In 2003, the United States launched the Iraq War against Saddam Hussein's regime. We review that history, The former Secretary of State Powell of the United States will be found holding a small bottle containing white powder and accusing Iraq of studying chemical weapons at the United Nations General Assembly. A bottle of unknown material ingredients has become an excuse for the United States to wage war. No wonder Putin teased Powell“ Washing powder "as evidence. But this is power hegemony, and no one can stop it.
Less than half a month after the launch of the Iraq War, the US military basically disabled Saddam Hussein's forces. Some people also wonder where the Republic Guard of Saddam Hussein has gone? Why didn't Saddam have any resistance? The United States would never give Saddam a chance. The air raid has made Saddam unable to fight back. Moreover, Saddam's army has surrendered a lot. Even if you want to be loyal to Saddam, you have to first protect your life.
George W. Bush fought the Iraq War and fostered a new Iraqi government, but the chaos in Iraq did not stop. If we look at the United States from this perspective, then the United States is not a winner in the Iraq war. Later, after Obama took office, he announced the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. So far, the US military has withdrawn from Iraq nine years later. Is it a "winner" or a "loser"? It is too narrow just to see the win or lose. The truth can only be seen from the U.S. strategy to see the Iraq War.
The Iraq War is the next war of the United States in Rumsfeld's new military reform. It can be said that it is also a war to test the effectiveness of the reform of the United States military. The United States must fight against other countries even if it does not fight against Iraq. Therefore, the war in the outside world seems to be based on Iraq's development of "large-scale chemical weapons" as an excuse, but until Saddam was hanged, no chemical weapons were found, leaving the world puzzled.
When the United States fought the Iraq War, the United States had an absolute advantage both in the air and on the ground, with fewer casualties and low costs. Compared with the Gulf War, the United States spent $20 billion on the Iraq War. However, the US $20 billion was not wasted, but in exchange for important strategic interests.
Obama ordered the withdrawal of troops. Not all U.S. troops have withdrawn from Iraq. The United States still has troops and bases in Iraq. After nearly 10 years of fighting, the US military did not want to withdraw at such a high cost. I'm afraid that Iraqi oil has been enjoyed by the United States, and even if it is sold out, there will be profits for the United States.
The United States is a very calculating country, Since then, the United States has never lost a war. Some people say that the United States has fought in Afghanistan for 18 years, and most of its final territory is occupied by the Taliban, I have detailed the gains and losses of the United States in the war in Afghanistan in previous articles.
As far as Iraq is concerned, the U.S. military presence in Iraq actually has a foothold. Iraq is the hinterland of the Middle East, and the United States has made a "wedge" in the hinterland of the Middle East, which will benefit it wherever it develops. In this way, it is clear at a glance whether the United States is winning or losing.
When the United States fought the Iraq War, only 200 soldiers were killed according to public reports from the United States. That is to say, the United States completed the war to overthrow a country's regime with a small number of casualties, which is very cost-effective. According to foreign media data, the actual number of casualties of the US military is more than 4000, and many of them died in accidents. Whether it is 4000 or 10000, the casualty rate of American troops is very low.
When Obama announced the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, it seemed to the outside world that the United States could not afford to be injured and did not want to invest money in the reconstruction of Iraq. In fact, the United States has launched another strategy at this time, that is, East Asia.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the United States proposed "returning to Asia", which was also proposed at this stage. In fact, the United States is already in Asia, so why mention "returning" again. Since then, the United States has come up with a new term "Asia Pacific rebalancing strategy". A series of events followed.
The first is the dispute over islands, Japanese right-wing politicians landed on the island, and even had a farce of buying the island, so the contradiction between Japan and I began to be acute. This is the time when East Asian integration will be realized.
Secondly, the South China Sea issue continues. China originally made an agreement with the parties in the South China Sea, but the United States intervened and encouraged the anti China President Aquino III of the Philippines to concoct "arbitration". Since then, Western countries have been talking about the South China Sea.
Third, deploy the Thad system. South Korea suddenly announced that it would allow the United States to deploy the Thad system on South Korean territory. This move immediately aroused strong opposition from China and Russia, and the relationship between China and South Korea was contradictory. Everyone knows what Thad is. Who wants outsiders to peep at your door every day?
There are also some events that will not be described here. These three events have defined the purpose of the US withdrawal from Iraq, Many people think that the United States has moved eastward, regardless of the Middle East. his In fact, I was confused by the strategy of the United States. The United States has not abandoned the Middle East.
The chaos after the Iraq War made the Iraqi people hate the United States. However, the United States does not want Iraq to become a stable and unified country (Kurds in Iraq have become autonomous) If Iraq is stable and unified, it will deviate from the purpose of the United States.
The United States left a mess in Iraq, and Obama returned to Asia instead. This is a part of a series of strategies of the United States. After Obama stepped down, the new president of the United States, Ted Lao, stepped in again.
Let's not think that Lao Te is a businessman. His playing style must bear the mark of a businessman. As a matter of fact, Trump only implements the US strategy according to the strategy. So there is a negotiation between the United States and the Taliban behind the back of the Afghan government. What is the relationship between this series of actions of the United States and Iraq?
The United States is not really withdrawing from Afghanistan. Its model is the same as that of Iraq, which also keeps bases in Afghanistan. So the United States has bases in Afghanistan and bases in Iraq, and its goal is to target Iran.
Since last year, the conflict between the United States and Iran has become prominent. The United States even said that it would not allow other countries to buy Iranian oil in order to trap Iran. The US Iraq war has a great momentum of war. If the US Iraq war is carried out, the US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon play a role, and the Iranian regime is very dangerous.
The contradiction between the United States and Iran has been difficult since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. For 40 years, the United States has always wanted to overthrow Iran, but Iran is different from Iraq. It is a complete theocratic regime, and the religious and secular relations are handled properly. However, with the strength of the United States, although it is difficult to fight Iran, it may not lose.
There must be a war between the United States and Iran. If the war is over, the entire Middle East will be almost American. At that time, Europe will suffer, and Russia will suffer. Therefore, we will be cut off from maritime trade by the United States. Can it be seen that the United States has made a big "situation" by withdrawing its troops from Iraq?
You are welcome to comment and correct. The copyright of the pictures is owned by the original author.
