Is the US occupying Iraq by Force?

The Iraqi parliament has voted to end American military presence in Iraq. Subsequently, the prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has asked US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ” to send a delegation to Iraq to put a mechanism in place for implementing the Iraqi parliament decision to safely withdraw troops from Iraq”.

The circumstances in which the US invaded Iraq have always been controversial but the main excuse for the invasion was to disarm Iraq and prevent it from manufacturing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The background was the US resolve to fight a war against terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attack. Immediately after the invasion, it was clear to anyone that there were no WMDs in Iraq. To most of us it seemed more likely that the US attacked Iraq in 2003 because they didn’t like a person called Saddam Hussein.

But it wasn’t just the US. Like the big bully in school who rarely acts alone, there was a coalition of followers including UK as would be expected and also Australia; but somewhat surprisingly Denmark and Poland too.

The coalition against terrorism was relevant because they fought and substantially diminished the ISIS.

Then the leader of the coalition started behaving very erratically. The US under the Trump administration allowed Turkey to invade north eastern Syria in October 2019 and badly bash up the Kurds.

Now, in the new year they decided to hog the spotlight from Nancy Pelosi. Citing an imminent threat to unspecified US interests from an Iranian general who looked like a movie star, they sent the drones to kill him. Then they called him a very bad man.

The only person, outside Iran, who appeared to feel the tragedy of the attack is an american actress, Rose Mcgowan.

So I find several baffling tendencies here that repeat themselves, time after time. Here they are:

Every time the US goes to battle for a specific purpose, the job is invariably expanded and the president of the time starts seeing “bad men” everywhere. Why is that? and why is it especially likely if the president has problems at home?

Why is it sometimes difficult for the opposition to dissent in war time, whether it be in the US, in Turkey and in India? When does it become easier to oppose the policies of the rulers, like it was in Russia, immediately after the first great war?

How thick must your skin be to continue in your job even though you keep blundering into the control panel and triggering crises every day?

Why do bullies always have followers? How can these followers have no principle, except to follow?

Do people who express their feelings on impulse always regret it?

Is the US illegally occupying another sovereign country?

My Top 5 Non-Fiction Picks

When I decided to make this list, I could immediately see what a difficult task this was. I mean there are so many books one reads and I ended up liking so many of them, it is like a betrayal when I chose one over the other. But though books are full of feelings, I don’t suppose they feel self-pity, so here goes; (Clicking on the picture of book and a few other links, takes the reader to amazon’s website):


5- D-Day by Stephen E Ambrose

At number 5 is D-Day June 6 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II by Stephen E Ambrose. We read books and comics about the war, watch movies on the Normandy Landings and all this leaves us with a number of images and stories but you still want something definitive on the subject which doesn’t read like the encyclopedia. This book tells you the story of the D-Day landings from preparations through execution to the impact of this momentous military action. It is full of anecdotes such as the ones about the the Higgins boats and the LCTs; and about the calamity of gliders landing into hedgerows. The terror and tragedy of Omaha beach is overwhelming. The book celebrates the victory, but also gives detailed analysis of where, who and what went wrong. This book may answer at least some of your questions about the Normandy landings.


4- War Games The Psychology of Combat by Leo Murray

Leo Murray has been studying the psychology of combat and this book resulted because the military wouldn’t use it. The book presents some great insights on the psychology of battle and how the human mind reacts to violence in predictable ways, as the author puts it, the four f’s of fighting, fussing, freezing or fleeing. It is for people who are seriously curious about armed combat.


3-Songs of Blood and Sword, A Daughter’s Memoir by Fatima Bhutto

Fatima Bhutto writes about her family, her country and the eventful lives and violent deaths of the people closest to her and yet her humanity shines through the narrative. She doesn’t spare any names, however powerful they be today and courageously continues to reside at Clifton, Karachi. This is a very interesting read for all Pakistan watchers.


2-The Rise and fall of the Third reich, AHistory of Nazi Germany by William L Shirer

William L Shirer was in Germany during the pre-war years while the Nazis were consolidating their hold on the country. During World War II and afterwards, he was a broadcast journalist, based in Vienna but often traveled with the German troops. His book is the most reliable record of this piece of history and has been since it was first published in 1950.

My Number-1 Non-fiction book

This is not a history or psychology of war like my previous choices. It is Bill Bryson‘s One summer America 1927.

1-One Summer America 1927 by Bill Bryson

Were so many things happening in America in 1927 or is it just Mr Bryson? This book is about Charles Lindbergh and Al Capone and countless colorful characters and its about America surpassing Europe and coming into her own. This book features here because it is worthwhile to spend time lazing with it on a weekend.