predict results in advance) and a well-functioning civil society where people can advocate for, or protest against things without it devolving to tribalism (not "Shia vs Sunni" riots or similar). Iraq as it currently is, is created by America and stands firmly on its feet.
> a departure celebrated as a victory by Iran and its allies who now have deep influence in the country where 4,500 Americans died during more than two decades of war.
Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
> Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians)
You forgot to add that in 20 years time, America will go back to Iraq to make a film about how killing Iraqis made thier soldiers feel sad.
This is standard US procedure.
Don't worry they also make films celebrating the passion behind the killings like American Sniper
Do you mean The Hurt Locker? They didn't even wait 10 years!
> Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
Perhaps you will remember the Taguba report on Abu Ghraib, when a superior of his suggested he let it go because they were "only Iraqis".
I had a coworker who is a refugee from iraq. He used to say "we had schools, roads and hospitals, now we have none of that but we have democracy".
It’s an article about us forces leaving Irak seems reasonable to talk about how many they lost during the time they were there…
It would be inappropriate to talk about how many women and children they dismembered in their eulogy
Unfortunately, millions of lives lost, another millions started hating US for what it did to their families.
I am curious what did the world gain from this?
World? What would make you think this was ever about the world and not very particular interests?
Europe gained millions of refugees / cheap labour.
is this sarcasm?
For the US, oil money (in Dollars) and control over Iraq: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/why-does-the-us-control-i...
For Israel, oil from Kurdistan: The revival of the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline fell through but Turkey stepped in to enable transport.
For both, the neutralization of a regional actor. The chaos that also weakened its neighbors. Eventually, the destruction of Syria. A base and flight path to attack Iran.
Oil
It was not about oil. That is a harmful lie. The reality is more sobering and dangerous: it's the neocon agenda that led the invasion. There are people who fundamentally believe in nation building as national duty. That ideology should be addressed and resisted directly.
Distracting people with the oil excuse gives cover to ppl who need it least.
see [0]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49889841
Did it? How did the world gain oil from the invasion and occupation of Iraq? It’s not like Iraq wasn’t exporting oil before. That makes no sense to me even under the most cynical interpretation.
It's not just about the supply but who actually controls the production and distribution ... to paraphrase what somebody once said, "Aren't Americans darn lucky that wherever they go to spread democracy, they find oil?" ...
This "oil" thing is a cover for Israeli lobbying
Yeah! My wife leaving me and taking the kids is also a cover for Israeli lobbying.
Netanyahu was there lying to congress about WMDs in the leadup to the invasion.
Which is a cover for the deep state illuminati that control us with the 5G!
There's no evidence the US's motive or achieved outcome of the war was oil.
Seems "he tried to kill my father, now there's an excuse to take him out and turn his country into a democracy in the region, and a US-aligned entity" explains most of it.
Much like Trump, it's pettiness and prestige and a notion of more points on the board. (Though Trump did in fact attack Venezuela for oil, or possibly more so just to publicly boast about taking their oil and seem strong to his fans.)
There were no US oil companies operating in Iraq after nationalization of the oil industry in the 1970s and Western sanctions and what not. That is, of course, when that changed in 2003.
There was certainly an argument to be made about the oil factor. [0]
Also look up the Halliburton controversy with respect to conflict of interest in the administration.
[0] https://fpif.org/war_in_iraq_the_oil_factor/
Well, in the large theme of things, its irrelevant. The region butchers itself regularly- with the us involved or without. If they spend a 100 years undisturbed doing local wars - it would have been no different.
Downvote all you want, but the region had its first "nuclear" war in 2016 - with proliferation tracking "nukes" so really who cares. It blew itself up, it will blow itself up again.
Warrior cultures "Klingons" do not go to space, they go to heaven. All warrior cultures! Yes, that includes the whole viking-wotan setup too!
St.Fermi frowns at thee
Usually when the US forces exit a theater it's a prelude to war, like the Afghanistan withdrawal was so that they couldn't be retaliated against. I caution people not to get too excited about this.
