Iraq War

ISIS Baffling U.S. Intelligence Agencies

Reuters

When I think of Iraq’s clash-filled history with Western countries I often wonder where does their strength, stamina and determination come from?  Did George W. Bush’s people even read the history of that region before invading Iraq?  Has anybody within our military system even bothered?

In chess we anticipate several moves the opponent might take, to decide our best strategy to win.  Is that too much to ask for the U.S. Government to do the same?  They might be doing it, but the results thus far lead me to believe that they aren’t.

Make no mistake, I’m not lionizing ISIS at all but I am in awe of their staying power given the massive offensives we’ve used against them in recent weeks.

During the 3rd Crusade, Saladin turned out to be a formidable opponent for Richard the Lion-hearted;  Russia eventually pulled out of Iraq after several years of “occupation”;  The U.S. had downsized its presence to just a hand-full of military personnel guarding our massive embassy over there.

I think knowing the battle history and the cultural history of the people in the region will benefit all involved.

The Daily Beast

It’s been two months since ISIS took over Iraq’s second-largest city. But U.S. analysts are still trying to figure out how big the group is and the real identities of its leaders.
The U.S. intelligence community is still trying to answer basic questions about the jihadists who tried to wipe out Iraq’s remaining Yazidis and who now threaten to overrun the capital of the country’s Kurdish provinces.In a briefing for reporters Thursday, U.S. intelligence officials said the government is re-evaluating an estimate from early this year that said the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) had only 10,000 members. These officials also said intelligence analysts were still trying to determine the real names of many of the group’s leaders from records of Iraqis who went in and out of American custody during the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

While many U.S. officials have warned publicly in the last year about the dangers posed by ISIS, the fact that the U.S. intelligence community lacks a consensus estimate on its size and the true identities of the group’s leadership may explain why President Obama over the weekend said the U.S. was caught off-guard by the ISIS advance into Kurdish territory.

That said, the U.S. intelligence community assesses that ISIS poses a particularly difficult problem. One American official said ISIS had attracted thousands of foreign fighters to Syria and Iraq, some of whom had returned to their home countries and formed terror cells in Europe.

ISIS has also proven that it’s practical and can adapt to changing battlefield conditions. Despite taking Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, in early June, ISIS was smart enough not to try an assault on Baghdad this summer. ISIS would likely lose that battle, according to U.S. intelligence officials, because the city has more than 5 million Shiite Arabs, who belong to the sect of Islam the Sunnis in ISIS consider apostate. While ISIS has refrained from a military assault on Baghdad, U.S. intelligence officials believe the group has cells in place in the Iraqi capital capable of being activated for a future attack or acts of terrorism.

For the government of Iraq, ISIS will remain a long-term challenge. One intelligence official said the group could be weakened if the Iraqi army got continued “external support,” including more arms, more training, and a steady feed of precise information on ISIS fighters, especially the kind of technical monitoring done with overhead and on-the-ground sensors that provide intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance.

President Obama has conditioned U.S. assistance for the Iraqi fight against ISIS on the formation of a more-inclusive government capable of luring away more moderate Sunni tribal leaders and politicians. One reason why the U.S. intelligence community, for example, has had trouble settling on a number for how many members are in ISIS is because other Sunni militias have fought alongside the group in its recent campaign through Iraq.

In fact, Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, in a statement Thursday, linked theresignation of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to the fight against ISIS. “These are encouraging developments that we hope can set Iraq on a new path and unite its people against the threat presented by [ISIS],” she said. “The United States remains committed to a strong partnership with Iraq and the Iraqi people.”

But reform of Iraq’s government in Baghdad does not diminish the threat ISIS will pose in the coming months. U.S. intelligence officials pointed out that ISIS had accomplished something al Qaeda and its affiliates had not: successfully holding territory it had conquered. In areas controlled by ISIS, basic government services like electricity and running water continue, these officials said.

Besides the holding of territory, another major accomplishment for ISIS has been in the propaganda war within the broader jihadist community. The group today poses a direct ideological challenge to al Qaeda, according to U.S. intelligence officials, because, unlike al Qaeda, it has decided to create an Islamic caliphate now. That caliphate factors into the group’s recruitment propaganda, which features a mix of gruesome violent images with more positive themes that show the promise of a return of Muslim empire.

