Defense News: Hagel: Iraq 'Squandered' 5 Years, Paving Way for ISIS
WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said he believes the government of Iraq “squandered” the five-year stretch from 2008 to 2013, paving the way for the rise of the Islamic State group and the chaos of the last two years.
Speaking Monday in Washington, Hagel, who served in that role from 2013 to 2015, also hinted at dissatisfaction with how the Obama administration dealt with the Pentagon during his tenure, indicating that future administrations should lean more on the opinions of the uniformed personnel when weighing foreign policy decisions.
Asked to reflect on the situation in Iraq, Hagel showed disappointment and frustration with what happened once the US President George W. Bush signed a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq in December 2008, which set off the clock for US forces to leave Iraq in the hands of the local government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Update: Chuck Hagel to the next president: 'Listen' (The Hill)
WNU Editor: There is a lot of blame to go around on what has happened in Iraq. And while it is easy to blame the U.S. government, President Bush, President Obama, etc. .... the majority of the blame must still fall on the Iraqis themselves, and their inability to find compromise and reconciliation.
4 comments:
Oh sure, genius (not) Hagel says it's all Iraq's fault. But really the US is behind ISIS as I describe here.
Let's also not forget General Flynn's Al Jazeera interview where he said the creation of ISIS was a willfull choice of the US administration.
AGREE.
At the time, they did not understand the dangers posed by ISIS. if this is a "willful choice." Nor could they have prevented the rise of ISIS. At its height, ISIS captured and held territory faster and held it more effectively and more efficiently than the US military ever could have.
While ISIS is a very dangerous enemy, it will eventually be defeated. It seems to have made enemies out of pretty much everyone now. As such, it will be defeated eventually.
A policy of "divide and conquer" seems to be the exact opposite of what the US is pursuing. If this was the case, then there would be no reason for the US to have spent so much effort and resources in a futile attempt to hold Iraq together just so Iran can control it. The more sensible approach would have been to push for the breakup from the start.
Also, divide and conquer strategies will not work to control resources. If these are divided as to who controls them, then this means more parties need to be dealt with to gain any sort of "control" and access to the resources will be unstable and problematic over time. As a net oil importer, the US needs a stable Middle East absent strife to whatever extent possible and to this end, the US has been trying to achieve this, even if the policies have in many cases been misguided.
A non OPEC member oil exporter would stand much to gain from a divided Middle East. As such, a country in that position might actually choose such a policy.
As for Saddam's Iraq, this country and government posed an existential threat to America that was getting worse and was likely to continue to get worse. Any analysis of the Iraq war needs to account for this. Failure to do so will not yield a full and accurate picture.
Post a Comment