Will Trump Stay or Go in Iraq?
Though the battle for Mosul has slowed to a crawl, the collapse of the Islamic State’s territorial caliphate — at least in its Iraqi incarnation — remains only a matter of time. Whether it happens before President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on January 20th, or in the weeks and months shortly thereafter, it’s all but certain that the next administration will quickly be confronted with a fateful decision: Should it seek to maintain an ongoing U.S. military presence in post-caliphate Iraq? Or should the demise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s proto-state be the cue for a relatively rapid drawdown of American forces from the country — now numbering some 6,000?
As is the case with so much of the president-elect’s foreign policy, the answers to these questions are not yet obvious. Trump’s strong condemnation of the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 is now well established. During his presidential campaign, he repeatedly [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that it “may have been the worst decision” in American history. In Trump’s telling, the Iraq war destabilized the Middle East, empowered Iran, and wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives.
Whenever one pinpoints the exact date that Trump’s opposition to the war became fully manifest, there’s no doubt that his disdain for the American project in Iraq is of long-standing. Importantly, at the time when President George W. Bush was launching his troop surge in early 2007, Trump was already on record publicly urging that the U.S. military presence be immediately shut down.
As early as 2006, Trump had [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the Iraq war as “a total mess, a total catastrophe, and it’s not going to get any better. It’s only going to get worse.” His prescription? “What you have to do is get out of Iraq.” In an interview with CNN in March 2007, Trump [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: “You know how they get out? They get out. That’s how they get out. Declare victory and leave.” His assessment at the time was clearly that the costs of maintaining a continued U.S. presence far exceeded any possible gains. To Trump’s mind, the pathologies of Iraq’s internal divisions were largely immune from American treatment. “[T]his country is just going to get further bogged down,” Trump said. “They’re in a civil war over there. There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war.”
For Trump, U.S. troops at best served as a temporary salve, suppressing deadly ethnic and sectarian tensions that would immediately re-emerge at the first opportunity. U.S. soldiers would be trapped in an endless cycle of violence at enormous cost in national blood and treasure. “[W]e’re keeping the lid on a little bit but [the] day we leave anyway it’s all going to blow up…. So, I mean, this is a total catastrophe and you might as well get out now, because you just are wasting time.”
Trump’s decade-long penchant to wash his hands of Iraq as soon as possible certainly had loud echoes in this year’s election campaign. One of his most consistent [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has been that “Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure.” As president, Trump pledged that “the era of nation-building will be brought to a swift and decisive end.” Referring to Iraq specifically, Trump [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that “It hasn’t worked. Iraq was going to be a democracy. It’s not gonna work, OK? It’s not gonna work and none of these things work.” Even as the war against the Islamic State raged in the fall of 2015, Trump lamented that in Iraq “We’re nation-building. We can’t do it. We have to build our own nation.”
Add it all up, and any observer would be forgiven for drawing the logical conclusion that once the Islamic State is put to flight in Mosul, and its Iraqi caliphate as such has ceased to exist, Trump might indeed be tempted, as he advised in 2007, to just “declare victory and leave.” With the Islamic State threat whittled back to a more conventional terrorist insurgency scattered across disparate pockets of the country, Iraq’s biggest challenge will again become, as it has been since 2003, the problem of finding a formula for stable governance — in particular one that secures the buy-in of Iraqi Sunnis. In other words, nation-building — precisely the mission that Trump has made plain he wants America to be no part of.
On the other hand, however: During the course of the campaign, an integral part of Trump’s critique of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy became his decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011. Trump blasted Obama’s failure to secure a deal with Iraq’s government to maintain a residual American military presence, alleging that the precipitous U.S. retreat had opened a vacuum that directly led to the rise of the Islamic State. In a major national security [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] last August, Trump said that in 2009 Obama had inherited an Iraq that “was experiencing a reduction in violence. The group that would become what we now call ISIS was close to being extinguished.” However, Trump charged, with an eye on boosting his re-election prospects in 2012, Obama in essence pissed it all away. “That failure to establish a new status of forces agreement in Iraq and the election-driven timetable for withdrawal surrendered our gains in the country and led directly to the rise of ISIS,” Trump said. “Without question.”