The U.S. intelligence officials said ISIS was winning the social-media war with al Qaeda, often finding tens of thousands of Twitter accounts to retweet their messages. In some cases, other jihadists have expressed support for ISIS as well. In July, the jailed leader of Indonesia’s hard-line Jamaah Anshorut Tauhid organization called on followers to support ISIS. The intelligence officials added that some members of al Qaeda’s core and its affiliate in North Africa have also expressed support for ISIS, despite the group’s war of words with al Qaeda’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

But U.S. intelligence officials say the secret to defeating ISIS may be to wait for its overreach to catch up with it.

“They are fighting on too many fronts and they are outnumbered,” one official said. He said the group could be weakened “if it is faced with a competent force,” applying continued pressure, and that it would get weaker still if some of the Sunni groups that have joined it in an uncomfortable marriage of convenience start to peel away.

Iran May Be Open To Working With U.S. To Help Baghdad Fight Militants

Iraqis chant slogans against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham as they volunteer for the army at a Baghdad recruiting station on Thursday. Associated Press

The enemy of my enemy is my friend…

The Huffington Post

ANKARA, June 13 (Reuters) – Shi’te Muslim Iran is so alarmed by Sunni insurgent gains in Iraq that it may be willing to cooperate with Washington in helping Baghdad fight back, a senior Iranian official told Reuters.

The idea is being discussed internally among the Islamic Republic’s leadership, the senior Iranian official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official had no word on whether the idea had been raised with any other party.

Officials say Iran will send its neighbor advisers and weaponry, although probably not troops, to help its ally Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki check what Tehran sees as a profound threat to regional stability, officials and analysts say.

Islamist militants have captured swathes of territory including the country’s second biggest city Mosul.

Tehran is open to the possibility of working with the United States to support Baghdad, the senior official said.

“We can work with Americans to end the insurgency in the Middle East,” the official said, referring to events in Iraq.

“We are very influential in Iraq, Syria and many other countries.”

For many years, Iran has been aggrieved by what it sees as U.S. efforts to marginalize it. Tehran wants to be recognized as a significant player in regional security.

COMMON CAUSE

Relations between Iran and Washington have improved modestly since the 2013 election of President Hassan Rouhani, who promised “constructive engagement” with the world.

And while Tehran and the United States pursue talks to resolve the Islamic state’s decade-old nuclear standoff with the West, they also acknowledge some common threats, including the rise of al Qaeda-style militancy across the Middle East.

On Thursday, President Barack Obama said the United States was not ruling out air strikes to help Baghdad fight the insurgents, in what would be the first U.S. armed intervention in Iraq since the end of the U.S.-led war.

Rouhani on Thursday strongly condemned what he called violent acts by insurgent groups in the Middle East.

“Today, in our region, unfortunately, we are witnessing violence, killing, terror and displacement,” Rouhani said.

“Iran will not tolerate the terror and violence … we will fight against terrorism, factionalism and violence.”

Asked on Thursday about Iranian comments, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said: “Clearly, we’ve encouraged them in many cases to play a constructive role. But I don’t have any other readouts or views from our end to portray here today.”

Fearing Iraq’s war could spill into Iran, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has urged the international community to back Maliki’s administration “in its fight against terrorism”.

Brigadier-General Mohammad Hejazi said Iran was ready to supply Iraq with “military equipment or consultations,” the Tasnim news agency reported. “I do not think the deployment of Iranian troops would be necessary,” he was quoted as adding.

The senior Iranian official said Iran was extremely worried about the advance of ISIL, also a major force in the war against Iran’s close ally Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, carving out a swathe of Syria territory along the Iraqi border.

“The danger of extremist Sunni terrorist in Iraq and the region is increasing … There have been several high-ranking security meetings since yesterday in Tehran,” the official said.

“We are on alert and we also follow the developments in Iraq very closely.” (Additional reporting by Michelle Moghtader in Dubai, Writing by Parisa Hafezi, Editing by William Maclean and Janet McBride)

HuffPost Reporter Confronts McCain: Does ‘Victory’ in Iraq Mean Endless War?

Mediaite

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein had a rather testy exchange Friday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

“I just want to nail down what it means to have it won,” Stein told the senator at the start of his question. “When we were debating the war [in Iraq], I thought the idea was that we would put up an Iraqi government that would be self-sufficient and an Iraqi military that could protect. We spent $25 billion propping up the military, and it folds, even despite having much greater numbers than ISIS.

