US Completes Its “Stupid” War in Iraq

New regime irritates Washington with its intransigence.

From the Editors:

In Washington, there is a series of events going on that are related to the end of American participation in the Iraq war. These events include the laying of wreaths at Arlington National Cemetery by U.S. President Barack Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, a television interview with the U.S. president and his participation in a military ceremony at Fort Bragg, a paratrooper garrison. It is well-known how Barack Obama characterized this war before he was elected president. At a meeting in Chicago, he called it a “stupid” war that seriously distracted forces from the war on terrorism and operations in Afghanistan. Naturally, the gravity of the ongoing ceremonies does not permit the president to reiterate this assessment, but the majority of the American media reminds everyone of these statements.

Obama has the opportunity to declare the end of participation in this war. In fact, he has the right to present this as the fulfillment of his election promises. For the United States, the nine-year war turned out to be a very difficult burden. It is enough to remark that the war itself became the most significant cause of the off-the-charts federal budget deficit and national debt. The most conservative estimates put its cost at $700 billion, but most experts calculate $1 trillion or more. American military casualties include 4,500 killed and thousands wounded. Losses to the Iraqi population are estimated in the tens of thousands, and considering the outbreak of sectarian carnage at the height of the war, there is talk of many tens of thousands of fatalities.

The Iraq war itself has not ended. Military operations continue in the country, mainly in the form of terrorist acts, which kill up to 250 people per week. At the same time, a strong army has been established in the country. The army and the police forces combined have about 700,000 people. Oil revenue is enabling Baghdad to buy arms, including fighter aircraft. However, there is still a need for further external assistance in training military personnel. Therefore, everyone was surprised when the Iraqi government refused to sign an agreement for military cooperation with the United States. Baghdad refused to offer the American military extraterritorial rights, meaning U.S. service members won’t be exempt from the jurisdiction of local courts. Today, there are 6,000 American troops in Iraq. Next year, there will be only those who belong to the embassy staff.

Alongside assurances of continuing partnership between the two countries, Washington is speaking to Nuri Al-Maliki of “remaining issues.” They call the Iraqi prime minister a nationalist and a harsh leader. In particular, they say, he rushed to expel foreign firms, mostly American ones, from the closed Green Zone in the center of Baghdad where they had established a presence.

The most critical questions in Washington relate to Al-Maliki’s foreign policy. While in Washington, he refused to support calls to oust Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. The U.S. media reminds us that at the time he escaped from Saddam Hussein, Al-Maliki found sanctuary in Syria and Iran.

It is unlikely that Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, imagined such a total war, which he began by bypassing the U.N. Security Council, defying the positions of such close allies as Germany and France. In any case, it is obvious that with the departure of the U.S. from Iraq, an independent regime will become established and will play a significant role in the Middle East region.

Moscow must consider this in formulating its plans for the development of Russian-Iraqi links, which must cover all aspects of international relations, taking into account, of course, that the situation in Iraq is still unsafe.