Hmmm. This obviously was a much different Trump than the one in 2006-2007 who couldn’t abandon Iraq fast enough. This Trump recognized that even while the war may have been a major mistake, U.S. forces by 2011 had started to make a meaningful contribution to longterm Iraqi stability. U.S. forces were making real progress — “gains,” in Trump’s words — and not just a temporary reduction in violence, but also efforts well on their way to actually defeating the Islamic State’s predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq. This version of Trump seemed to appreciate that while maintaining a residual troop presence in Iraq might be no picnic, the consequences of premature withdrawal could be much, much worse for the United States.
So which Trump will it be on January 20th? The one who appears to have written Iraq off as a lost cause? Who implies that after the battlefield defeat of the Islamic State caliphate that directly threatens the U.S. homeland, any additional U.S. commitment to Iraq would be throwing good money after bad, a waste of time, resources, and potentially lives, that has no possible rationale from the standpoint of securing U.S. interests?
Or could we instead get the Trump who seemed to appreciate that the only thing worse than staying in Iraq in 2011 was leaving Iraq? Who recognized that as difficult and frustrating as it was helping Iraq’s fragile state consolidate the hard-fought gains won with U.S. military support, the price paled in comparison to the likely costs of simply abandoning the country too soon, unleashing the forces of anti-American chaos to gather and strengthen unmolested — radical Islamists of both the Sunni and Iranian Shiite persuasion, each hell-bent in their own way on engineering America’s ultimate demise? The Trump who understood that foreign policy was frequently not a matter of choosing between good and bad options, but between bad and worse, between risky and riskier. Between two evils, to be sure, but one very likely lesser than the other.
In thinking through what to do in post-Mosul Iraq, Trump will surely look to at least two people with extensive experience fighting America’s wars there for counsel: his soon-to-be national security advisor, retired General Michael Flynn, and his appointee as secretary of defense, retired General James Mattis.
Flynn, like Trump, has made clear his view that the decision to invade Iraq was a disastrous mistake. But in his recent book, The Field of Fight, he also said that the change in strategy reflected in President Bush’s surge of troops “allowed us to win the war in Iraq.” That significant victory against the forces of radical Islamic terrorism was tragically squandered, according to Flynn, “because winning is only temporary if you don’t sustain success.” Flynn’s assessment leaves little doubt that the precipitous U.S. retreat from Iraq was fatally flawed. “Everyone that has paid attention to the unraveling of the situation in the Middle East realizes today the tragic error in judgment when President Obama made the fateful decision to pull out forces in Iraq in 2011,” he wrote. “This decision led to the rise of Islamic State and the significant and dangerous increase in Iran’s proxy war involvement across the region and its near takeover of Iraq as a surrogate.”
Mattis’s public views on Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq are harder to find, but in all likelihood no less harsh. At the time of the pull out, Mattis was in charge of U.S. Central Command, which was strongly [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that the U.S. maintain a substantial troop presence. After retiring, Mattis [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in 2015 “that the military, the senior military officers, we all explained that the successes we’d achieved by 2010-2011 were — and this is a quote — ‘reversible,’ that the democratic processes and the military capability were too nascent to pull everyone out at one time.” Earlier in the war, of course, Mattis had led (and lost) Marines in battle to secure portions of western Iraq that were subsequently overrun by the Islamic State — precisely the kind of outcome Central Command’s recommendation was intended to prevent.
Importantly, the U.S. secretary of defense, Ash Carter — probably the most serious national security thinker in the Obama administration — has recently broached the need for the American military, along with its international partners, to remain in Iraq even after the defeat of the Islamic State. In a speech on December 3rd, Carter [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that “there will still be much more to do after that to make sure that, once defeated, ISIL stays defeated.” He made clear that “We’ll need to continue to counter foreign fighters trying to escape and ISIL’s attempts to relocate or reinvent itself. To do so, not only the United States but our coalition must endure and remain engaged militarily.” In Iraq in particular, Carter said that “it will be necessary for the coalition to provide sustained assistance and carry on our work to train, equip and support local police, border guards and other forces to hold areas cleared from ISIL.”
Regrettably, but hardly surprisingly, Carter’s boss, Obama, failed to pick up on the suggestion when he gave his final [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on national security in Tampa just days later on December 6th. While speaking at length about the fight against the Islamic State, including the climatic battle for Mosul, Obama had nothing to say on the issue of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq after the defeat of the Islamic State’s defeat. He did, however, yet again defend his 2011 troop withdrawal, insisting, however implausibly, that a residual U.S. presence would have done nothing to preclude the parade of horribles that ensued. At any rate, one was left wondering whether Carter’s pronouncements reflected the well-informed but largely random musings of a lone administration outlier or the official position of the United States government as decided by its commander-in-chief.