“So I’m curious: What is the definition of victory? What is the definition of winning? Does it mean having a residual force basically without end date? I’m just a little bit confused. I want to know what victory is to you.”

The senator wasted no time snapping back, hammering Stein for his “confusion”:

I think you are confused because you didn’t know what happened with the surge where we basically had the country pacified. We had a stable government in Baghdad, and we had the conflict basically — for all intents and purposes — won. We still got troops in Bosnia, a residual force would have stabilized the country. Most military experts will tell you that. So I’m sorry about your confusion, but the facts on the ground were that al Qaeda had been defeated almost completely and with the residual American force and at that time, a strong Iraq. Now, [Iraqi PM Nouri] al-Maliki is very weak. Maliki got worse after we left. And again, I knew this was going to happen, because we didn’t leave that force behind. And so I’m sorry about your confusion, but anybody who was there will tell you we had the conflict won.

“I guess I shouldn’t myself confused, because it would be used against me,” Stein remarked. He then pressed once more: “What is the end date for our forces in Iraq? Is it open-ended? And if that’s the case, because we need to have a residual force there to prop up the Iraq government indefinitely, is that how you see it?”

In return, McCain cited residual American troops stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea, and Bosnia as having successfully stabilized regions American forces have previously occupied.

Watch the exchange below, via Mediaite:

Dick Cheney says Iraq War was worth it because now we know they didn’t have WMDs

Worst administration in history.

In my opinion, this is one of the most idiotic and insensitive things that has spoken by Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney…

Daily Kos

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is on a Famous Person Book Tour. A Famous Person Book Tour, for any youngsters out there unfamiliar with the practice, is an American phenomenon in which a famous person writes a book, and/or causes a book to be written in their name, and because they are famous American law dictates that all American media programs are required to have them on to discuss various things that may or may not have anything to do with the book they may or may not have written. You may think that this law is a bit stupid, but it is entrenched; no newsperson or talk show host wants to be the first person to go to jail for failing to give a Famous Person their free network interview.

So Dick Cheney may or may not have written a book that may or may not be a tutorial as to how to lure young homeless people into your house so that you may harvest their organs for later use. This means we get to hear him defend his life’s work, aka the Iraq War, and you will not be surprised to know that he considers it a fine success because we were able to find out that there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction there.

What we gain and my concern was then and it remains today is that the biggest threat we face is the possibility of terrorist groups like al Qaeda equipped with weapons of mass destruction, with nukes, bugs or gas. That was the threat after 9/11 and when we took down Saddam Hussein we eliminated Iraq as a potential source of that.

Whether Iraq actually had any weapons of mass destruction, you see, is beside the point. The point is that by invading them, unleashing a chaotic series of events that killed perhaps a half a million people or so, we were able to set our minds at ease as to how they did not have any. Scratch one country off the list; all that is required now is to bomb and invade every other nation in the world so as to satisfy ourselves that there are not any illicit weapons there either. You may recognize this as another rephrasing of the Cheney Doctrine, which says that if there is even a one percent chance that another country might do something bad to us, we are allowed to bomb and invade them before they get the chance. If bombing and invading them did not result in them liking us sufficiently, of course, we may have to bomb and invade them again; there is no common rule of thumb as to how many times you need to bomb and invade someone before they like you.

Dick Cheney was and is considered an American foreign policy expert. He was one of the people most intimately involved with deciding who should and should not be killed because reasons. All of the others are still around as well, flitting about on their occasional legally mandated Famous Person Book Tours. There is at least a 99 percent chance that they are all secretly idiots or worse, but the law is the law.

“Why I am no longer a Republican”

The Week

It has a lot to do with the Iraq War

This week has been filled with Iraq War recriminations and re-evaluations. While official Washington was strangely silent about the 10th anniversary of the start of the conflict, journalists and intellectuals have been (predictably) more vocal. Prominent neocons have reaffirmed, with minor caveats, their support for the war. Some (erstwhileliberal hawks have issued full-throated mea culpasOther liberals, meanwhile, have tried to have it both ways, denouncing the war they once supported while praising its outcome. And of course, lots of people who opposed the war from the beginning, on the right and left, have declared vindication.

