Iraq: Obama not to send US troops into Baghdad again!
-DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL
_____________________

Officially and legally, Iraq is a sovereign nation, though still directly controlled by Washington through a pro-US puppet regime placed  in Baghdad. 

Defensive violence or terrorism began in Iraq against the occupation forces from the anti-Islamic West following the brutal assassination of President Saddam Hussein and destruction of much of Iraq by the NATO rogue states on fictitious  pretexts like  searching for WMD. . 

War mongers and arms producers in USA and Europe  want the NATO terror wars in energy rich nations to continue so that they could make more profits.  Since Saudi Arabia has not asked the NATO to stop the illegal wars and occupations,  the war strategists want Obama  not to end wars. 


Maybe, they are the most powerful ones on earth, but  the Americans are accountable for the  genocides perpetrated  in Iraq by the NATO  terror militaries, killing millions of Iraqis just for sadistic pleasures. 

The CIA, in order to prolong their illegal  occupation, genocides and destructions,  engineered Sunni-Shi'a fights in Iraq as elsewhere in Islamic world where the USA has economic interests. The al-Sham (ISIS) has established a clear win in Iraq. The situation in Iraq has quickly devolved as Sunni fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) have seized Mosul--Iraq's second largest city. Now they are reportedly only 40 miles from Shiite-led Baghdad, as Iraqi troop defections limit a quick response from the army. Obama said the United States would do its part, but ultimately it is up to Iraq as a sovereign nation to solve their problems. 

US President Barrack Obama’s  decision not to send US troops back into Iraq is not just wise but also most appropriate to try to put down the insurgence and civil war.  Obama wants the Iraqis to solve their own problems on their own without any outside help.

Iraqi regime is facing the insurgency for years upon the assassination of Saddam Hussein.  

On June 13 President Barack Obama addressed the nation from White House, announcing that he would not be putting US troops on the ground in Iraq, and that any further decisions will take several more days of planning. Obama's overarching message during his White House address was that he would prefer to rely on a political solution that involved Iraqi leaders making concerted efforts to overcome sectarian divides. 

Obama reflected on the U.S.'s decade of involvement in Iraq, saying that Iraq had been provided an opportunity "to claim their own future" at the expense of American soldiers and tax payers, but its leaders had been unable to overcome sectarian disagreements that have long plagued the region. Obama said because of this the current crisis in Iraq is not solely or even primarily a military challenge," but a situation calling for "intensive diplomacy." 

US determination not to get involved in what now is largely a civil war seems to be firm and irreversible. Obama’s new action in Iraq would be a notable departure from his own 2004 campaign wherein he ran as a staunch opponent to the original invasion initiated by the Bush regime. The authorization to use military force in Iraq passed by Congress in 2002 has not officially expired, so some political pundits have theorized that Obama could use this to justify quick action.

Washington had sent troops to Iraq first when Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait to control and protect its energy resources being taken away by USA and allies for a song.  Again, following the Sept-11 hoax, USA sent troops into Iraq on false claims of WMD but in fact Bush Jr sought regime change by killing Saddam Hussein brutally. 

From the 1991 Gulf War to the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein to subsequent years marred by violence and instability, there's no doubting the deep connection between the two nations. That's largely thanks to policies crafted out of Washington, be they intended to contain or eliminate Hussein or to stabilize and build up the fragile nation that remained in his wake. So it is no surprise that, with militants overrunning much of Iraq and threatening its capital while the military strategists want Obama to readily send back the troops to Iraq as it happened before. 


Critics derided the withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2011. Among them was Sen. John McCain, who reiterated his disgust at that decision and called for the firing of Obama's national security team in part over what's happened in Iraq. The biggest, simplest way to make an impact in Iraq: Send American troops back into the country.

President Barack Obama has met with his national security team, which is preparing options for how the USA can make a difference in Iraq. Secretary of State John Kerry said Obama is prepared to make key decisions in short order.

Obama knew that there was the Gulf War rout and the US troops didn't stay for long after that, but they did hunker down 12 years later. American troop levels in Iraq peaked at 166,300 in October 2007

Obama had earlier said that "our national security team is looking at all the options," adding that "I don't rule anything out." Expanding on the President's comments later in the day, Carney stated that Obama "was responding to the question about requests for airstrikes and would he consider airstrikes."Photos: Iraqi civilians flee Mosul: Not ruling anything out on Iraq

In the past, Iraqis have been very public about their desire to limit the involvement of the American military. Yet, a US official said the Iraqi government had indicated willingness for the U.S. military to conduct airstrikes targeting members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and other militants. American air power has proven effective before in campaigns such as Kosovo or Libya.