The war against the Islamic State is now hurtling toward an inflection point. The collapse of Mosul, when it comes, will mark the caliphate’s defeat in Iraq — at least in the short-term. Whether or not it remains defeated, whether or not we see the eventual emergence of an Islamic State 2.0, and whether or not Iran succeeds in transforming Iraq into a full-blown satrapy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards — all these questions will be critically affected, for better or worse, by whether the United States and the military coalition it leads decide this time to stay in Iraq, or yet again to pick up and leave, as Obama did in 2011. The disastrous results of that decision are now apparent for everyone to see. Despite all his legitimate misgivings about the Iraq war, Trump indicated during the campaign that he also grasps the potentially tragic consequences that can flow when America prematurely abandons the battlefield. It will now fall to him to decide how the mistakes of the recent past can best be avoided and America’s vital interests in defeating radical Islamic terrorism advanced. The world anxiously waits and asks: What will Trump do?
Though the battle for Mosul has slowed to a crawl, the collapse of the Islamic State’s territorial caliphate — at least in its Iraqi incarnation — remains only a matter of time. Whether it happens before President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on January 20th, or in the weeks and months shortly thereafter, it’s all but certain that the next administration will quickly be confronted with a fateful decision: Should it seek to maintain an ongoing U.S. military presence in post-caliphate Iraq? Or should the demise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s proto-state be the cue for a relatively rapid drawdown of American forces from the country — now numbering some 6,000?
As is the case with so much of the president-elect’s foreign policy, the answers to these questions are not yet obvious. Trump’s strong condemnation of the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 is now well established. During his presidential campaign, he repeatedly [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that it “may have been the worst decision” in American history. In Trump’s telling, the Iraq war destabilized the Middle East, empowered Iran, and wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives.
Whenever one pinpoints the exact date that Trump’s opposition to the war became fully manifest, there’s no doubt that his disdain for the American project in Iraq is of long-standing. Importantly, at the time when President George W. Bush was launching his troop surge in early 2007, Trump was already on record publicly urging that the U.S. military presence be immediately shut down.
As early as 2006, Trump had [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the Iraq war as “a total mess, a total catastrophe, and it’s not going to get any better. It’s only going to get worse.” His prescription? “What you have to do is get out of Iraq.” In an interview with CNN in March 2007, Trump [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: “You know how they get out? They get out. That’s how they get out. Declare victory and leave.” His assessment at the time was clearly that the costs of maintaining a continued U.S. presence far exceeded any possible gains. To Trump’s mind, the pathologies of Iraq’s internal divisions were largely immune from American treatment. “[T]his country is just going to get further bogged down,” Trump said. “They’re in a civil war over there. There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war.”
For Trump, U.S. troops at best served as a temporary salve, suppressing deadly ethnic and sectarian tensions that would immediately re-emerge at the first opportunity. U.S. soldiers would be trapped in an endless cycle of violence at enormous cost in national blood and treasure. “[W]e’re keeping the lid on a little bit but [the] day we leave anyway it’s all going to blow up…. So, I mean, this is a total catastrophe and you might as well get out now, because you just are wasting time.”
Trump’s decade-long penchant to wash his hands of Iraq as soon as possible certainly had loud echoes in this year’s election campaign. One of his most consistent [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has been that “Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure.” As president, Trump pledged that “the era of nation-building will be brought to a swift and decisive end.” Referring to Iraq specifically, Trump [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that “It hasn’t worked. Iraq was going to be a democracy. It’s not gonna work, OK? It’s not gonna work and none of these things work.” Even as the war against the Islamic State raged in the fall of 2015, Trump lamented that in Iraq “We’re nation-building. We can’t do it. We have to build our own nation.”
Add it all up, and any observer would be forgiven for drawing the logical conclusion that once the Islamic State is put to flight in Mosul, and its Iraqi caliphate as such has ceased to exist, Trump might indeed be tempted, as he advised in 2007, to just “declare victory and leave.” With the Islamic State threat whittled back to a more conventional terrorist insurgency scattered across disparate pockets of the country, Iraq’s biggest challenge will again become, as it has been since 2003, the problem of finding a formula for stable governance — in particular one that secures the buy-in of Iraqi Sunnis. In other words, nation-building — precisely the mission that Trump has made plain he wants America to be no part of.
