Iraq begins to unravel 1 day after US troops leave

ILikeBananas

An Iraqi judicial committee has issued an arrest warrant for the country's Sunni Arab Vice-President, Tariq al-Hashemi, security officials have said.

The warrant was issued under anti-terrorism laws, the officials added.

The decision came after Mr Hashemi's bodyguards accused him of links with terrorism, an interior ministry spokesman told the Reuters news agency.

......


The move comes the day after the final US troops withdrew from the country and two days after the al-Iraqiya parliamentary bloc, which represents most of Iraq's Sunni Arab community, withdrew from parliament.

They have accused the Shia Arab Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, of monopolising power.

The President of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani, earlier called for urgent talks to prevent the "collapse" of the national unity government, warning that "the situation is headed towards deep crisis".

How do people see this one playing out? Is there a civil war imminent?

I presume there's zero chance of the Americans ever returning.

It's a bit like the parents have run away from home and are crossing their fingers that their three young teenagers, who happen to have a history of violence, will be able to look after themselves and not murder each other.

RichieC

Its hardly been a bed of roses prior to their so called departure.

wes

Its incredibly sad to see this happen in Iraq. Hopefully things won't descend into civil war again. Thats the last thing Iraq needs right now.

paulaa

Does anyone really believe that the US have left Iraq ? The US's biggest embassy in the world, still has 15,000 people working in it . Iraq has no airforce so the US is "helping out" by patrolling the oil fields etc. indefinitely. The place is still full of American contractors and companies squeezing as much as they can out of the country.

The PR stunt this week is just that.

AlekSmart

paulaa wrote: »

Does anyone really believe that the US have left Iraq ? The US's biggest embassy in the world, still has 15,000 people working in it . Iraq has no airforce so the US is "helping out" by patrolling the oil fields etc. indefinitely. The place is still full of American contractors and companies squeezing as much as they can out of the country.

The PR stunt this week is just that.

Ah come on now Paulaa,the USAF is just standing-by in case a "No Fly Zone" suddenly becomes a necessity and the U.N. need to rustle up an oul resolution...although,mind you....how does one organize a "Regime Change" in a place like modern day Iraq ?

Jonny7

paulaa wrote: »

Does anyone really believe that the US have left Iraq ? The US's biggest embassy in the world, still has 15,000 people working in it . Iraq has no airforce so the US is "helping out" by patrolling the oil fields etc. indefinitely. The place is still full of American contractors and companies squeezing as much as they can out of the country.

The PR stunt this week is just that.

The US has just lost over 4,000 men and hundreds of billions on Iraq, they're not trying to "milk" it.. there's nothing to milk. They created a quagmire on a false premise and lies, now they are trying to do the most dignified "retreat" possible. Literally pulling every single person out of the country would be highly irresponsible not to mention downright dangerous (if its possible the situation could get any more dangerous)

Here's some more news for the Sherlocks out there. The US does not want to be in Afghanistan either.

The Outside Agency

The US has just lost over 4,000 men and hundreds of billions on Iraq, they're not trying to "milk" it.. there's nothing to milk. They created a quagmire on a false premise and lies, now they are trying to do the most dignified "retreat" possible. Literally pulling every single person out of the country would be highly irresponsible not to mention downright dangerous (if its possible the situation could get any more dangerous)

Utter rubbish -- it's been concluded many times by some of the most powerful and influential people in the world that one of the main reasons for invading Iraq was Oil.

Iraq is also important strategically for power and influence in the region.

Let's not forget the Middle East contains 3/4 of the worlds oil and many directives passed by the US government were intended to protect "interests" in that region.

It's no mystery to most intelligent people and it's why US built a military compound/embassy bigger than Vatican city in Iraq.

Here's some more news for the Sherlocks out there. The US does not want to be in Afghanistan either.

More crap...do you really believe that?

