After A Twelve Year Iraq Mistake, Time For America To March Home

Christopher Halloran /  Christopher Halloran /

Twelve years ago last week, the U.S. launched its invasion of Iraq, an act the late General William Odom predicted would turn out to be “the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.”

Before the attack, I was accused of exaggerating the potential costs of the war when I warned that it could end up costing as much as $100 billion. One trillion dollars later, with not one but two “mission accomplished” moments, we are still not done intervening in Iraq.

President Obama last year ordered the U.S. military back into Iraq for the third time. It seems the Iraq “surge” and the Sunni “Awakening,” for which General David Petraeus had been given much credit, were not as successful as was claimed at the time. From the sectarian violence unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq emerged al-Qaeda and then its more radical spin-off, ISIS. So Obama sent the U.S. military back.

We recently gained even more evidence that the initial war was sold on lies and fabrications. The CIA finally declassified much of its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was the chief document used by the Bush Administration to justify the U.S. attack. According to the Estimate, the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded, “[W]e are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed… the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.”

But even as the U.S. Intelligence Community had reached this conclusion, President Bush told the American people that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons” and “the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

Likewise, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s “bulletproof” evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaeda was contradicted by the National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that there was no operational tie between Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda.

Even National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice’s famous statement that the aluminum tubes that Iraq was purchasing “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs,” and “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” was based on evidence she must have known at the time was false. According to the NIE, the Energy Department had already concluded that the tubes were “consistent with applications to rocket motors” and “this is the more likely end use.”

It is hard to believe that in a society supposedly governed by the rule of law, US leaders can escape any penalty for using blatantly false information — that they had to know at the time was false — to launch a pre-emptive attack on a country that posed no threat to the United States. The fact that they got away with it simply makes it all the easier for Washington’s interventionists to try the same tricks again. They already did with Libya and Syria. It is likely they are also doing the same with claims of a Russian “invasion” of Ukraine.

Last week, President Obama correctly blamed the current chaos in Iraq on the Bush Administration’s decision to invade. He said, “… ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion. Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”

However, if the U.S. intervention in Iraq created the “unintended consequences” of ISIS and al-Qaeda, how is it that more US intervention can solve the problem?

A war based on lies cannot be fixed by launching another war. We must just march home. And stay home.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Breaking: What Obama Just Did Shatters A Major Campaign Promise On This Key War Strategy

Images Credit: USA Today

When he was hot on the trail to re-election in 2012 and tossing out all sorts of campaign promises, Barack Obama said the following at a stop in Boulder, Colorado:

We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I’ve set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014.

Politico writer Josh Gerstein reminds us that a short time before, in Sioux City, Iowa, the president had boasted:

I put forward a specific plan to bring our troops home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. And when I say I’m going to bring them home, you know they’re going to come home.

Well, as with so many of Obama’s other pledges to the American people — promises that helped him to defeat Mitt Romney — that “you know they’re going to come home” vow has turned out not to be fulfilled. In fact, far from it.

And now, as USA Today has just reported, the White House says the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces still in Afghanistan will be delayed, thus dramatically changing the latest timetable Obama had assured us would be followed in bringing the troops home.

The article notes that the Pentagon, under Obama’s direction, will maintain a force of some 9,800 U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan at least through the end of 2015.

That revised number, while indicating yet another substantial shift in Obama’s military strategy, is not altogether unwelcome to U.S. commanders or to the relatively new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. Both feared the too-rapid drawdown would jeopardize Afghanistan’s security and allow the Taliban a greater chance to make substantial inroads.

“The Obama administration has planned to reduce its troop presence in Afghanistan from some 9,800 to about 5,500 by the end of this year; Ghani has said he wants more U.S. troops to stay longer as Afghanistan seeks to build up its own military.”

In its coverage of the president’s decision on a higher troop presence in Afghanistan through the end of the year, The Wall Street Journal notes that this move could cast into doubt another of Obama’s promises to bring to a close America’s longest-running war.

“Left unclear is how the new drawdown plan will affect Mr. Obama’s promise to fully end the Afghanistan war, now approaching its 14th year, by the time he leaves office.”

Since he first began campaigning in 2008 for America to put him in the White House, Barack Obama has been promising to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But as so often happens with this commander-in-chief, those commitments have turned out to be little more than dust scattered on the winds of political expediency.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Did The Bible Predict Iran And ISIS Would Carve Up Iraq?


The New York Times reported, “We’re Letting Iran And ISIS Carve Up Iraq.” But the question is: Why didn’t they bother to mention that the Bible predicted this would happen? And why has no other media outlet reported this astounding prediction made thousands of years ago coming true today?

That is the question asked by former Muslim Brotherhood member-turned peace activist, Walid Shoebat, who we paraphrase as follows:

I wonder at times, if the major media will ever acknowledge that their headlines many times has already been etched in the Bible? I once spoke to New York Times writer Amir Taheri, who, during the Turkish elections, predicted that Erdogan’s opposition would win, to which I responded: “In your wildest dreams.”