The whole region is a energy drain for any empire involved. When the empire-exits, all the regional empire start butchering one another. Usually this is start of a culling of the locals by other locals. There is a reason people in empire border regions (balcans) are at each others throats 24/7.
This was agreed upon during Biden's term.
Why is this article written like an op-ed, despite being Reuters?
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
The article summarizes interviews with various interest groups in the region. Exactly what you would expect from a news agency like Reuters.
It does, but it feels like every paragraph is inserted to fit only one thesis.
Shouldn't there be some quotes from the US leadership? Normally this would be a chance to claim a military victory, a "mission accomplished".
Perhaps the US are trying not even to acknowledge it. A reputable newspaper would normally include "the Department of War was contacted for comment" but maybe that's not appropriate for Reuters.
It is?
It reports on some reactions.
The beginning of the summary, which isn't a reaction, says "worst US war of 21st century"
> I lean (…) slightly geopolitically neoconservative
We have too many labels. That’s not good for a species which hates others based on different labels.
Edit: I should’ve expressed that this was a general thought triggered by the comment but it’s not a direct criticism of the person making it.
I don't support the Iran War but I do support global US hegemony because I believe the other two possible candidates, China and Russia, would be worse. And I think retaliation against Iran for their massacre of protesters was morally warranted, even if that was only a pretext for the war by Trump rather than an actual moral consideration, and even if moral merit alone does not justify major intervention or war.
"Slightly geopolitically neoconservative" is the short way to describe that.
My apologies, I should’ve been clearer. I’m in no way criticising you nor do I think your post was egregious in any way or that you are personally at fault, it just so happens that your post “clicked” the label exhaustion and I “typed out loud”.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position.
I somewhat agree - not necessarily with your content here, but that the article is written ... strangely.
For instance:
> US forces leave country where 4,500 of them died in worst US war of 21st century
I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war. Perhaps the Iraq war was objectively worse, but since the sudden withdrawal in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge, I am not so sure which war was worse. I am not even sure how to qualify it, so Reuters stating this was the worst war is ... indeed a strange label to use. Wasn't Reuters indeed more objective in the past? And with that I mean objective at all times, not white-washing or black-washing.
I now finished reading the article and it indeed seems op-ed. The reader now thinks that the war against Iran must continue. I still fail to understand why the USA invaded the area. Other than some making enormous profits, of course. If 911 was used as a rationale, why was not Saudi Arabia attacked?
I also tripped over that line but I think it’s content is very specific and the number of deaths is the clue: in terms of deaths the Iraq war is definitely the worst war of the US in the 21st century. You have to very literally read that line. And in that context that claim makes sense: In terms of deaths the Iraq war was the worst war.
Now, there are certainly other axis along which you can judge a war.
american deaths
The US had a clear reason to be in Afghanistan. It was a brutal quagmire with thousands of deaths (and many more Afghani deaths), but one could at least argue there was purpose in the beginning.
Iraq was 4500 dead for one Texan trying to imitate daddy while listening to his CEO buddies.
United States lost a total of 2,459 military personnel in Afghanistan. It had less military deaths.
This seems like weird timing to this amateur seeing how they're at war with Iran and Iraq was recently used to stage attacks against Saudi oil infrastructure.
> (the) departure (is) celebrated as a victory by Iran and its allies who now have deep influence in the country
Although the Iraq war was based on a lie and caused tremendous suffering, it did demonstrate the US's willingness and capability to handle a brash dictatorship. In this sense, at least at a macro level, it has tempered (as opposed to emboldened) other dictatorships like Iran and North Korea.
The American balloon is popping.
How many European forces are in Iraq? I guess the EU balloon has already popped, by your metric.
The European balloon popped in 1914-18.
Not getting themselves in over their heads expending loads of money and blood is somehow a bad thing now? Historys proven the doubt right outside some really niche circles.