My own position on the war fits into none of these categories. Ten years ago, I was working as an editor at First Things, a monthly magazine that’s aptly been described as the New York Review of Books of the religious right. (And no, that’s not oxymoronic.) The magazine strongly supported George W. Bush’s original conception of the War on Terror, and so did I. In his speech to Congress and the nation on September 20, 2001, Bush stated that the United States would seek to decimate al Qaeda as well as every other terrorist groups of global reach. To this day I remain committed to that goal and willing to support aggressive military action (including the use of drone strikes) to achieve it. But thanks in large part to the Iraq War, I no longer consider myself a Republican or a man of the right.

The reason I continue (like President Obama) to support the original vision of the War on Terror is that it was and is based on a correct judgment of the fundamental difference between (stateless) terrorists and traditional (state-based) military opponents. Even the most bloodthirsty tyrant will invariably temper his actions in war out of a concern for how his adversary will respond, and he will likewise act out of a concern for maintaining and maximizing his own power. Political leaders can thus be deterred by actions (and threats of action) by other states. Members of al-Qaeda-like groups, by contrast, seek in all cases to inflict the maximum possible number of indiscriminate deaths on their enemies and demonstrate no concern about the lives of their members. They are therefore undeterrable, which means that the only way to combat them is to destroy them.

Unfortunately, the right began to disregard the crucial distinction between terrorists and states right around the time of the January 2002 State of the Union speech, when President Bush broadened the scope of the War on Terror to include an “axis of evil” consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. After that, the mood among conservatives began to grow fierce. Some columnists denied the effectiveness of deterrence against states and advocated unilateral preventive war to overthrow hostile regimes instead. Others openly promoted American imperialism. Still others explicitly proposed that the United States act to topple the governments of a series of sovereign nations in the Muslim Middle East, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

And these were the intellectually respectable suggestions, published in mainstream newspapers and long-established journals of opinion. Farther down the media hierarchy, on cable news, websites, and blogs, conservatives of all stripes closed ranks, unleashing a verbal barrage on any and all who dissented from a united front in favor of unapologetic American military muscle. The participants in this endless pep rally were insistent on open-ended war, overtly hostile to dissent, and thoroughly unforgiving of the slightest criticism of the United States abroad. Self-congratulation and self-righteousness ruled the day.

Continue reading here…

 

“Hubris”: New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War “Hoax”

Hubris:

Noun
  1. Excessive pride or self-confidence.
  2. (in Greek tragedy) Excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

Members the Senate are increasingly coming up with Benghazi questions to justify slowing down the process of approving President Obama’s nominees for his cabinet.   When they heard that UN Ambassador Susan Rice might be considered for the Secretary of State position upon Hillary Clinton’s departure, they claimed that Rice lied about Benghazi on national TV.  They promised that she would not be approved because of those lies.

Now certain key Senators are holding the Secretary of Defense nominee hostage because of…wait for it…more Benghazi questions.  Chuck Hagel, the DOD nominee had nothing to do with Benghazi at all.

The hypocrisy is astounding.  Here’s why…

Mother Jones

An MSNBC film, hosted by Rachel Maddow and based on Michael Isikoff and David Corn’s book, finds new evidence that Bush scammed the nation into war.

A decade ago, on March 19, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq that would lead to a nine-year war resulting in 4,486 dead American troops, 32,226 service members wounded, and over 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. The tab for the war topped $3 trillion. Bush did succeed in removing Saddam Hussein, but it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction and no significant operational ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda. That is, the two main assertions used by Bush and his crew to justify the war were not true. Three years after the war began, Michael Isikoff, then an investigative reporter for Newsweek (he’s since moved to NBC News), and I published Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, a behind-the-scenes account of how Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants deployed false claims, iffy intelligence, and unsupported hyperbole to win popular backing for the invasion.

Our book—hailed by the New York Times as “the most comprehensive account of the White House’s political machinations”—was the first cut at an important topic: how a president had swindled the nation into war with a deliberate effort to hype the threat. The book is now the basis for an MSNBC documentary of the same name that marks the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war. Hosted by Rachel Maddow, the film premieres Monday night in her usual time slot (9PM ET/PT). But the documentary goes beyond what Isikoff and I covered in Hubris, presenting new scoops and showing that the complete story of the selling of that war has yet to be told.

One chilling moment in the film comes in an interview with retired General Anthony Zinni, a former commander in chief of US Central Command. In August 2002, the Bush-Cheney administration opened its propaganda campaign for war with a Cheney speech at the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. The veep made a stark declaration: “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” No doubt, he proclaimed, Saddam was arming himself with WMD in preparation for attacking the United States.