On the other hand, however: During the course of the campaign, an integral part of Trump’s critique of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy became his decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011. Trump blasted Obama’s failure to secure a deal with Iraq’s government to maintain a residual American military presence, alleging that the precipitous U.S. retreat had opened a vacuum that directly led to the rise of the Islamic State. In a major national security [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] last August, Trump said that in 2009 Obama had inherited an Iraq that “was experiencing a reduction in violence. The group that would become what we now call ISIS was close to being extinguished.” However, Trump charged, with an eye on boosting his re-election prospects in 2012, Obama in essence pissed it all away. “That failure to establish a new status of forces agreement in Iraq and the election-driven timetable for withdrawal surrendered our gains in the country and led directly to the rise of ISIS,” Trump said. “Without question.”
Hmmm. This obviously was a much different Trump than the one in 2006-2007 who couldn’t abandon Iraq fast enough. This Trump recognized that even while the war may have been a major mistake, U.S. forces by 2011 had started to make a meaningful contribution to longterm Iraqi stability. U.S. forces were making real progress — “gains,” in Trump’s words — and not just a temporary reduction in violence, but also efforts well on their way to actually defeating the Islamic State’s predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq. This version of Trump seemed to appreciate that while maintaining a residual troop presence in Iraq might be no picnic, the consequences of premature withdrawal could be much, much worse for the United States.
So which Trump will it be on January 20th? The one who appears to have written Iraq off as a lost cause? Who implies that after the battlefield defeat of the Islamic State caliphate that directly threatens the U.S. homeland, any additional U.S. commitment to Iraq would be throwing good money after bad, a waste of time, resources, and potentially lives, that has no possible rationale from the standpoint of securing U.S. interests?
Or could we instead get the Trump who seemed to appreciate that the only thing worse than staying in Iraq in 2011 was leaving Iraq? Who recognized that as difficult and frustrating as it was helping Iraq’s fragile state consolidate the hard-fought gains won with U.S. military support, the price paled in comparison to the likely costs of simply abandoning the country too soon, unleashing the forces of anti-American chaos to gather and strengthen unmolested — radical Islamists of both the Sunni and Iranian Shiite persuasion, each hell-bent in their own way on engineering America’s ultimate demise? The Trump who understood that foreign policy was frequently not a matter of choosing between good and bad options, but between bad and worse, between risky and riskier. Between two evils, to be sure, but one very likely lesser than the other.
In thinking through what to do in post-Mosul Iraq, Trump will surely look to at least two people with extensive experience fighting America’s wars there for counsel: his soon-to-be national security advisor, retired General Michael Flynn, and his appointee as secretary of defense, retired General James Mattis.
Flynn, like Trump, has made clear his view that the decision to invade Iraq was a disastrous mistake. But in his recent book, The Field of Fight, he also said that the change in strategy reflected in President Bush’s surge of troops “allowed us to win the war in Iraq.” That significant victory against the forces of radical Islamic terrorism was tragically squandered, according to Flynn, “because winning is only temporary if you don’t sustain success.” Flynn’s assessment leaves little doubt that the precipitous U.S. retreat from Iraq was fatally flawed. “Everyone that has paid attention to the unraveling of the situation in the Middle East realizes today the tragic error in judgment when President Obama made the fateful decision to pull out forces in Iraq in 2011,” he wrote. “This decision led to the rise of Islamic State and the significant and dangerous increase in Iran’s proxy war involvement across the region and its near takeover of Iraq as a surrogate.”
Mattis’s public views on Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq are harder to find, but in all likelihood no less harsh. At the time of the pull out, Mattis was in charge of U.S. Central Command, which was strongly [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that the U.S. maintain a substantial troop presence. After retiring, Mattis [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in 2015 “that the military, the senior military officers, we all explained that the successes we’d achieved by 2010-2011 were — and this is a quote — ‘reversible,’ that the democratic processes and the military capability were too nascent to pull everyone out at one time.” Earlier in the war, of course, Mattis had led (and lost) Marines in battle to secure portions of western Iraq that were subsequently overrun by the Islamic State — precisely the kind of outcome Central Command’s recommendation was intended to prevent.