So is being in Iraq a bad thing or not? Is it balloon popping?
Well yeah, it can be both
Europeans left in the mid 1900's
"We believe Iraq is still not fully ready to take over the security file at this time"
Welp, sounds like it wasn't going to happen.
Good news. Maybe Iraq will finally be able to control its own oil again.
https://thecradle.co/articles/why-does-the-us-still-control-...
Judging by what is newly happening in Venezuela, I think its unlikely USA will cede control over Iraq's oil/money as the mentality of the US state is unchanged. And USA is in debt/various individuals profiting personally.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-control-venezuelan-oil-revenue-...
Classic Chappelle show skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFERPDn3i0o
Iran is becoming the new regional power while USA is retreating from the entire ME.
>Iran is becoming the new regional power
Is that what the Iranian state media is telling you?
These are facts. American bases are destroyed or being withdrawn. USA can no longer protect its allies from Iran. Hence, Iran is becoming the only power in the region.
P.S. I have no idea what is Iranian state media or how to watch/read it.
Iran is best mates with the other Superpower country, China. And via China, Russia and the Brics and other China allies.
So Iran with these partners and the population size and natural resources, its reasonable to say it is a regional power. And not a 'new' one, but has been for some time.
Given the geostrategic situation there, either the West or Iran meddles in Iraq. Full sovereignty is hard to achieve in such a neighbourhood unless you are one of the traditional powers (Iran, Turkey).
Nobody has full sovereignty. As long as Iraq can sell their own oil without routing through Langley or Tehran, then it's all good.
Mission Accomplished!
Have they finally found weapons of mass destruction there? I remember a certain powerpoint presentation ...
This system is rumored to be currently looking for nuclear weapons of Iran in some girl's schools.
Why would you put your military assets in the middle of your civilian population?
Although the loss of that school is quite saddening :/ poor girls
What military assets? Did that school contain those scary Iran nuclear weapons? BTW, where did Iraq store their WMD after all? In the oil wells, right?
https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/disarm/
https://web.archive.org/web/20150218235400/https://2001-2009...
> I remember a certain powerpoint presentation ...
I remember a speech at the UN, with a certain vial being held..
(they still had some US-made biological weapons to be fair)
Iraq is a country of more than 40 million of inhabitants. They can take care of theirselves. Using an argument of some "sleeper cells", come on, it's silly. Is the US army only thing holding up their government? If yes then what do you expect? Either it falls the same way as in Afganistan, or it fights for itself.
Again?
One thing that people for some reason don't like to voice out loud: America won this way. Maybe it has become politically incorrect to even voice anything positive at all, like doomerism grasped all sides of society?
Baath party is destroyed and no longer exists, political and underlying ethnic groups that propped it up are deeply marginalised and sidelined, political regime in place in Iraq is exactly the one America wanted to have there, and it WORKS: they have regular competitive elections (in the strictest sense of it: before the elections, no one can predict results in advance) and a well-functioning civil society where people can advocate for, or protest against things without it devolving to tribalism (not "Shia vs Sunni" riots or similar). Iraq as it currently is, is created by America and stands firmly on its feet.
2021 elections: The 2021 Iraqi parliamentary election resulted in violent protests in Baghdad as well as a political crisis of eleven months <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/12/iraqi-mps-from-fire...>
2025 elections: Briefing: Iran media call Iraq election result victory for 'Resistance' <https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/b0004xgt>
Amnesty International Report on human rights in 2025 <https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af...>
Yeah sure, really stable, apart from Islamic State invasion of Iraq between 2014 and 2017.
To be fair, we can't blame that on the American intervention in Iraq, it's more properly blamed on American intervention in Syria.
Exit Japan and Philippines next.
why? they haven't lost any war there
they have lost their credibility that they can protect their allies and their bases are actually a liability for the host country
[dead]
Are ya winning son?
The last 5 years will be 5 chapters in history books