They will be there for many decades to come and whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

paulaa

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US has just lost over 4,000 men and hundreds of billions on Iraq, they're not trying to "milk" it.. there's nothing to milk. They created a quagmire on a false premise and lies, now they are trying to do the most dignified "retreat" possible. Literally pulling every single person out of the country would be highly irresponsible not to mention downright dangerous (if its possible the situation could get any more dangerous)

Here's some more news for the Sherlocks out there. The US does not want to be in Afghanistan either.

Sorry but I believe that as much as I did the original WMD lies !!!

They have secured an oil supply both for Israel and the West. They are on Iran's doorstep, the 2 most important factors to the US.

As to Afghanistan, what was their motivation to throw themselves into that morass again. Remind me

doogydna

paulaa wrote: »

As to Afghanistan, what was their motivation to throw themselves into that morass again. Remind me

Because the Taleban had almost eradicated heroin production?!

RichieC

People seem to think that repeating "it wasnt a war for oil" will make it true.

these are the facts, americans would neven of heard of Iraq if it wasnt for the oil under it. Iran either.

it's also true that an unstable middle east is good for the weapons and security industries while also providing a decent fog of war for israel to stash its crimes behind.

ILikeBananas

Jonny7 wrote: »

Here's some more news for the Sherlocks out there. The US does not want to be in Afghanistan either.

The Outside Agency wrote: »

More crap...do you really believe that?

They will be there for many decades to come and whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

No they won't. The war in Afghanistan has accomplished nothing apart from to give that country some temporary relief from the Taliban. It's deeply unpopular in the States and the troops themselves are utterly disillusioned with it as nobody really sees the point in it anymore. Afghanistan doesn't even have any natural resources that the American's can secure for themselves.

The Outside Agency

ILikeBananas wrote:

No they won't. The war in Afghanistan has accomplished nothing apart from to give that country some temporary relief from the Taliban. It's deeply unpopular in the States and the troops themselves are utterly disillusioned with it as nobody really sees the point in it anymore. Afghanistan doesn't even have any natural resources that the American's can secure for themselves.

Who says they won't be there for the forseeable future?

Afghanistan is an important transit state for oil/gas pipelines and that's why NATO (led by US) are there.

It is not just the US forces occupying Afghanistan.. so are many EU countries like Germany, Poland, France and UK...they are all there to secure sources of energy which don't come from Russia.

NATO states want to diversify sources of energy instead of depending entirely on Russia.

Energy is a potential weapon for Russia against the EU.

RichieC

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Jonny7 wrote: »

Here's some more news for the Sherlocks out there. The US does not want to be in Afghanistan either.

The Outside Agency wrote: »

More crap...do you really believe that?

They will be there for many decades to come and whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

No they won't. The war in Afghanistan has accomplished nothing apart from to give that country some temporary relief from the Taliban. It's deeply unpopular in the States and the troops themselves are utterly disillusioned with it as nobody really sees the point in it anymore. Afghanistan doesn't even have any natural resources that the American's can secure for themselves.

natural gas pipelines to keep secure.

heroine to fund the CIA secret budget.

Manach

My understanding is that the majority of US oil comes from non-Gulf sources, so oil alone would not have been the prime reason for the initial invasion. Saying that, giving the poor PR the US is now having with Pakistan (drone attacks etc), they might need to diversify their assets in the region and hence get "re-invited" into Iraq.

paulaa

doogydna wrote: »

Because the Taleban had almost eradicated heroin production?!

Well done on your 7th post

I'm sure the troops will miss the nice little earner they had when they leave Afghanistan:rolleyes:

Jippohead

I was always a little dubious about the war for oil thing. Purely based how much oil I wonder America will actually gain from Iraq's oil reserves. I just had a quick google there (and forgive me if these sites are biased, but I need to get back to work).

So, according to this site

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2003/0512globalenvironment_luft.aspx

The Iraq oil reserve estimates may range from 14 bbl (billions of barrels) to 112 bbl to 300 bbl (the latter from Saddam's deputy oil minister, so probably untrustworthy).

I checked how much oil the US consumes per year (in bbl), and found a few sites with estimates

http://205.254.135.7/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6

and

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

which states the US consumes approximately 7 bbl's per year.

