America's Departure From Iraq Premature?

I was curious if our leave from Iraq was premature to the needs of the Iraqi and American people. Also was giving Iraqi soldiers training and weapons a good idea considering many of them are abandoning their uniforms and weapons to flee? I don't hold it to be fact that we left to early but I do have the impression. I am also under the impression that we knew extremism was building in the middle east and that our leaving may spur backlash. Please feel free to chime in. This is what i'll be researching and posting about today. Updates incoming dependent on responses.


I'd also like to ask if you feel what we did provide before leaving was adequate in consideration to the damage we've caused?



Let me add into the thread. Going to Iraq was horrible as most of us believe, but I'd like to focus on us leaving after our BS there.

a reply to: Antipathy17

We should have never even showed up in the first place. The entire premise of entering Iraq was based 100% on lies and misdirection. Now look at the mess that has been created, and for what? The loss of thousands of american soldiers, thousands of Iraqi civilians, and trillions of dollars to achieve nothing but more of the same more than a decade later.

I can already see the propaganda being put together for Iraq 3.0. They will whip some BS together I am sure and the american sheeple will fall in line and support more of the same. I would be very shocked if they didn't.

All we did was destabilize the region. We didn't and don't belong there.

a reply to: Antipathy17

I dont believe it makes a difference in regard to premature departure.
Iraq is royally messed up and its mostly due to US intervention many many years ago.
Its sad to think how many innocent lives have been lost over LIES.

Tis interesting though, that as soon as major parties pull out of Iraq, "Al-Qaeda" offshoots try and take over the country and send oil prices through the roof.....I could of made alot of cash if I knew that was going to happen..

a reply to: Antipathy17

Well, that is a difficult question. It is difficult to say whether pulling out was more devastating to the political landscape in the region than the arrival of US and UK troops in the area. What can be said for sure, is that obviously the Iraqi army and security forces, have commanders with no conception of tactics, duty, honour, or discipline. In every scenario where they have turned and run from the ISIS faction they had the superior position, much greater manpower than the invading force of radicals, and very often had better weaponry and mobile armour than the invading force.

They have uniformly failed to offer appropriate resistance to the threat, commensurate with their training, numbers, and level of armament. This whole invasion could have been nipped in the bud before it really got off the ground, if only the Iraqi army had held their positions and fought for the territory they were presiding over.

Now, either something is wrong with their level of training, or the individual commanders on the ground have too little backbone to actually take a stand and fight. Those are the only ways I can see for a force as well equipped as the Iraqi army, to be scared off by a bunch of ideologically demented halfwits in pickup trucks.

The point was not to go in the first place. But since you cant put the toothpaste back in the tube we are stuck with the world we live in today.

What the MSM is not really making clear to people that dont fully understand the region is that "ISIS" is Shia. What is shaping up is a combination Holy War/Civil War. Shia and Sunni radicals do not play well with each other. They hate each other more than they hate Christians, Jews or any other religious group. Abu Bakr is looking to create a Shia Caliphate from Iran to Syria.

Iran and Syria are the strongholds of the Shia, ISIS is looking to join them into one large entity to overtake the Sunni by making northern Iraq Shia as well.

Many of the hundreds of thousands fleeing the region are fleeing because they are Sunni Muslim, not Shia.

Abu Bakr is the epitome of blowback. Saddam Hussein kept him and his group under control. When we removed Saddam with no plan on how to run a post-dictatorship, multi-cultural country we became part of his rise. When we had him in custody for YEARS, we should never have released him. The people that were holding him knew this. They petitioned their superiors against his release in a prisoner exchange.

Now that this situation exists, regardless of who started it, it is a disaster waiting to happen if we re-involve ourselves. Not only is this shaping up to be a Civil War, it is a brewing Holy War between different Islamic Sects. It never pays to get into the middle of religious fanatics.

Payback is a bitch.

a reply to: Antipathy17

Simply stated yes, there were plenty of people who spoke off record that stated as soon as we pulled out things would eventually fall apart....it's irrelevant at this point what we did in the past to destabilize it...question being did we pull out to early yes...but didn't they or their government want us out?

The US shouldn't even be there. The invasion of Iraq was based on lies and the war criminals should be arrested. We cannot impose on a people to live like we do. They live like Iraqi's, they have their own culture, which has nothing to do with us, so why should we stay there and force them? It makes no sense. The only reason America is there is to protect their interest in that oil and nothing more. They could care less about those people. All soldiers should come home from all over the world and we should focus on our borders. There's no country out there dumb enough to invade us so we'll be fine if everyone just stays here at home. But that 911 false-flag attack worked wonders on how "they" invaded and destabilized muslim countries. But now, people are on to them and their crimes. The clock is ticking on the war mongers freedom.