Importantly, the U.S. secretary of defense, Ash Carter — probably the most serious national security thinker in the Obama administration — has recently broached the need for the American military, along with its international partners, to remain in Iraq even after the defeat of the Islamic State. In a speech on December 3rd, Carter [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that “there will still be much more to do after that to make sure that, once defeated, ISIL stays defeated.” He made clear that “We’ll need to continue to counter foreign fighters trying to escape and ISIL’s attempts to relocate or reinvent itself. To do so, not only the United States but our coalition must endure and remain engaged militarily.” In Iraq in particular, Carter said that “it will be necessary for the coalition to provide sustained assistance and carry on our work to train, equip and support local police, border guards and other forces to hold areas cleared from ISIL.”
Regrettably, but hardly surprisingly, Carter’s boss, Obama, failed to pick up on the suggestion when he gave his final [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on national security in Tampa just days later on December 6th. While speaking at length about the fight against the Islamic State, including the climatic battle for Mosul, Obama had nothing to say on the issue of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq after the defeat of the Islamic State’s defeat. He did, however, yet again defend his 2011 troop withdrawal, insisting, however implausibly, that a residual U.S. presence would have done nothing to preclude the parade of horribles that ensued. At any rate, one was left wondering whether Carter’s pronouncements reflected the well-informed but largely random musings of a lone administration outlier or the official position of the United States government as decided by its commander-in-chief.
The war against the Islamic State is now hurtling toward an inflection point. The collapse of Mosul, when it comes, will mark the caliphate’s defeat in Iraq — at least in the short-term. Whether or not it remains defeated, whether or not we see the eventual emergence of an Islamic State 2.0, and whether or not Iran succeeds in transforming Iraq into a full-blown satrapy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards — all these questions will be critically affected, for better or worse, by whether the United States and the military coalition it leads decide this time to stay in Iraq, or yet again to pick up and leave, as Obama did in 2011. The disastrous results of that decision are now apparent for everyone to see. Despite all his legitimate misgivings about the Iraq war, Trump indicated during the campaign that he also grasps the potentially tragic consequences that can flow when America prematurely abandons the battlefield. It will now fall to him to decide how the mistakes of the recent past can best be avoided and America’s vital interests in defeating radical Islamic terrorism advanced. The world anxiously waits and asks: What will Trump do?
Today at 2:24 pm by Rocky
» The Minister of Industry participates in the work of the 28th session of the General Assembly of the
Today at 2:22 pm by Rocky
» Next Saturday... the Sudanese will be on a southern tour to open oil projects
Today at 2:19 pm by Rocky
» An Iraqi minister withdraws from an international conference because of Israel
Today at 2:14 pm by Rocky
» The judiciary responds regarding the activation of the Doctors Protection Law
Today at 2:13 pm by Rocky
» utube 6/3/24 MM&C IQD Update-Iraq Dinar-Accelerate- Digital-Financial-Banking Reforms-Best Budget
Today at 7:14 am by Rocky
» utube 6/4/24 MM&C IQD Update-Iraq Dinar-2024 Budget Passed-Gazzette-Timing-197 Companies Cease Dol
Today at 7:13 am by Rocky
» utube 6/6/24 MM&C Iraq Dinar- IQD Update-Tripartite Budget-Economic Decision-D
Today at 7:12 am by Rocky
» Demanding the government to reveal the details of its meeting with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
Today at 7:06 am by Rocky
» An economist reveals the positive side of the budget
Today at 7:04 am by Rocky
» The Housing Fund launches new loans after an agreement with the Central Bank
Today at 7:00 am by Rocky
» The President of the Republic: The relationship between the federal government and the regional gove
Today at 6:54 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Finance: The new salary scale is still under study
Today at 6:52 am by Rocky
» The central bank sells more than $275 million at auction today
Today at 6:50 am by Rocky
» Kurdish MP: The region’s share in the budget is fair and we are happy to see it passed
Today at 6:47 am by Rocky
» Abdel Wahid: The region’s budget allocations do not fit its reality, and the smuggled funds are no l
Today at 5:19 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani: Understandings with France amounting to one billion euros to build industrial projects...
Today at 5:16 am by Rocky
» FinTech in Iraq: How is Iraq reshaping its financial future?
