But for all the disappointment about Obama[1], four presidents in a row have initiated their own airstrikes in Iraq, two have played a role in a transition of power. George W. Bush accomplished that by invading Iraq with around 150,000 U.S. troops in just its initial March to April 2003 stage, the majority in a multinational collation[2].
Recently Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki stepped down, against his own stated will. The U.S. was involved in airstrikes in Iraq but not against the government; it did publicly claim to be withholding further involvement until new leadership was in power. And publicly supported his now successor, appointed by the Kurdish President, whose people's effectively autonomous government has a long standing relationship with the U.S.
Many things, including a drop in Iranian support, led to Maliki's privately forced removal from power, and two things are never fully the same, but still. Two presidents have played a role in a transition of power in Iraq, one path didn't involve the death of 3,500 U.S. soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians while we were there. The other transition involved limited airstrikes, some special forces I assume, influence on allies, foreign relations, etc. The situation is full of death still, but still.
I'm not saying I agree with anything that's happened ever that I haven't already endorsed yet,
I'm just sayin.
1. whether unrealistically, realistically, don't accept that both are an option? idk whichever, going down this road is a distraction to my central point.
2. Blah blah ended up in around 3,500 U.S causalities, hundreds of other coalition troops, and over 100,000 Iraqi civilian dead. And I don't recall it turned out well.
No comments:
Post a Comment