Saddam Hussein – USA Gov Policy

The White House has stressed that the battle to defeat ISIS will extend beyond the end of the Obama Administration. Former Obama defense secretary Leon Panetta is even more pessimistic. He recently stated that it could take thirty years.

It’s time to ask why.

Since the end of the Second World War, it has become accepted that the United States will only fight using a small part of its military prowess. For struggles in Vietnam and Korea, concern over inciting a larger conflict with the Soviet Union or China was a factor in exercising restraint. There may have been some validity in that worry, but the reciprocal question must be asked: with America, at the time, probably superior to those powers in armed strength, would not that same concern also have restrained those powers?

People with obesity have low levels of testosterone- a vital male hormone for sexual function. commander viagra browse around for more Users can order order cheap levitra discover for more and get the product delivered at the customer’s address in a tamper-proof, discreet package. There is no such chance of a buy cialis http://robertrobb.com/2019/08/ person to bear sex. Most of the reputed UK based reliable generic levitra online http://robertrobb.com/?iid=5001 drug store such as , one gets the drug at his doorstep. safe online transaction, discreet packaging, fast and free shipping are some of the major benefits of using cheap kamagra medication for men’s erection problem: Kamagra – An Instant Result Providing ED Drug This effective oral drug helps to get a quick erection after its consumption. Those factors did not exist during the first Gulf War, yet President Bush (41) chose not to press the advantage and left Saddam Hussein in power after crushing his military and the Iraqi leaders’ dream of annexing Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia. The task of finally eliminating Saddam was left to Bush 43, who did oust the tyrant. The potential to transform Iraq into a functioning democracy, a difficult but important goal, was cut short by the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops during the subsequent Obama Administration. Islamic extremists also took great comfort in the complete absence of any armed response to the Benghazi assault.

The concept of an enduring, encompassing victory, which motivated allied leadership during the darkest days of the WWII, is no longer in vogue. Instead, the least necessary force is employed, with concern for collateral damage taking precedent over winning. America’s opponents see that and the strength of the “peace at any price” sentiment in the West as a sign of weakness and use it against the U.S. Problems are not resolved; they are merely pushed down the road.

Defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria would not take Panetta’s 30 years if the full force of the United States military, with the exception, of course, of nuclear weapons, were brought to bear, and if that force was employed with the same necessary ruthlessness with which the victories of the Second World War were won. The conflict could be concluded far more rapidly, and in a manner that would discourage further such attempts by Islamic extremists. It would also serve as a potent deterrent to Iran’s belligerent plans.

An unnecessary tragedy is unfolding in Iraq.

In 2003, after decades of tyranny and aggression, it appeared that the people of Iraq, a nation long considered an international pariah, would finally have a chance to live free of oppression and war following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by U.S. led Coalition forces.

Just two years later, the world witnessed one of the most riveting images of the early 21^st century, the proud display of “purple thumbs” by those who voted in the Iraqi elections of 2005. But in the universe of Islamic extremism, the concept of a people enjoying freedom is not welcome. Al Qaeda established a presence, Iran actively inserted its influence, and sectarian fighting became prevalent.

The descent into chaos continued until 2007, when President George W. Bush ordered a “surge” of U.S. forces that restored order in an effort that successfully concluded in 2008. The people of Iraq finally could live a normal life. As a stable, democratic, and religiously tolerant Muslim nation, Iraq had the opportunity to be the linchpin of a new era of peace and prosperity in the Middle East.
Please mention the same in your professional viagra purchase order. Therefore, it is the best ayurvedic cure to important link levitra vs cialis raise male libido, along with Booster capsule to increase desire for lovemaking. On the other hand, Kamdeepak capsule is another powerful herbal remedy to stop semen coming best viagra price out while sleeping. Common side effects can be treated by using a special medication known as ‘best buy viagra ‘.
The opportunity didn’t last long. Fulfilling a campaign promise, President Barack Obama ordered a withdrawal of almost all U.S. forces in 2011. Clearly, their work was unfinished. One of the most serious unfinished tasks was the creation of Iraqi security forces capable of defeating Iranian and al Qaeda forces seeking to replace Iraqi civil society with one based on Muslim extremism. Chaos ensued.

The disintegration of Iraqi society, mass murders through bombings and gunfire, the overwhelming presence of Iran and al Qaeda, and the end of a chance for a new Middle East came about as a result of the Obama withdrawal.

Al Qaeda is now on the ascendancy, particularly in the western part of the nation. The dire implications for the rest of the Middle East are substantial.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.