Today at 5:14 am by Rocky
» A new rise in dollar prices in Baghdad and Erbil
Today at 5:12 am by Rocky
» The US State Department calls on the Iraqi government to hold accountable those responsible for targ
Today at 5:11 am by Rocky
» The authorities in Kurdistan warn against immigration abroad by closing camps for displaced people i
Today at 5:09 am by Rocky
» Oil announces an increase in the rate of electronic trading
Today at 5:08 am by Rocky
» The Minister of Education opens a job fair with the participation of 40 institutions specialized in
Today at 5:06 am by Rocky
» What are the rates of completion on the “Development Road”?... Al-Kaabi: We will develop new highway
Today at 5:04 am by Rocky
» The oil export file prompts a Kurdish delegation to visit Baghdad next week
Today at 5:03 am by Rocky
» Baghdad intends to transform its entrance controls into electronic smart ones
Today at 5:01 am by Rocky
» It confirmed its commitment to money laundering standards.. The Iraqi National Bank: We do not deal
Today at 5:00 am by Rocky
» America: Attacks on our companies harm Iraqi workers and capital
Today at 4:59 am by Rocky
» Iraq announces a decrease in salinity in the marshes
Today at 4:58 am by Rocky
» Economic warning from the Basra-Aqaba pipeline.. How much is its value?
Today at 4:57 am by Rocky
» In exchange for money...thwarting attempts to sell ministerial questions in 3 Iraqi provinces
Today at 4:56 am by Rocky
» Customs: We closed the exemption corruption and are pursuing violators
Today at 4:54 am by Rocky
» A massive campaign to lift violations of electricity
Today at 4:53 am by Rocky
» The Prime Minister sponsors an international agreement to finance the private sector
Today at 4:52 am by Rocky
» Wait in the health professions law
Today at 4:50 am by Rocky
» Construction of 3 dams in Kurdistan
Today at 4:49 am by Rocky
» Parliament: We support the initiative to increase housing units
Today at 4:48 am by Rocky
» The “National Contract” calls for accelerating the selection of the Speaker of Parliament
Today at 4:47 am by Rocky
» Investment law in the balance of the economy
Today at 4:44 am by Rocky
» Al-Rafidain: Digital transformation is proceeding according to set timings
Today at 4:43 am by Rocky
» Head of the Customs Authority told {Al-Sabah}: We closed the exemption corruption and are prosecutin
Today at 4:41 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani: The scourge of corruption is no different from terrorism and must be fought
Today at 4:39 am by Rocky
» Completing all sections and bridges on the Baghdad-Kirkuk road from the Tuz Khurmatu side
Today at 4:36 am by Rocky
» Foreign oil companies in Kurdistan hosted by Baghdad to solve the oil crisis “face to face”
Today at 4:34 am by Rocky
» President Rashid: Iran is a very important neighbor of Iraq and our relationship with it is good and
Today at 4:32 am by Rocky
» Warnings and fears about the Basra-Oqba project: Its goal is normalization with Israel
Today at 4:30 am by Rocky
» The Iraqi Trade Bank warns of fake pages bearing its name and logo
Today at 4:28 am by Rocky
» Despite Al-Maliki's remarks, the State of Law bloc rules out challenging the 2024 budget schedules
Today at 4:26 am by Rocky
» Revealed in numbers the completion rates achieved in the Al-Faw Grand Port projects... Transport for
Today at 4:25 am by Rocky
» He confirmed that there is high coordination with the Journalists Syndicate regarding freedom of opi
Today at 4:24 am by Rocky
» An environmental specialist points out the dangers of the lack of water imports to Iraq
Today at 4:23 am by Rocky
» The Iraqi Communist: Voting on the budget schedules before approving the final accounts...a violatio
Today at 4:22 am by Rocky
» Everything is polluted in Iraq: the air, the water and the land
Today at 4:21 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Security reveals the latest developments in the joint committee between Iraq and the i
Today at 4:19 am by Rocky
» Oil explains the details of exploring oil and gas fields in the western regions
Today at 4:18 am by Rocky
» Al-Sumaria: Strict judicial measures against telecommunications companies that violate instructions
Today at 4:16 am by Rocky
» Trade exchange between Iranian Azerbaijan and the Kurdistan Region rises to one billion dollars
Today at 4:14 am by Rocky
» Finance announces financing the salaries of Kurdistan Region employees due for the month of May
Today at 4:13 am by Rocky
» American report: Saddam misled Washington and the invasion of Iraq was a disaster
Today at 4:11 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani and Al-Hakim discuss fighting corruption and improving service conditions
Today at 4:10 am by Rocky
» The Prime Minister opens the first forum of governorate councils
Today at 4:09 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani renews his government’s support for the work of the provincial councils
Today at 4:07 am by Rocky
» Washington calls on Baghdad to hold accountable those targeting American companies: The attacks targ
Today at 4:06 am by Rocky
» The Housing Fund intends to grant 17,000 loans during 2024
Today at 4:05 am by Rocky
» Distribution of salaries before the Eid holiday... Finance surprises employees
Today at 4:03 am by Rocky
» More than 12 million bank accounts to date
Yesterday at 7:14 am by wciappetta
» Al-Rafidain: About 1,502 loans were issued to those registered under the Riyada initiative since las
Yesterday at 6:59 am by Rocky
» Al-Maliki: There is no intention to approve the general amnesty law
Yesterday at 6:57 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani: Understandings with France amounting to one billion euros to build industrial projects...