Taking the middle-ground estimate of Iraq's oil reserves at 112 bbl, assuming
the US's oil consumption remains constant and assuming that all oil produced
goes to the US (and is produced at a rate of 7 bbl's per year). This means the US
will get a regular oil flow for the next ~16 years. Of course, in a worst case scenario
(i.e. 14 bbl, estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)), the US only gains
oil for about 2 years (hardly seems worth the amount of cash they spent to take
over the place, which I think was about $1 trillion?).

Anyway, that's a really rough and dirty look at it. If the oil reserves are on the high
side, then it's certainly worth it by American standards. Risky with the wide ranges
of oil reserve estimates however.

People mentioned having a US-presence in Iraq allowing a nearby presence to Iran
(which I thought could very well be a primary goal). However, surely the US already has a military presence near Iran when considering Turkey, Kuwait and even Afghanistan?

Cheers,
Jippo

Jaafa

^^^ In regards to the Afgan thing, I believe the US thinks you can never have enough military bases. Sure they already have over 190 across the globe and counting.

Chuck Stone

Manach wrote: »

My understanding is that the majority of US oil comes from non-Gulf sources, so oil alone would not have been the prime reason for the initial invasion.

Even if the US was completely energy self sufficient the control of natural resources would still be a preoccupation of US strategists.

Jonny7

The Outside Agency wrote: »

Utter rubbish -- it's been concluded many times by some of the most powerful and influential people in the world that one of the main reasons for invading Iraq was Oil.

I didn't support the Iraq war in any way, I was very much against it.

However oil was not the singular reason to be in Iraq nor was it the main reason (many other not so palettable reasons)

The place quickly turned into a deathtrap and a quagmire, most people know nothing of the real horrors that went on in Iraq, it simply became under-reported.

The US wanted out.

Same with Afghanistan.

However a full quick retreat was/is an absolute no-no. "Phased withdrawal", whatever you want to call it. Iraq and Afghanistan have been abject failures, in every sense, and this is since half a decade now (since the "surges" etc, and the clever shift of focus from Iraq to Afghan in about '08)

Mr.Micro

Jonny7 wrote: »

However oil was not the singular reason to be in Iraq nor was it the main reason (many other not so palettable reasons)

The place quickly turned into a deathtrap and a quagmire, most people know nothing of the real horrors that went on in Iraq, it simply became under-reported.

The US wanted out.

Same with Afghanistan.

However a full quick retreat was/is an absolute no-no. "Phased withdrawal", whatever you want to call it. Iraq and Afghanistan have been abject failures, in every sense, and this is since half a decade now (since the "surges" etc, and the clever shift of focus from Iraq to Afghan in about '08)

Will the US learn from these failures, like Vietnam before? I think not. I will be very surprised if it does not attack Iran in the near future. After Iran then it will be China, who will become the new threat. Nothing better than having an enemy so that it can justify its obscene obsession with WMD manufacture and use.

Keeping the oil flowing is vital for the Yanks as this in turn keeps the price in check, so the oil is one reason for attacking Iraq.

Sierra Oscar

This issue has been flagged for months now - there is nothing surprising about this emerging now. It was known, even before military operations ended, that this arrest warrant would be issued.

BlaasForRafa

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Will the US learn from these failures, like Vietnam before? I think not. I will be very surprised if it does not attack Iran in the near future. After Iran then it will be China, who will become the new threat. Nothing better than having an enemy so that it can justify its obscene obsession with WMD manufacture and use.

Keeping the oil flowing is vital for the Yanks as this in turn keeps the price in check, so the oil is one reason for attacking Iraq.

As per usual you're wrong, China will be the aggressive country in the future and they won't have let any of that human rights stuff bother them. As it is, China is voracious for natural resouces and thats not going to reduce, already it is pushing neighbouring coutries like the Phillipines and Vietnam around for control of the south china sea. China/Vietnam is a good contender for future war action.

