Russian Point of View of Recent US Iraq Pullout

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
They're checking the fences. I wonder how many Russian newspapers carry stories of every US and Canadian challenge to THEIR airspace. It's a dance....

^ I decided to delve onto an online Russian news site to see if they had information relating to the above comment Wolf made, when I stumbled upon this article:

White House Withdraws Combat Brigade from Iraq as Plain Propaganda Action
White House Withdraws Combat Brigade from Iraq as Plain Propaganda Action - Pravda.Ru

Washington has announced the completion of the combat mission of its armed forces in Iraq. This is how the withdrawal of the supposedly last combat brigade of US troops from Iraq to Kuwait was presented to the world public. An official spokesman for the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, said that the last armored vehicles had crossed the border between Iraq and Kuwait early Thursday.

Obama said in a written statement that he was hoping that all Americans would thank the troops for their service in Iraq. Do those words really mean that the USA has ended the war in Iraq?

Operation "Shock and Awe", which marked the beginning of the US-led invasion in Iraq seven years ago, has only resulted in the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. The United States has not been able to build democracy in the war-torn country. Figuratively speaking, there is no more shock in Iraq, but both the population and the military men are still gripped with awe.

No one can feel safe in Iraq today. The number of terrorist attacks in the country has been growing steadily. One can easily understand the joy of 4,000 soldiers of the 4th Stryker Brigade, who were finally allowed to leave the country where they were not welcome. They have the luxury of staying alive, although 4,200 US military men will never return to their homes. About 30,000 American soldiers returned to the homeland as physically disabled individuals.

When delivering a speech to the disabled veterans of the Iraqi war, Obama praised the US army. He said that the human losses in the country helped the Iraqis build their political system and defeat al-Qaeda. He also said that terrorists were still trying to minimize the progress, which the Iraqis and the US troops had achieved.

Over 50,000 American military men are still staying in Iraq. From now on, they will be referred to as military advisors, although it does not change anything. At least two US combat brigades have been slightly reorganized and rebranded as "advise and assist" brigades. They will continue to maintain the operations conducted by Iraqi military men. To put it in a nutshell, the US servicemen will still take part in combat actions, if necessary. Judging upon the remarks from Iraqi generals, it will be necessary for long.

Lt Gen Babaker Zebari has recently stated that Iraqi military men would not be able to control the situation in the country for at least ten years. Top US defense officials also believe that terrorists will only become more active in Iraq after the US troops leave the country.

Over 100 people have been killed across Iraq since the beginning of August. July has become the bloodiest month in the country during the recent 2.5 years: 535 people were killed and thousands were injured as a result of explosions and armed attacks.

Experts believe that terrorists conduct their subversive activities against the background of the political vacuum, which appeared in the country after the parliamentary elections in March of this year had been left in the air. The political movements representing the interests of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds still argue about the candidacy for the position of Iraq's next prime minister.

Therefore, the demonstrative withdrawal of one American combat brigade to Kuwait looks like a propaganda action organized by the White House on the threshold of the elections to the Congress. NBC News, for example said with reference to State Department spokesman PJ Crowley that the withdrawal of combat troops was a historical event, although it did not mean that the USA's mission in Iraq was over.

Of course, Crowley does not know how many caskets will be delivered to the United States from Iraq before the end of 2011. Mr. Crowley apparently prefers to dwell upon the establishment of phantom democracy in Iraq, rather than human losses.

Now it could have been just that particular web site, but I also stumbled upon a few other Russian news sites that seem to have similar "Attitudes" towards not just Iraq, but the EU, the US, and pretty much anybody else who's not a close ally.

Though the above report does make some logical points about this specific withdraw in relation to the upcoming US elections and the fact that there's still some 50,000 US troops remaining in Iraq (just re-worded as "advise & assist" for technicality-sake)...... it also makes me wonder if our own government plans to pull a similar stunt when it comes time to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: earth_as_one

CUBert

Time Out
Aug 15, 2010
1,259
2
38
Canada
That's not a sole Russian perspective, I've read the same opinions on democracynow website for instance, which is American.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I read Pravda regularly. They are a pretty good source of information except for anything to do with Russia. The Russians don't mind pointing out American and Chinese dirty laundry, but don't expect them to expose their own. But if you read from a variety of sources, you get a pretty good idea of what going on. I also recommend Xinhua (China), Al Jazeera, and Haaretz:

Xinhua - English

AJE - Al Jazeera English

Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News source.
I read this column regularly:
Gideon Levy - Israeli News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

Some international news sources are as bad as American cable news in their own way. For example Hezbollah's Al Manar
Al-ManarTV :: News

The more sources you reference, the more likely you are to have an accurate and unbiased opinion.
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
That's not a sole Russian perspective, I've read the same opinions on democracynow website for instance, which is American.
Yeah, you'll see that perspective re-iterated on many international news forums, including quite a few anchored in the US. There's nothing startling or new about any of that.

I remember reading a study back in 1980, written by Republican apologists, about why the US should support Saddam Hussein.

The Iran-Iraq war was still raging, and Iran had a much bigger population (60 million to Iraq's 14 million) so the west was selling arms to Iraq at a rate that would keep the conflict going indefinitely (good for arms sales, and it made at least one other US-ally in the region feel more comfortable that two nations it didn't like were clobbering each other), but a lot of people in the US didn't like the idea that they were supporting a leader like Hussein who made no secret of his hero being Joseph Stalin.

The Republican-sponsored report said Hussein's form of tough "authority" was the only way to maintain order in Iraq, what with the Sunni/Shi'ite division, the Kurds, etc. etc., and that without his kind of "authoritative rule", Iraq would collapse into a state of erratic-chaos, which would be bad for its citizens and bad for the stability of global petroleum supplies.

I've always thought it kind'a ironic... that: 1) Bush Jr. was acting opposite to what had been official Republican policy towards Hussein twenty years earlier, and 2) that the original Republican report about what would happen in Iraq without a Hussein ended up being almost spot-on.
 
Last edited: