Iranians and Iraqis carry the coffin of Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, shown in the picture, one of Iraq's most powerful Shiite leaders, in a funeral ceremony in Tehran, Iran, on Thursday, Aug. 27, 2009. Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim died Wednesday in Iran, the country that was long his powerful ally. (AP)
What will Iraq look like after the American troops are gone? After the hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars and the loss of thousands of lives of U.S. servicemembers, could Iran, and not the U.S., be the dominant influence in Iraq? Will security deteriorate?
These questions and more have been raised lately — after a massive bombing of two key ministries in downtown Baghdad, and with the number of Iraqi civilian deaths back up in August.
The initial American “democratic ideal” of Sunni-Shi’ite co-operation was always tricky. Now, in advance of next year’s elections, Iraqis themselves are asking what kind of country they want.
This Hour, On Point: Iraq without the “American friends” — in a dangerous neighborhood.
You can join the conversation. Tell us what you think — here on this page, on Twitter, and on Facebook.
-Jacki Lyden, guest host
Guests:
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill. He has been serving in Baghdad since April 2009. Prior to his posting in Iraq, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
David Ignatius, columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post. He is also co-moderator of the “Post Global” forum. His latest column on Iraq is called “Behind the Carnage in Baghdad.”
Steven Lee Myers, Baghdad bureau chief for The New York Times. He has been covering the new challenges to the current Iraqi leadership.
Tags: Iraq war, Middle East, Obama administration
We messed Iraq up by sprinkling our tax dollars to whoever who was unemployed to Collabrate with the Foreign Occupation Forces.
There only one choice: the tax dollars will dry up and then we will go to our churches and pray that Saddam comes back.
Under the leadership of Rahm Emanuel, this Obama Administration will not investigate Why We Invaded Iraq – the Real Motive. We should MAKE THEM!
Instead of doing show #243 about Iraq with the same talking points, I wish, OnPoint brings people who have the right to say “We Told You So”. Why can’t we book Ramsey Clark for a real show about Iraq???
Peace Activists and International Action people have literally been chased out of Washington even after 2008.
Posted by dianna g, on September 1st, 2009 at 8:49 am EDTDont forget as well because we illegally invaded iraq, we empowered many mercenary groups to the level of the U.S. army and are able to act with immunity.
We also enable these Mercs to infiltrate our politics as well of neo-cons who actually outsourced our U.S. many military and CIA jobs to these mercs at a high cost to the U.S. tax payers. We even allowed these mercs the abiltiy to be unaccountable for there actions.
amazing enough when the talking goes to when we are finally getting out of iraq, mercs row in war,outsourcing of merc drone attacks,the military profiling journalist based on their reporting, bribing of sunni leaders, and shia leaders with U.S. tax dollars,U.S. oil companies and people supported it got first shoot at iraqi oil, Partnership Sharing agreement(which be the way was illegal in Iraq and most oil rich countries), waste and unaccounted billions and billions of dollars, corruption.
We get a media blitz from the likes of AEI the their ilk with npr giving them a platform to spew such crap and change the debate of looking into these things to something else.
Posted by Michael, on September 1st, 2009 at 9:16 am EDTThank you Michael; you are right, but one correction.
We are not Finally getting out of Iraq. We are just talking about it. We cannot get out of Iraq, until we find out Why we illegally invaded Iraq.
It is like deciding about trying to stoping the car taking a U-Turn without knowing why you got in the car in the first place. It just cannot happen.
The solution is very easy: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by Lilya Lopheka, on September 1st, 2009 at 9:35 am EDTIt will be violent, corrupt, and run by strongmen. In other words, just like we found it in the first place. What a colossal waste of time, money and lives. We must go back to declared wars instead of these questionably motivated “police actions”.
Posted by Cory, on September 1st, 2009 at 9:40 am EDTConstitution empowers Congress to declare war, and not the President. These “authorizations to use force” they have been using look and sound unconstitutional to me. Democrats are just as complicit in this failure as Republicans. They provided necessary votes. Perhaps, this is the reason they do not want to investigate now.
Posted by Alex, on September 1st, 2009 at 10:10 am EDTAlex,
Congress is/was already in the pockets of certain groups. Nothing would have changed if you applied different rules.
Our foreign policy has been hijacked and we are agraid to declare a certain Political Action Committee (XXPAC) a foreign lobby group, just because they have the word American in their name. Can’t tell you which one, though.
Posted by carlos, on September 1st, 2009 at 10:21 am EDTWho is the winner in Iraq?
Answer: Richard Perle, et. al.(*)
Understanding what is happening in Iraq, is not as difficult as performing brain surgery on a rocket.
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (1996)
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
A pivotal strategy prepared for Benjamin the Bibi at his request.
Why kill your enemies? Let Arabs kill each other.
Why lift a finger to pit Arabs against each other? Let USA (via PNAC) do this for you.
Conclusion: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
Didn’t Cheney Admin follow this paper – paragrapsh by paragraph?
(*) et. al.
Posted by brianna, on September 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am EDTRichard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
omg did he just say dont take confessions or the iraq government reasoning for the attacks to seriously yet, a source within a source should be by this reporter if it involves iran.
what a joke
Posted by Michael, on September 1st, 2009 at 10:35 am EDTWow, Look at this folks. These were not written yesterday or after the fact.