Mr.Micro

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As per usual you're wrong, China will be the aggressive country in the future and they won't have let any of that human rights stuff bother them. As it is, China is voracious for natural resouces and thats not going to reduce, already it is pushing neighbouring coutries like the Phillipines and Vietnam around for control of the south china sea. China/Vietnam is a good contender for future war action.

Am I wrong? You are an expert are you. As per usual....what is that supposed to mean Mr know it all? I believe China will be the next enemy after Iran, is that what you disagree with.

RichieC

Mr.Micro wrote: »

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As per usual you're wrong, China will be the aggressive country in the future and they won't have let any of that human rights stuff bother them. As it is, China is voracious for natural resouces and thats not going to reduce, already it is pushing neighbouring coutries like the Phillipines and Vietnam around for control of the south china sea. China/Vietnam is a good contender for future war action.

Am I wrong? You are an expert are you. As per usual....what is that supposed to mean Mr know it all? I believe China will be the next enemy after Iraq, is that what you disagree with.

Blass deals in the washington consensus truthiness which means hes naturally always right. you'll find the same arrogant attitude from all tbe usphiles.

ILikeBananas

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

This issue has been flagged for months now - there is nothing surprising about this emerging now. It was known, even before military operations ended, that this arrest warrant would be issued.

Even if that was the case it still doesn't change the fact that it looks like the Shias are trying to consolidate power and have simply waited for the Americans to leave before getting the ball rolling.

Mr.Micro

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Even if that was the case it still doesn't change the fact that it looks like the Shias are trying to consolidate power and have simply waited for the Americans to leave before getting the ball rolling.

Its going to be a rocky road anyway IMO, as there is much division in the country.

Jonny7

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Will the US learn from these failures, like Vietnam before? I think not. I will be very surprised if it does not attack Iran in the near future. After Iran then it will be China, who will become the new threat. Nothing better than having an enemy so that it can justify its obscene obsession with WMD manufacture and use.

Keeping the oil flowing is vital for the Yanks as this in turn keeps the price in check, so the oil is one reason for attacking Iraq.

Its not "the US".. its different administrations.

No, they don't currently "want" war with Iran, that's been repeated since 2004 at least, its just sabre rattling. Note - I am not ruling out Israel triggering a regional war via unilateral action.

Well the yanks did a very bad job to "keep the oil flowing" with Iraq as the infrastructure actually degraded resulting in lower output, they didn't win any contracts, aggregate market price increased.

Captain Chaos

paulaa wrote: »

Iraq has no airforce so the US is "helping out" by patrolling the oil fields etc. indefinitely.

The US agreed to sell 18 fighters to Iraq during the summer and Iraq have placed an order for another 18 just last week and they are not second hand either they are being built brand new to the latest F-16 spec. They will train a few Iraqi pilots in the US who will then train their new airforce when they return home.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4482.html

That above deal has since been approved, one point to note is that the US will not sell the AMRAAM missile to Iraq. They have sold the AMRAAM to Saudi and Israel so in air to air combat the Iraqi jets are at a disadvantage.

Bobo78

paulaa wrote: »

Well done on your 7th post

I'm sure the troops will miss the nice little earner they had when they leave Afghanistan:rolleyes:

Apsolutely agree on everything you said.

RichieC

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its not "the US".. its different administrations.

practically tbe same members in both houses. they control the purse strings.

Poccington

Jonny7 wrote: »

However a full quick retreat was/is an absolute no-no. "Phased withdrawal", whatever you want to call it. Iraq and Afghanistan have been abject failures, in every sense, and this is since half a decade now (since the "surges" etc, and the clever shift of focus from Iraq to Afghan in about '08)

The Yanks biggest mistake was taking resources away from A'Stan when they went into Iraq and once they decided to stay in A'Stan, they invited "Big Army" into the fold rather than leaving SOF to carry on with the COIN fight and training the Afghans.

As for the Iran, the Yanks don't want to be dragged into a war with them, IMO. However, I fully believe Israel will start the next big conflict in the Middle East, which could result in the Yanks having to commit if they continue their policy of supporting the Israeli's, no matter what.