Zinni was sitting on the stage during the speech, and in the documentary he recalls his reaction:

It was a shock. It was a total shock. I couldn’t believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program. And that’s when I began to believe they’re getting serious about this. They wanna go into Iraq.

That Zinni quote should almost end the debate on whether the Bush-Cheney administration purposefully guided the nation into war with misinformation and disinformation.

But there’s more. So much more. The film highlights a Pentagon document declassified two years ago. This memo notes that in November 2001—shortly after the 9/11 attacks—Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with General Tommy Franks to review plans for the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government. The two men reviewed how a war against Saddam could be triggered; that list included a “dispute over WMD inspections.” It’s evidence that the administration was seeking a pretense for war.

The yellowcake uranium supposedly bought by Saddam in Niger, the aluminum tubes supposedly used to process uranium into weapons-grade material, the supposed connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden—the documentary features intelligence analysts and experts who at the time were saying and warning that the intelligence on these topics was wrong or uncertain. Yet administration officials kept using lousy and inconclusive intelligence to push the case for war.

Through the months-long run-up to the invasion, Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, would become the administration’s No. 1 pitchman for the war with a high-profile speech at the UN, which contained numerous false statements about Iraq and WMD. But, the documentary notes, he was hiding from the public his deep skepticism. In the film, Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s chief of staff at the time, recalls the day Congress passed a resolution authorizing Bush to attack Iraq:

Powell walked into my office and without so much as a fare-thee-well, he walked over to the window and he said, “I wonder what’ll happen when we put 500,000 troops into Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and find nothing?” And he turned around and walked back in his office. And I—I wrote that down on my calendar—as close for—to verbatim as I could, because I thought that was a profound statement coming from the secretary of state, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

Wilkerson also notes that Powell had no idea about the veracity of the intelligence he cited during that UN speech: “Though neither Powell nor anyone else from the State Department team intentionally lied, we did participate in a hoax.”

A hoax. That’s what it was. Yet Bush and Cheney went on to win reelection, and many of their accomplices in this swindle never were fully held accountable. In the years after the WMD scam became apparent, there certainly was a rise in public skepticism and media scrutiny of government claims. Still, could something like this happen again? Maddow remarks, “If what we went through 10 years ago did not change us as a nation—if we do not understand what happened and adapt to resist it—then history says we are doomed to repeat it.”

The Iraq War’s ‘quiet’ end: By the numbers

This is an interesting look at the wind down of the Iraq War…

The Week

An understated ceremony in Baghdad marks the end of a mission that lasted nearly nine years, claimed the lives over 4,000 U.S. soldiers, and divided our nation

America’s long, contentious war in Iraq came to a “quiet” end Thursday. In a “muted ceremony” in Baghdad, U.S. troops lowered the flag of command that flew over the headquarters of the U.S. mission for a final time. “After a lot of blood spilled by Iraqis and Americans, the mission of an Iraq that could govern and secure itself has become real,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at the ceremony. Here’s a by-the-numbers look at the bloodshed and monetary toll:
8
Number of years the Iraq War lasted — the official tally is eight years, eight months, and 25 days. As a start date, The Washington Post points to March 20, 2003, when an airstrike was launched in southern Baghdad where Saddam Hussein was presumed to be hiding.

More than 1 million
Number of U.S. troops who have served in Iraq since 2003

4,483
Number of troops who were killed during the Iraq War, according to Mark Leon Goldberg at UN Dispatch

33,183
Number who were wounded

104,080 to 113,728
Estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed during the mission,according to Iraq Body Count

6.5
Number of deaths per day from suicide attack and vehicle bombs in 2011, says Goldberg

$800 billion 
Cost of the war to the U.S. treasury, says Lolita C. Baldor at theAssociated Press

4,000
Number of troops who will remain in Iraq over the coming months, “despite President Barack Obama’s earlier contention that all American troops would be home for Christmas,” says Baldor

170,000
Number of troops in the country during the 2007 surge ordered by President George W. Bush

500
Number of bases and outposts established in Iraq during that surge


Number of bases that remain

61
Percent of Americans who favored the withdrawal of all troops of Iraq by the end of the year, according to a CNN/ORC Internation poll conducted last month. That’s despite the fact that “only half of Americans think their nation achieved its goals in Iraq,” says Richard Allen Greene and Moni Basu at CNN.

