"The truth is that George W. Bush and his accomplices are war criminals chargeable with the same indictment brought against the German and Japanese leaders after World War II. I am not talking about genocide, as that was not the charge against these leaders. I am talking about the waging of unnecessary and offensive war – launching an invasion without proper legal cause. Today’s mess in Iraq is a direct consequence of that same sort of criminal act." (Lawrence Davidson).
A fine piece by Lawrence Davidson, very much worth reading.
But just a few points I wouldn't agree with.
Obama's current decision not to re-send US troops to Iraq is not a wise one, I doubt it. Since the Iraqi invasion was initiated by Obama's predecessor with endless ramifications until this very moment, Obama's decisions cannot be altogether independent as if Iraq was never attacked. The muck has already been created, and the same ones who created it must clean it. If Iraq wasn't invaded and the civil war was homegrown, of course there would be no question of foreign troops coming in. But the awful consequences of 2003 are NOT homegrown. From 2003 until 2014 and beyond, the events of this turmoil have been and will continue to be intertwined.
Furthermore, let us not forget how and from where ISIS came into the scenario of a country where no such thing known as militancy ever existed for decades prior to 2003. Most of these Sunni militants aren't indigenous Iraqis either. ISIS is strongly connected with the US invasion of 2003 as that gave the opportunity to Saudi Arabia to send its 'troops' to confront the Iraqi Shiia majority. Saudi Arabia's move was (and is) in connivance with the US. The magnitude of this sludge is colossal and different had it been entirely homegrown.
Involvement of Iran to assist Iraq would likely make matters worse from the sectarian view point. It would not only turn the civil war a lot more fierce, but would also be seen as a typically "Shiia-Sunni" issue by the entire Muslim world. The flames of sectarianism would heighten with firebrand fatwas from both sides not just in Iraq but in other Muslim countries too, and the culture of sectarianism would deepen.
Let the scoundrels who began committing the crime in 2003 return and pay the price for it. ISIS is America's frankenstein; America now needs to tame it. Similar to the American government's decision of a preemptive invasion in 2003, its present decision of staying aloof isn't based on any grand principles either. It has decided to keep away because its purpose has been fulfilled. The Americans are in control of Iraq's oil wells, and ISIS is no threat to America.
President Obama has no clean intentions of reconciliation between Iraqi Shiias and Sunnis. That blatantly violates the 'divide & conquer' game. Imperialism loves sectarianism otherwise it gets a lot harder to control. America's best choice now for Iraq is: Let the Sunnis and Shiia fight, let Iraq be a failed state so that its dependency on the West increases while the West watches, controls Iraq's oil wells, continues its backroom deals with ISIS and has enough military personnel in Baghdad to protect its embassy. No more, no less. Mission accomplished! Isn't the United States doing just that? It's not a new move. It's a hackneyed strategy that has happened many times in the past in connection with various countries.
After a decade of occupation, the American government's hands-off approach at this point is too little too late. It definitely does amount to abandoning Iraq after setting it on fire. Pretty identical to the scenario in Afghanistan during the tailend of the cold war in late 1980s. As soon as the Russians vanished, so did American assistance. Consequently the pre-war and peaceful Afghanistan drifted into an endless anarchy from which it never recovered.
Last but not least, don't get surprised because Obama never took any steps to indict his sick predecessor for his war crimes in Iraq. Didn't Obama do the same in Libya, and is doing the same in Syria through proxy?