Did the US leaving Iraq significantly allow ISIS to become a world threat?
If the US stayed in Iraq would ISIS have developed its power, as we see it today?
If we had stayed it's doubtful they would have become as powerful in (Iraq). However there were two problems.
1. The new Iraqi government wanted us to leave. (It is their country).
2. The Iraqi military is not willing to die to defend their own land.
In June 2014 two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly (30,000 men) – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just (800) fighters.
If 30,000 men aren't willing to fight 800 men that's a serious problem! How can will keep expecting the U.S. military to die for them?
They took off their uniforms and abandoned tanks and weapons!
Having said that I believe if we had left Saddam Hussein in power there would never had been an issue with ISIS.
We opened Pandora's box. Now there's no easy way out!
Maybe the real plan was always to establish a military base in Iraq. Clearly it's been proven there were no weapons of mass destruction.
I agree about Saddam, there is no clear proof of a negative. But we wasted lives by leaving and it made things worse, not better. The problem is that the politicians prevented the military from winning, as they have done since Korea.
I'm not sure you can ever really "win" in a place where the various tribes of people have HATED each other for hundreds of years! At some point they would be at it once we left.
The only other option was to stay and police it forever!
That is true, but the real issue is how to we fight terrorism outside the US, before it can take hold here?
Well, historians in generations to come will no doubt deem the invasion of Iraq a huge mistake but that'll be with the benefit of hindsight, as always. Saddam Hussein certainly had a grip on his country, ruling it from 1979 until the invasion by US and UK troops following UN resolution 1441.
Iraq (after being set up by the British in 1932) has a history of struggle and violence, Sunni, Shiite and Kurds fighting for territories over the years. Saddam Hussein as most dictators do quelled any uprisings but was certainly way too belligerent in his dealings with Iran and Kuwait. His eventual removal by the US/UK (on the premise that he had nuclear weapons) left a vacuum no doubt, filled by extremist Sunni and Ba'ath party members, who joined Al Qaeda in the jihad against the West. As Bin Laden and Co weakened, ISIS grew and developed their policies until in 2006 or so they declared their aim - an Islamic state.
Once the US troops left no amount of training or money given the Iraqi forces would suffice against the radical jihadists. ISIS use conventional weaponry and medieval terror tactics to win their battles, as we've all witnessed on t.v.
Syria is the focal point now. What a mess that is. Assad is a cruel dictator but has a strong army, backed by the Russians. The US and coalition have no answer, they're exhausted after the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. Some people say what about troops on the ground but where would they go? Back to Iraq? No. Into Syria? No way.
With Russia joining the fight ISIS have another giant to poke in the eye. ISIS are here for the long haul - air strikes won't get rid of them - we can only hope that in time the Arab league can come up with their own magical plan??!!
In the meantime we'll have to use aircraft, drones, intelligence and special forces to try and undermine this very dangerous bunch of terrorists. And once ISIS have gone, wait for the next monster to raise its ugly head.
I agree, but the whole reason to invade Iraq was to stop terrorism. The WMD was only a key to get again, that was not smart.
We should have left Saddam alone, and finished in Afghanistan. Our first mistake was Desert Storm,
"we can only hope that in time the Arab league can come up with their own magical plan." Excellent point.
It really is (their battle) to win or lose. We can't keep having American sacrifice their lives for (their) land.
They need to man up!
Today, Iraq and Syria are just borders on a map. In terms of the people living in those regions, they don't recognize those borders. They pay allegiance to there sects. There are three major sects in the region. Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. The Sunni believe that direct descendants of Mohammad should lead the Islam world.They are called Imams like the Supreme Leader of Iran. The Sunni believe the Islam world should be led by a person who has the wherewithal to lead them. That person is called a Caliph.ISIS is led by a Caliph, who's goal is to control the region as a Caliphate. The Kurds are a mixture of both sects, including Christians.
The problem is when a minority dictator is in power, they have to rule their domain with an iron fist. Saddam was in the Sunni minority in Iraq who ruled over the majority Shia. When he was taken out, the Shia and Kurds took over.
In Syria, Basshar Al Assad is a minority Shia Alawite, dictator who is ruling over a Sunni majority. Anawar Al Baghdadi is the leader of the ISIS and as the Caliphate, his long term goal is to remove the borders that were established after WWI and return the region back to the Ottoman Empire that was ruled by a Caliph. If Saddam was not taken out, the Sunni led ISIS would not of had the opportunity to come to power. The Iraq military is mainly Sunni who are not going to fight their brothers in ISIS. There is a three way civil war going on among the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, We should just bow out of the region and let them resolve their own issues. They will then draw new borders in the countries of Sunnistan, Shiastan, and Kurdistan. ISIS is a world threat in that they have affiliates stationed all over the world, under different terrorist group names.
When this country learns that you cannot change a theocracy into a democracy, no more than you can change a democracy into a theocracy, we will all be be better off.
by Deforest 4 years ago
That is to say 4% of the population. It is the direct consequence of our brutal conquest. Is it what democracy is about?
by Ralph Deeds 6 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is intolerable and something must be done to prevent it from happening. A timely and...
by Philip Cooper 4 years ago
Is the Islamic State a greater threat to the world than Hitler and the Nazi's?At least this time the west has recognised the danger and is ready to cut the cancer out completely.
by SparklingJewel 10 years ago
Did you catch the article? One more piece to the puzzle revealed.Go to AP homepage and type a Query "Iraq yellowcake" to access article...it is not on any homepage for news except Fox (not even APs homepage !?)hummmmmmmmm
by The Minstrel 7 years ago
I personally believe that invading Iraq was imperative. We had to take the war to Al Qaida and keep them occupied in the Middle East. Will we transform this ancient land into a Western form of democracy. I doubt it. However, we have rid the world of a cruel dictator, Saddam Hussein. What do you...
by cjhunsinger 4 years ago
Obama asserts that climate change is a larger threat than ISIS; do you agree?Obama is about to make a unilateral power grab, in the name of, Climate Change, in order to save the world from something that cannot be proven, and provides token resistance to ISIS, a known threat to the world.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|