The USA Did NOT Evacuate Iraq Embassy

by

The US is using had a helicopters on the Iraq embassy but did not evactuate. Hundreds of Al-Sadr protestors did storme the presidential palace in Baghdad. Reports indicate twelve people were killed in Iraq Green zone violence and protests.

The US still has about 12 military bases in Iraq.

War is Boring reports – Violence broke out in Baghdad’s Green Zone when followers of Iraq’s influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr stormed the government palace, which houses the office of the prime minister.

As political forces have failed to form a new government or choose a president in more than 10 months since the parliamentary elections, al-Sadr told his lawmakers to quit parliament and demanded early elections.

He has many followers and his ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands nationwide could lead to deadly violence if rival groups also encourage their supporters to protest.

13 thoughts on “The USA Did NOT Evacuate Iraq Embassy”

  1. What is the US still doing in Iraq? For that matter, what is the US doing in Syria? Oh yeah, that’s write, Trump told us. They’re there to take the oil …

  2. Forever wars – Vietnam, Afghanistan, now Iraq – always fail eventually. When the U.S. has to overcome that much local resistance, no victory will ever be permanent. South Korea is only still standing because we have a permanent presence there.
    It’s too early to tell about Ukraine, but “victory” means getting back all of southeastern Ukraine including Crimea, it’s going to be impossible for Ukraine to hold it without American permanent support.

    • Its the other way around. Russia will never be able to do what you say the USA is supposed to be doing in Ukraine.

      • “” When the U.S. has to overcome that much local resistance, no victory will ever be permanent. “”
        Replace US with Russia — Is what you have backwards.

    • Actually, I spent quite a bit of time stationed in the Republic of Korea (South Korea). My grandchildren are half-Korean. They have ancestors that include Scottish border reivers, patriots in the American Revolutionary War, and, ironically perhaps, both sides of the American Civil War and most likely both sides of the Korean War (although the American side of the family, between generations that went to WWII and to Viet Nam, missed that particular war).

      During the Korean War in the fifties, the country was very nearly unified. After pushing the south all the way down to the coastal city of Pusan, the US (and the United Nations) allowed the ROK to rebound. At one point, my old squadron was actually based in Pyongyang and flying missions from there. Then the Chinese threw in and eventually things settled out at the 38th Parallel with the DMZ.

      Today, however, aside from the initial heavy shelling of Seoul (which is most definitely something to be avoided if possible), and the possible use of nukes by the north, the ROK army would roll over Little Joffrey’s forces like Russia was supposed to roll over Ukraine. A modern military from a country with three times the population would have little trouble against the worm-ridden troops of the north still using WWII technology.

      Indeed, before it gained limited nuclear capability, the mission of the US presence had subtly changed to the point where a significant part of its purpose was to prevent escalation that could have ended with the south invading the north. (I know this. I was there.) Not because they are eager to take it over, but simply to end the constant threats and posturing. Believe it or not, most South Koreans these days have no memory of when the two were one and do not want reunification (not just for reunification’s sake, at any rate) with their impoverished neighbors to the north, even if it were entirely on the south’s terms, although many realize it is probably inevitable that they will have to rescue it from itself someday.

      South Korea is a success story, and we would desire a presence there even if deterring attacks against it were not a part of the mission.

    • On the contrary, Ukraine by itself with supply from NATO countries has effectively defeated the Russian military already and the Russian military will be crippled for many years afterwards under sanctions if there is no regime change. Ukraine as part of the EU and NATO will not be vulnerable to future Russian invasions at all.

  5. So are helicopter rescues of US personnel going to be an annual feature of the Biden administration? Kind of an odd holiday.

    • Depends on whether they are reusing helicopters from the fall of Saigon, like they did in Afghanistan…

  6. Why is this being covered on a science and technology blog? Is the US employing some new top-secret military tech?

    • Because this isn’t actually a “science and technology blog”.

      It’s about “the future”. And like it or not, wars affect how things happen in the decades following.

Comments are closed.