Anyone else catch THIS disgraceful commentary by Hugh Sykes on the news that the last US combat brigade has left Iraq. Note the sneering contemptuous tone he adopts, note how he mocks the US soldier that dares to suggest they won (Where’s Saddam today, Hugh) and note the clear suggestion that it was all a waste of time – in line with the BBC narrative even before we liberated that wretched country. For years the BBC opposed the notion we would want to remove a terror-enabling mass murderer in the form of Saddam and now that Obama has delivered them the retreat that they want, they put the knife in even deeper. Sykes is not balanced, he is not neutral, his miserable commentary could come straight out of a Guardian editorial.
DEFEATED IN IRAQ
Bookmark the permalink.
US forces have not withdrawn completely. There will be 50,000 still remaining, though not on frontline duty. As for the airbases in the desert, not much is heard of them, so I presume they will still be there. All in all, US forces will be at the heart of the Calliphate, ready for any eventuality. If required, they can be bolstered any moment at the drop of a hat, maybe after Obama is history.
In addition, US forces are increasing in Afghanistan, poised nicely on either side of Iran.
Can you imagine how the BBC would have covered this story if George W.Bush was still President? Sarcastic remarks as to how this could be a complete withdrawal if 50,000 troops were still there. Accusations of spin and breach of promise. But as it is the Obamemessiah, just happy acceptance and giving of praise.
So much of the bias is not what they say but the way that they say it.
Sykes was effectively saying that everything had failed. No mention of the surge that worked, of course. The surge he always said was not going to work.
Agreed, champing at the bit to rubbish what the US Coalition acheived in Iraq with in many respects highly contentious viewpoints that it is not the job an impartial reporter to put forward as ‘fact’. In particular, his assertion that Al Qa’eda only came to Iraq after the US got rid of Saddam. It’s well documented that the leader of AQI was already in Iraq when the US invaded because he had been given refuge there by Saddam after fleeing Afghanistan. Sure, AQ concentrated huge efforts on Iraq, Osama Bin Laden (or maybe his No 2) I recall saying that if democracy succeeds in Iraq they have suffered a humiliating defeat. Well, I wouldn’t say democracy has succeeded – thanks to Obama its being jeopardised by a precipitous withdrawal – but its stands a chance thanks to Bush, which for the likes of Skyes isn’t just a humilliating defeat for Al Qa’eda but the BBC and him. Sykes was ‘sharing Al Qa’eda’s pain’.
Oh, and I’d just add, that whether strategy or not, the resources AQ threw into Iraq were enormous and no doubt spared its target nations from a lot of their attention. As many have said, Iraq was ‘great flypaper’.
Seven years on, and is that country any better off for the interference of the west? I have my doubts…
God (or Allah) help Afghanistan.
This is more due to the constant infighting between the Islamic factions than any acts or omissions of the Western powers.
Obviously, the hope that the Iraqis would finally put centuries of sectarian hatred behind them and concentrate on rebuilding their country as Germany and Japan did was misplaced optimism.
For all that, the decision to invade Iraq was made with noble intent – in my opinion, anyway. Iraq was a nest of terrorism, and had been for several decades. Doesn
Doesn’t the bombing of the WTC in 1993 ring any bells? That was the work of Iraqi terrorists – Iraq’s involvement in terrorist acts was known for a long time.
That had nothing to do with Sadaam. They were proto-AQ, Muslim Brotherhood types, not sent by Sadaam or Iraq itself. Having said that, the Kay Report revealed that Sadaam had let Iraq become Grand Central Station for terrorists. They moved about freely, he harbored some, and encouraged others.
Also, something even the BBC admitted once upon a time: the Iraqis hated the Palestinains because Sadaam gave $25,000 to families of suicide bombers and other support to the PLO while screwing over his own people. Getting rid of him has had a nice ripple effect around the region. Everyone remember how fast Qaddafi caved in on certain issues? He thought he’d be next.
David, I don’t know how you can say that WTC 1993 had nothing to do with Saddam.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 WTC bombs, moved back to Iraq after doing the bombing and actually was paid by Saddam. It is well known that Saddam gave refuge and money to terrorists.
John, I said in my comment above that Sadaam was a known supporter of terrorists. But after they were already in business. He did not order the 1993 bombing itself, and was not involved in the planning or anything like that.
“It is too early to say”
Zhou Enlai, when asked about the impact of the French Revolution of 1789.
You all sound surprised by Hugh Sykes and his fifth-column-style reporting. He’s been doing this for years, running down the West wjhilst pretending that it was all better before we started to interfere. He’s a (very) slightly more nuanced version of Orla Guerin.
And whilst the BBC sneers about one understandable comment by a relieved GI, the BBC will no doubt be listening intently to the spiutings of terror-supporter Moazzam Begg, who gets his owm radio programme on Monday
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tg1c1
I’m confused, the BBC are now saying the Americans are running away, but I thought the Iraqi’s all wanted the yanks gone in the first place? Can’t they make up their minds?
For years the BBC have been telling us that the problems will all go away once the Americans have gone.
Sadaam is gone, his lunatic offspring will not take it over and make things even worse, Iraq is not a rogue state, the Kurds are in more danger from the Turks (whom the BBC support) than from any Iraqi leader, Al Qaeda is toothless except for the occasional car bomb (which is not a display of military strength, dopey Beeboids).
This is a victory. Two, actually, since there was the war to remove Sadaam and then the longer conflict to keep Iraq from falling apart completely.
Here’s a tip for the BBC: if this was really a surrender and admission of defeat in Iraq, there would be one hell of a noise from the President’s “enemies” about it right now. As there isn’t, BBC producers might want to have a rethink.
Did I hear him say “Poor President Obama who’s caught up in all this” at 00:39?
Did I really hear that? So Obama is now a victim?
I worked in Baghdad for several years during the time of the Iran-Iraq war and had the “pleasure” of visiting the infamous Abu Ghraib prison on several occaisions. I dare say the human rights brigade that run the BBC would have found much in Abu Ghraib that would have displeased them if they had ever been there before Iraq was liberated in 2003.
I will never forget the sight of schoolkids from about 7yrs of age walking to school with machine guns that were almost as big as themselves. I also remember the simmering tension while driving through Saddam City, consisting wholly of Shia Muslims, and the heavily armed checkpoints at every major intersection.
Saddam knew his enemies and policed them at all times. Funny, but I don’t recall many courageous BBC reporters at the time bringing these little snippets of Iraqi life to the world’s attention.
I could write a book about Baghdad and Iraq during those times and would gladly debate with anyone from the BBC about the pleasures of Saddam’s Iraq.
JohnW,
Always good to read a post from someone who has first hand experience of places and events !
So Bowen says this is just the “American occupation rebranded”? Only an Islamic extremist would see it that way. It’s “one of the most damaging” moments in our history? Oh, please. It’s all opinion, and all on one side.
Now some anti-this war talking head is on saying if this is a victory he’d hate to see what a defeat looks like, Iraq is now set to be a hotbed of crazy militant violent groups. No reason to have any military or history experts on, I suppose, as that wouldn’t help the Narrative. Any adults on hand to discuss this? Apparently not.