Yet it's not foolproof. Plus, there are limits and challenges to attacking sites from the air. For one, there's still a risk of casualties should warplanes be shot down. And secondly, it can be difficult to wipe out an insurgency from above, especially if militants blend into the civilian population.

USA wants to provide more military might. Obama himself said Iraq is going to need more help from us, and it's going to need more help from the international community. A Defense Department official says that about $15 billion in equipment, training and other services already have gone to Iraq. Carney reeled off some of the many items that have made their way east of late: millions of rounds of small arms fire, thousands of rounds of tank ammunition, hundreds of Hellfire missiles, grenades, assault rifles, helicopters and much more. And that tally doesn't include an additional $1 billion in arms -- including up to 200 Humvees -- that are now in a 30-day review period in Congress.

At the same time, it's not like the billions of dollars worth of firepower proved all that effective against ISIS fighters in places like Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. 

James Jeffrey, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq from 2010 to 2012 characterized Iraq's military as "ill-trained, badly led and not particularly competent." And it's not just a matter of making sure that whatever resources sent to Iraq are used effectively and not wasted. 

Beating back ISIS, by taking back Mosul and other cities, would be a huge victory for Iraq's government. But it wouldn't be a complete, conclusive win unless the country can get its house in order which requires addressing Iraq's "political dysfunction." 

That means leave Iraq to Iraqis. Pentagon cannot  export democracy to Iraq or  any other  Arab nation. 

One silver lining to the turmoil is Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government seems to be coordinating with the semi autonomous Kurdish government, It appears Iraqi forces will team up with Kurdish fighters, known as the Peshmerga, to combat ISIS. Addressing the divisions between Shiites and Sunnis, the two dominant Muslim sects, in Iraq is another matter.

Al-Maliki's government, as well as the military, is dominated by Shiites -- leaving Sunnis not only left out but also bitter, so much so that some of them may not see ISIS as a worse option. 

Obama said over the last several years, they have not seen the kind of trust and cooperation develop between moderate Sunni and Shia leaders inside of Iraq. "That accounts in part for some of the weakness of the state, and that carries over into the military."

US Vice President Joe Biden has been the administration's point-person, talking regularly with al-Maliki to try to effect political change, including possibly through a new unity government that gives Sunnis a prominent, hands-on role. The question is still how exactly they'll support him.

Still, while the US military might not have a role fighting on the ground in Iraq, it should have a role over it.

The US State Department complains that there is more that Prime Minister Maliki should have done, could have done, over the course of time. 

To make matters even more complicated, Iranian revolutionary guard units have reportedly also entered Iraq to help the Baghdad government fight the insurgents. Shiite Iran is so alarmed by Sunni insurgent gains in Iraq that it may be willing to cooperate with Washington in helping Baghdad fight back. Relations between Iran and Washington have improved modestly since the 2013 election of President Hassan Rouhani, who promised "constructive engagement" with the world. 

And while Tehran and the United States pursue talks to resolve the Islamic state's decade-old nuclear standoff with the West, they also acknowledge some common threats, including the rise of al Qaeda-style militancy across the Middle East. 

President Barack Obama said the United States was not ruling out air strikes to help Baghdad fight the insurgents, in what would be the first U.S. armed intervention in Iraq since the end of the US-led war. The idea is being discussed internally among the Islamic Republic's leadership, the senior Iranian official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official had no word on whether the idea had been raised with any other party. Officials say Iran will send its neighbor advisers and weaponry, although probably not troops, to help its ally Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki check what Tehran sees as a profound threat to regional stability


Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that no one is calling for "American troops into Iraq." And of all options now on the table, it's the only one that the Obama administration has explicitly nixed.

ISIS is likely to build an Islamic state in true spirits to promote Islamic culture. The  USA and EU cannot feel ashamed of the development in Iraq because Iraqis are free people and they should be allowed to decide their future in Iraq for Muslims.

Among Obama's options the ending the US troops in Iraq remains the most appropriate. US soldiers need to run to safety.

USA and Europe should not oppose Muslims trying to live as true Muslims in truly Islamic nations. They should either support Islamic nations to promote Islamic faith or keep silent about it altogether but let them live according to Islamic values