Perry: Ending The Iraq War Is ‘Irresponsible,’ ‘Putting Our Kids’ Lives In Jeopardy’

Someone forgot to inform Gov. Rick Perry and the other GOP candidates that it was their very own George W. Bush that signed an agreement with the leaders of Iraq to leave by the end of 2011…

Think Progress

After President Obama announced that he is ending the Iraq War, virtually all of the Republican presidential candidates piled on in criticizing the move, even though two-thirds of Americans oppose the war. Mitt Romney called the decision an “astonishing failure” driven either by “naked political calculation or sheer ineptitude.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) also called it a “complete failure,” while Rick Santorum said the U.S had “lost the war in Iraq.”

Today on Fox News Sunday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) told host Chris Wallace that Obama was flat-out “irresponsible” for bringing the troops home, because, he argued, it is “putting our kids’ lives in jeopardy”:

PERRY: The idea that a commander-in-chief would stand up and signal to the enemy a date certain of when we’re going to pull our troops out I think is irresponsible. You need to be talking to your commanders in the field. You need to be working with the experts who understand what is going on in those countries, for instance. We need to finish our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. You better believe I want out kids home as soon as we can and safe. But to give that signal that we’re pulling them out is bad public policy and, more importantly, it’s putting our kids lives in jeopardy[…]

He has lost his standing from the standpoint of being a commander-in-chief who has any idea about what’s going on in those theaters. He’s making mistakes that are putting our kids that in theater and I think future issues dealing with whether it’s in the Middle East or the south China Sea with our allies, putting all of that in jeopardy because of this unwavering, or I should say this wavering or this aimless approach to foreign policy which he has.

Watch it:

Some senior military officials have been calling for a drawdown since 2009. It is hard to see how bringing soldiers home jeopardizes their safety. It’s also worth noting that if pulling out troops at the end of 2011 is a signal to the enemy, as Perry claims, it’s President George W. Bush who is the guilty party. Bush signed an agreement with Iraq to withdraw troops by the end of 2011, and Obama is just carrying that out.

Related articles

Iraq By The Numbers: The World’s Costliest Cakewalk

Powell's infamous presentation at the U.N.

That was an extremely expensive “cakewalk” in terms of lives lost and dollars…

Think Progress

The Obama administration’s announcement of a withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year offers the possibility of a definitive conclusion for the U.S. military’s involvement in Iraq. But while the return of all U.S. service men and women by Christmas is a cause for celebration, the costs of the war are only beginning to be fully understood. The “cakewalk” to Baghdad, as George W. Bush adviser Kenneth Adelman infamously wrote in February, 2002, has been anything but. The Iraq War, and the faulty premise that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, has had a staggering humanitarian and economic cost.

Here are some relevant numbers:

8 years, 260 days since Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program

8 years, 215 days since the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq

8 years, 175 days since President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln

4,479 U.S. military fatalities

30,182U.S. military injuries

468contractor fatalities

103,142 – 112,708 documented civilian deaths

2.8 millioninternally displaced Iraqis

$806 billion in federal funding for the Iraq War through FY2011

$3 – $5 trillion in total economic cost to the United States of the Iraq war according to economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Blimes

$60 billion in U.S. expenditures lost to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001

0 weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

Related articles

Veterans attempt citizens arrest of Rumsfeld in Boston

Donald Rumsfeld at National Press Club, Sep 2003

Image by @mjb via Flickr

The Raw Story

Several members of the group Veterans for Peace were escorted out of the Old South Meeting House in Boston Monday night after they attempted a citizen’s arrest of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“I went down in front and looked Donald Rumsfeld in the eye and said, ‘I’m making a citizen’s arrest,’” protester Nate Goldschlag told WCVB-TV.

“He lied us into Iraq. He lied about weapons of mass destruction. He lied about Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11.”

Three of the protesters removed from the event were with Veterans for Peace and a fourth was a member of Code Pink. One protester was arrested outside the event for allegedly using a bullhorn to assault a police officer.

Most of the 300 people who had to buy a copy of Rumsfeld’s book, “Known and Unknown,” to attend the event appeared to be fans.

“He’s one of the greatest Americans that has ever lived,” one woman said.

Watch this video from WCVB-TV, broadcast Sept. 26, 2011.

 

Related articles