Erdogan indeed won. But the reason I was correct had nothing to do with my study of the news. It had to do with my study of the Bible, from which it was easy to deduce that Islamists will control Turkey and that Iran will devour Iraq. Now Taheri, who is an Iranian hopeful, hopes to see Iran come out of Islamism as he correctly deduced that Iran is carving up Iraq: “The bad news,” Taheri says, is that “Iran is the biggest winner in the Tikrit fight — and The Islamic State is gaining elsewhere. The two are dancing toward a de facto partition of Iraq between them.” I would adjust Taheri’s remarks that Iran will gulp up the whole of Iraq while Turkey will gulp up the whole of ISIS, to later carve up Syria, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia into the fold of the Ottomans. How do I know this? Bible prophecy from Daniel, chapter 11.

Years ago, I gave this biblically prophetic analysis and stated that Iraq would be devoured by Iran:

When Iraq faded from the collective consciousness, and few were paying attention to it, I wrote: “Iraq will weaken as a result of America’s exit to simply be devoured by Iran.”

To Taheri and to all the other talented secularist writers, I ask: Why not simply believe in the Bible? After all, we live in a world where a weatherman’s weekend predictions sometimes are laughably inaccurate; so who not rely on the perfectly accurate predictions of the Bible?

Please consider the serious issue of Christian persecution in The Middle East, which will increase as we see more biblical prophecies come to pass and much of the bloodletting escalate. We operate a very effective mission in rescuing fellow Christians. It’s called Rescuing Christians, a unique organization helping emancipate persecuted Christians from such places like Pakistan, where Christians live under the Muslim yoke of baking bricks in kilns under the scorching hot sun and are frequently burned alive in the furnaces.

To read the full article on this subject, visit:

To learn more about how to help rescue persecuted Christians in the Middle East, visit:

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Iran Fighting ISIS – Is it Really A Problem?

ISIS in Iraq

As Iran continues to take an active role in helping Iraq fight the Islamic State group (ISIS), many neocons are upset that the U.S. military is not over there on the ground doing the fighting. They want Americans to believe that only another U.S. invasion of Iraq — and of Syria as well — can defeat ISIS. But what is wrong with the countries of the region getting together and deciding to cooperate on a common problem?

While the entry of Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias into ISIS-occupied areas may not be ideal — there is bound to be revenge killings and sectarian fighting — it is far more likely that the ISIS problem will be solved by the countries in the region than by U.S. bombs and ground troops. Our bombs will continue to make the problem worse because it was our bombs that helped create the problem in the first place. What the neocons who lied us into the Iraq war don’t like to admit is that there was no ISIS problem and no al-Qaeda problem in Iraq and Syria before we invaded Iraq.

ISIS is an idea, not a country or an army, which is why the U.S. declaring war on ISIS makes no sense. It is clear that if we really want to defeat ISIS, the last thing we should be doing is bombing and sending troops back to Iraq and into Syria. Our bombs and involvement in the region only serve to recruit more fighters into ISIS. To make matters worse, many of these radicalized fighters come from Europe and even the U.S. What happens when they go home?

What if the U.S. had not gotten involved with Iraq in 1990 when Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait after getting what he thought was a green light from the first Bush Administration? The interventionists were saying that if we did not act, Saddam Hussein was going to take over the region and perhaps more! But what about the other countries in the region that may have felt threatened? Maybe Saudi Arabia would have made a move; maybe Israel would have taken care of the problem. Why does it always have to be the U.S.?

The dedicated neocons and other interventionists will not cheer Iran currently taking steps to defeat ISIS, even though they claim that ISIS is at this time the number one threat to the U.S. Why don’t they like this good news? Because they desire the rest of the world to believe that the U.S. is the only indispensable nation. They want the rest of the world — and especially the American taxpayer — to believe that no problem anywhere can be solved without U.S. involvement.

It diminishes our prestige, they argue, for us not to take the lead in every conflict everywhere on the globe. Perhaps if people overseas begin to see that they can solve their own local and regional problems without the U.S. military involved, more Americans would come to see the neocons as the real threat to our national — and financial — security.

Instead of being angered at Iranian help to address the problem of ISIS, perhaps we should send them a “thank you” note.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

WATCH: This Disgusted Military Officer Just Blasted Obama For Not Being…Starts With ‘M’

Peters and Obama

“If President Obama developed athlete’s foot, he would blame George W. Bush.” That’s one of many criticisms of the president that Lt. Col. Ralph Peters fired off in a discussion with Sean Hannity Tuesday night. That particular quip came in reaction to Obama’s recent attempt to blame Bush for the rise of ISIS.

Col. Peters charged that Obama is wrong about so many things, especially when it comes to the military and foreign policy, because he “never really had a job in his life, has no contact with gritty, hard reality.”

In his appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Peters also came down hard on the president for what the colonel claimed is a fundamental problem — “President Obama is just not manly.”

You can see exactly what Col. Peters meant by that comment and watch the rest of his interview with Sean Hannity by clicking on the video above.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom