Suicide Bombings Hit Baghdad After U.S. Exit

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright December 22, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                                         

                Proving the U.S. peacekeeping role in Iraq wrong, Baghdad was hit by 16 separate bombings, killing 69 Iraqi civilians, only one week after the U.S. pulled out.  Since the Iraq War began, March 20, 2003, the former Bush administration claimed Saddam Hussein was a threat to U.S. national security.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald M. Rumsfeld all claimed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and actively participated in terrorism.  In the wake of Sept. 11, former President George W. Bush insisted Saddam was a “gathering” threat to the U.S. because he harbored former terrorist Abu Nidal and paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers.  Former 1991 Gulf War officials of the George H.W. Bush administration warned that toppling Saddam would create a dangerous power vacuum in the region.

            Leaving Saddam in power in 1991 was a strategic move to prevent the kind of lapse that left al-Qaeda terrorists flooding into Iraq and unlocking a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.  After the invasion, it didn’t take long for the Iraqi army to disband itself, leaving Baghdad in chaos.  Today’s bombings confirm that the ongoing civil war rages on, despite 9 years of apparent progress, including the vaunted “troop surge” designed to stop a Sunni and Shiite civil war.   Whether or not the U.S. stays in Iraq, the Sunnis and Shiites would continue battling each other.  White House and Pentagon officials placed the U.S. military into harm’s way in Iraq.  Despite high casualties in Iraq, Bush’s White House insisted Iraq was the “central front in the war on terror,” despite knowing that Sept. 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden fled Afghanistan Dec. 16, 2001 to Pakistan after the battle of Tora Bora.

            Today’s string of deadly bombings in Baghdad confirms that there’s little the U.S. military can do to resolve Iraq’s civil war.  Shiites and Sunnis must decide that they don’t want terror groups like al-Qaeda meddling in Iraqi politics.  Targeting Shiites promotes the kind of sectarian strife that leaves Baghdad in shambles.  U.S. Sen. John McCain  (R-Ariz) likes to criticize Obama for leaving Iraq prematurely.  McCain knows that the U.S. should have never gone to Iraq in the first place.  No matter how high the U.S. death toll, it won’t create peace among warring Iraqi factions.  Placing the U.S. military into Iraq put troops into an unending shooting gallery.  Whatever violence remains in Iraq, there’s nothing the U.S. can do to now or in the future to stop the violence and resolve Iraq’s tribal politics.  Without Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard, Iraq was always prone toward anarchy and chaos.

            All the criticism about Iraq should be reserved for those former Bush administration officials who got the U.S. into a trillion dollar money pit and death trap, costing 4,500 casualties and 30,000 disfiguring injuries.  McCain’s argument about hanging on longer exposes the same failed policy that argued to stay put to not dishonor U.S. war dead.  Sending more U.S. troops to their graves in Iraq has no bearing on whether Shiites, Sunnis or Kurds can resolve their differences.  Watching Iraq descend into anarchy should surprise no one.  Bush’s vast plan of democratizing the Middle East at the barrel of a gun backfired.  Indigenous peoples are better off resolving their own tribal and racial politics without imposing a U.S. military solution.  Spending more U.S. tax dollars and lives on Iraq will only result in the same outcome unless Iraqis themselves seize the peace process.

            No one doubts the fragile power-sharing arrangement between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s U.S.-backed government and a Sunni minority.  Saying, “I told you so,” McCain misstates the situation that a stronger U.S. presence would maintain the peace.  Using Iraq’s civil war to bash Obama does nothing to advance U.S. national security.  “It was pretty obvious, if we did not have a residual force there, things could unravel very quickly.  All of us knew that,” said McCain, bashing Obama for finally pulling the plug.  McCain doesn’t quite get that the U.S. can’t continue to place its human and financial resources at risk when there’s no foreseeable payoff.  While McCain should know better, it’s inappropriate to use the U.S. military to keep warring factions from lashing out.  U.S. armed forces should not be placed in harm’s way to prevent sectarian strife and civil war.

            U.S. foreign wars should not be exploited by politicians to score political points during an election year.  Regardless of political party, no U.S. troops should be put at risk unless there’s a compelling national security reason.  While everyone wants stability in Iraq and the Middle East, the military must be used carefully to defend U.S. national security.  Once Iraq was deemed no longer a credible threat, the U.S. mission should have been complete.  Pouring more human and financial resources down a rat hole does nothing to improve U.S. national security or global credibility.  Whether or not “we are leaving behind a stable Iraq,” as the president said, the U.S. sacrificed behind all expectations to help stabilize Iraq.  Now that it’s falling apart, it’s not America’s responsibility.  Iraqis have been given plenty of time to achieve stability.  If it hasn’t happened, it’s not the U.S. fault. 

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.