Iraq after ISIL

[Peter1469]

Commentary: Trump’s silver lining in Iraq


I am not sure why the editors picked this title, it doesn't really fit. It is about Iraq after the Islamic State is pushed out. A small part of Mosul being the last stronghold.

There will be winners, like the Kurds. There will be losers, like Iraq’s Sunni minority. There will be gains for Iran, which backs the Shi’ite militias drafted to fight Sunni-dominated IS. And there may be a silver lining for the Trump administration - specifically in the form of Kurdish independence and permanent American bases in a Shi’ite-ruled Iraq. But any declaration of “victory” on the part of the United States depends on how the measure of those results is taken.

Kurds control a large part of northern Iraq and already are semi-autonomous. They may even vote for independence in September. I guess this where Trump comes in- prior US presidents did not support the Kurds.

The Sunni are losers. They are fragmented and surrounded by Kurds to the North, and Shiites to the South, to include a lot of Shiites directly controlled by Iran. They also don't have much oil.

The Shia will maintain the capital and much of Iraq- likely with US bases remaining in order to check Iranian power.

Iran likely won't actively resist since they have little to gain fighting over land outside of Iran. Especially a fight they can't win.

[jimmyz]

Maybe Trump can get an agreement done to keep our bases and troop presence in Iraq unlike the one Obama didn't care to get approved. It might keep some semblance of peace?

[Peter1469]

Maybe Trump can get an agreement done to keep our bases and troop presence in Iraq unlike the one Obama didn't care to get approved. It might keep some semblance of peace?

I don't think we should get involved in Iraqi internal affairs.

[jimmyz]

I don't think we should get involved in Iraqi internal affairs.

Zero ground forces and air?

[Peter1469]

Zero ground forces and air?

I never said that. I said bases for power projection in the region.

Let them govern their own nation.

[jimmyz]

I may have misunderstood how it works. Does Iraq need to have an agreement to allow our bases to continue operating in country after they have defeated ISIL? Will the Iranian backed Shia militias have a political reason to resist our staying? Will we be militarily aligned with our friends the Kurds in an Iraqi vs Kurd conflict and hesitant to back the kurds with our power from our bases.

IMO Iraqi internal affairs has much to do with our force projection and when and whom we are backing in their country. Granted I am not big on Iraqi politics.

[DGUtley]

The defeat should help the country stand on its own?

[Peter1469]

I may have misunderstood how it works. Does Iraq need to have an agreement to allow our bases to continue operating in country after they have defeated ISIL? Will the Iranian backed Shia militias have a political reason to resist our staying? Will we be militarily aligned with our friends the Kurds in an Iraqi vs Kurd conflict and hesitant to back the kurds with our power from our bases.

IMO Iraqi internal affairs has much to do with our force projection and when and whom we are backing in their country. Granted I am not big on Iraqi politics.

Iraq doesn't need an agreement. The US does. We can them status of forces agreements. It covers a lot, but most importantly it gives the US jurisdiction over any military member who commits a crime in the host nation.

[Peter1469]

The defeat should help the country stand on its own?

I am not sure about the author of the OP, but I would not advocate for the US getting involved in Iraq's internal affairs. If their various groups can't get along, that is their problem.

[donttread]

Maybe Trump can get an agreement done to keep our bases and troop presence in Iraq unlike the one Obama didn't care to get approved. It might keep some semblance of peace?

We can't be everywhere. And we are too war mongering to call ourselves or act as peace makers anymore