Fareed Zakaria: Who Lost Iraq? The Iraqis Did, With An Assist From George W. Bush ( Lapdog Speaks)

Washington Post ^ | June 12, 2014 | Fareed Zakaria-foreign affairs column-The Post; CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS; editor at large Time mag

[Steelfish]

Fareed Zakaria: Who lost Iraq? The Iraqis did, with an assist from George W. Bush

June 12 at 8:27 PM It is becoming increasingly likely that Iraq has reached a turning point. The forces hostile to the government have grown stronger, better equipped and more organized. And having now secured arms, ammunition and hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from their takeover of Mosul — Iraq’s second-largest city — they will build on these strengths. Inevitably, in Washington, the question has surfaced: Who lost Iraq?

Whenever the United States has asked this question — as it did with China in the 1950s or Vietnam in the 1970s — the most important point to remember is: The local rulers did. The Chinese nationalists and the South Vietnamese government were corrupt, inefficient and weak, unable to be inclusive and unwilling to fight with the dedication of their opponents. The same story is true of Iraq, only much more so. The first answer to the question is: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lost Iraq.

[Alberta's Child]

For sure...but he also was serious about building up WMDs. In fact, he’d be alive and in power, except for those WMDs.

Any national leader with half a brain is "serious about building up WMDs." As time goes on they become essential to a country's survival.

[bert]

It is premature to say Iraq is lost. What is in process is change.

The government established after the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist’s may lose some parts but retain others. That is, the artificial accretion of territory by the British into the nation of Iraq is separating into the natural divisions of religious, tribal and maybe ethnic lines. These are the northern Kurdish region, the central Suni region and the southern Shia region

The Iraq being lost is actually just a map drawn by British and French diplomats when carving up the Ottaman Empire in say 1918 after WW I. The reassemblage of territories, this change, may also include parts of what is now Syria where similar map drawing resulted in French Syria.

In my mind, what America does or doesn’t do is largely irrelevant now. The decisions will be made by others in the region. Especially interested are Turkey, the Gulf States and Egypt with Jordan thrown in as an aside.

[BobL]

“Any national leader with half a brain is “serious about building up WMDs.” As time goes on they become essential to a country’s survival.”

Probably so, but Saddam was in a bad situation, given what he agreed to after Gulf War 1. That’s why Basher was able to do what he did without any problems.

[Marine_Uncle]

I believe your statement about lack of Congressional approval on both sides to interfere militarily in Syria is correct.

Perhaps the following group of articles on the Turkish consulate takeover might be of interest to you.
Here.