Yesterday at 6:48 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani: The available factories for construction materials cover only a quarter of the need
Yesterday at 6:46 am by Rocky
» An economist indicates the absence of the private sector in the 2024 budget
Yesterday at 6:44 am by Rocky
» Central Bank of Iraq sales exceeded $270 million at today’s auction
Yesterday at 6:43 am by Rocky
» The Iraqi budget is moving toward “publishing and disbursing” without presidential approval
Yesterday at 6:42 am by Rocky
» A government parliamentary agreement regarding residents of slums
Yesterday at 6:41 am by Rocky
» Al-Rafidain: Implementing the comprehensive banking system in the White Palace branch
Yesterday at 5:22 am by Rocky
» Sudanese sponsors the signing of a cooperation agreement between the Trade Bank and the German Expor
Yesterday at 5:17 am by Rocky
» Financial inclusion in Iraq: a success story that defies the odds
Yesterday at 5:14 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Finance: All revenues are not enough to meet the country’s needs, and the budget prohi
Yesterday at 5:13 am by Rocky
» Iraqi Business Council: The budget schedules are flexible and include sacred paragraphs
Yesterday at 5:11 am by Rocky
» Democratic Party: The cessation of oil exports through Türkiye has caused Iraq huge losses
Yesterday at 5:08 am by Rocky
» The government's lack of seriousness in removing the Americans leaves Iraq exposed to them
Yesterday at 5:06 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani sponsors the signing of an agreement between the TBI Bank and a German institution
Yesterday at 5:05 am by Rocky
» Water scarcity and air pollution...the most prominent challenges facing Iraq
Yesterday at 5:03 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Finance: Contract employees are included in the budget
Yesterday at 5:03 am by Rocky
» An investigation committee will be formed into the file of trainees of Korean companies / document
Yesterday at 5:02 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Finance: The region’s share in the budget is still unclear
Yesterday at 5:00 am by Rocky
» A representative wonders about the fate of 57 trillion dinars in the budget
Yesterday at 4:59 am by Rocky
» A new group of targets of restaurants and foreign agencies was arrested in Baghdad
Yesterday at 4:58 am by Rocky
» Including transfers and attracting investors.. The Supreme Judiciary determines the advantages of re
Yesterday at 4:56 am by Rocky
» International Finance Corporation.. An agreement to qualify youth in Iraq and Lebanon
Yesterday at 4:55 am by Rocky
» Oil reveals new government directives related to 4 sectors
Yesterday at 4:53 am by Rocky
» The Council of Ministers takes a series of economic decisions
Yesterday at 4:52 am by Rocky
» Did the 2024 budget schedules do justice to the Kurdistan Region?
Yesterday at 4:50 am by Rocky
» Parliament's finances determine the amount of disbursement during 2024
Yesterday at 4:49 am by Rocky
» “You will lose confidence in them.” A deputy criticizes a “dangerous phenomenon” committed by member
Yesterday at 4:48 am by Rocky
» Sudanese Advisor: Iraq's external debt has fallen to 9 billion dollars
Yesterday at 4:47 am by Rocky
» Erbil markets 300 food trucks to the rest of the governorates daily
Yesterday at 4:46 am by Rocky
» The Prime Minister inaugurates the second specialized workshop to support the private industrial con
Yesterday at 4:45 am by Rocky
» The Prime Minister sponsors the signing of a cooperation agreement between the Iraqi Trade Bank and
Yesterday at 4:43 am by Rocky