These were the topics that was cooked up five years before 9/11, and seven years before the Iraq Occupation/Selling Job.
If this is not the smoking gun for losing lives and legs and arms in Iraq, I wonder what is???
http://www.iasps.org/strat2.htm (November 1996)
Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant
Look at the subtitles for further reading.
“Ultimate ‘peace process’ prize,” by Robert J. Loewenberg, The Washington Times, October 13, 1996
“Just as Saddam’s Power is Under Assault,” by David Wurmser, The Wall Street Journal – Europe, September 11, 1996
“Balance of Power,” by Richard Perle, The Wall Street Journal – Europe, July 10, 1996
What the hell are we? Brainless killing puppet for another country?
Posted by brianna, on September 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am EDTOh where is Tom Ashbrook? Notice how – when listeners call to question the basic imperial assumptions behind attacking and destroying a country, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents – this guest host changes the subject with that quintessentially American cheerful anxiety of a puppy that just refuses to see the stain it made on the carpet. She sounds like a pentagon flack – but wait – “let’s see what The Ambassador has to say about that…”
Posted by balitwilight, on September 1st, 2009 at 11:00 am EDTLots of good points here. Therefore, I fail to understand the rationale for “On Point” to exclude critics of our invasion and occupation of Iraq at its roots.Where are the voices of ,say, Naomi Klein who sees it as opportunistic “disaster captialism” (see her book “Shock Doctrine”) or Tariq Alil(sic? ) whose done indpendent journalism in Iraq.Diana G, Peace activists have not only been chased out of Washington, they’ve been chased out of National “Public” Radio.When was the last time anyone here heard a critic of US foreign policy on “Morn. Ed. or ATC? OR WESAT or WESUN?
Posted by Dana Franchitto, on September 1st, 2009 at 11:21 am EDTJudging by this blog, NPR is not reflecting the interest of the public. Yes, we have to hear officiaal and conservative views but by marginalizing voices of peace and/or socialists of various stripes, NPR violates its mission statement. it’s no accident.
I agree with balitwilight. Jackie Lydon always sounds like she’s ready to make light of serious situations, or crack a joke. Her tone yesterday during some of the talk regarding New Orleans had the same “cheerfulness” that often was out of place. At least that’s how it strikes me.
Posted by LinP, on September 1st, 2009 at 11:57 am EDTJackie we all agree that you are a very nice person. Probably an angel with hope that one day there will not be cancer, hunger, poverty and war.
But this is a situation of broken laws, lies, deceptions, explosions, bombs, gore, pain, agression, destruction, gray/black smoke, fire, dust.
There is nothing nice about the topic.
Posted by Lilya Lopekha, on September 1st, 2009 at 12:07 pm EDTTwo words: “Ramsey Clark”
Will this piss-off big/corp donors of WBUR who sit on the Executive Committee?
Posted by Felipe, on September 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm EDTJackie Lydon embodies what NPR has become. Superficial “niceness” has displaced critical inquiry into crucial issues.THough WESUN’s Liane HAANsen is alot worse in this regard, with her contrived “wholesomeness” and her unwillingness to include left-wing voices on her show.
Posted by Dana Franchitto, on September 1st, 2009 at 3:09 pm EDTOne sure does miss Chris Lydon, he always asks the hard questions and pushes the envelop of radio interviews.
http://www.radioopensource.org/
Posted by Putney Swope, on September 1st, 2009 at 5:04 pm EDTok, ok, ok
enough of criticising poor Jackie The Very Nice Lady
What about the topic. Why can’t we all demand the answer: Why did we invade Iraq?
I guess, the journalism schools are not graduating Investigative Journalist anymore.
Posted by Lilya Lopheka, on September 1st, 2009 at 10:22 pm EDTI tuned in yesterday to the very end of the program on Iraq’s Volatile Days Ahead. A caller was articulating his question very slowly and having a bit of difficulty phrasing it. I was appalled when Jacki Lyden haughtily dismissed his question (”Well, I guess that was a question”) and went right on to ask her own of the guest. Not nice.
Posted by Susan Rudnicki, on September 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am EDTOh please, folks, I’ll take Jackie’s attentiveness to the show over Tom’s bored, disinterested “uh huh”s and summarizing of his guests’ nuanced points to pithy, inaccurate phrases with a “we get what you’re saying” tacked on any day.
As for the reason for the war, it’s quite simple. We went to war so George W. Bush could prove himself a bigger man than his father, who couldn’t get the job done.
Posted by Jay, on September 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 am EDTA more pertinent question would have been that who in that neighborhood (do we ourselves?) would want Iraq to be a free and Democratic country. It is true that Iraqis have a lot of bad blood and history to deal with within that country, but the outsiders, the Egyptians, the Saudis, the Khaleejis, the Kuwaitis, the Syrians all would rather have Iraq wiped off the face of the earth rather than become a functioning democracy and foment trouble for them at home. Even if Iraqis tried to work together it is in the interest of these countries to keep making trouble among the Iraqi factions, also a democratic Iraq will cause problem for our own great allies at home.
Posted by MOHAMMED N. RAZAVI, on September 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 am EDT