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 7:23 am by Rocky
» Governor of Baghdad: 20 projects will be included during the current year in the city of Nahrawan
Today at 7:20 am by Rocky
» More than $242 million in central bank sales today
Today at 7:17 am by Rocky
» Advisor: Sudanese is determined to close the displacement file
Today at 7:14 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani: The implementation of the 2023 budget witnessed a success that must be invested in
Today at 7:13 am by Rocky
» The Baghdad Council will decide on the nomination of the committees in the coming days
Today at 7:10 am by Rocky
» Al-Samarrai: The Sunni community is not in favor of removing American forces
Today at 7:08 am by Rocky
» A warning from Al-Rasheed to those wishing to apply for advances and loans
Today at 7:06 am by Rocky
» Azerbaijan expresses its desire to participate in the implementation of joint projects in the oil an
Today at 7:05 am by Rocky
» Fuel cards arouse citizens' discontent
Today at 7:03 am by Rocky
» utube 3/18/24 MM&C Iraqi Dinar-- IQD-- Dinar Update -100% Electronic - Real Effective Exchange Rat
Today at 5:21 am by Rocky
» utube MM&C 3/16/24 0:05 / 18:16 Iraq Federal Court Brings - Strength to Financial - Politic
Today at 5:18 am by Rocky
» MM&C 3/18/24 Sudanese Advisor: Iraq will leave government monetary dealing in mid-2024
Today at 5:17 am by Rocky
» A delegation from the Kurdistan government visits Baghdad to discuss the issue of localization of sa
Today at 5:11 am by Rocky
» Director of the Central Oil Company: We are keen to provide the appropriate investment environment
Today at 5:10 am by Rocky
» The Energy Parliament calls for reporting generators violating government pricing
Today at 5:08 am by Rocky
» A representative reveals the fate of the laws of “previous sessions”
Today at 5:07 am by Rocky
» Politician: Coordination holds the keys to resolving the “Parliament Presidency” conflict
Today at 5:05 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani: Iraq wants to carry out its peaceful activity in the field of atomic energy
Today at 5:04 am by Rocky
» Including a minister and a parliamentarian... 38 arrest and recruitment orders were issued against t
Today at 5:02 am by Rocky
» Integrity: Citizens’ cooperation resulted in detecting inflation and returning state funds
Today at 5:01 am by Rocky
» Agriculture presents 97 projects to the Ministerial Council for the Economy
Today at 4:59 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani: We succeeded in implementing the 2023 budget, and we must continue to complete economic p
Today at 4:58 am by Rocky
» Labor adopts new mechanisms to reduce the phenomenon of begging
Today at 4:57 am by Rocky
» Electronically.. directing the collection of fees tomorrow in an Iraqi governorate
Today at 4:56 am by Rocky
» Held in Brussels.. Iraq receives an official invitation to attend the Nuclear Energy Summit
Today at 4:55 am by Rocky
» Kurdistan has been paralyzed. There has been no liquidity in hand for 50 days, and the truth has bee
Today at 4:53 am by Rocky
» The dollar continues to decline against the Iraqi dinar on the stock exchange and exchange offices
Today at 4:52 am by Rocky
» The Minister of Oil reveals the reasons for Shell’s withdrawal from Nebras: It will be divided into
Today at 4:51 am by Rocky
» The Housing Fund advises loan applicants and launches a link for inquiries
Today at 4:50 am by Rocky
» He stressed that the government’s vision is to make one class not exceed 25 students...Government me
Today at 4:48 am by Rocky
» Al-Hakim and Al-Halbousi stress the importance of choosing a speaker for Parliament in accordance wi
Today at 4:47 am by Rocky
» Iron and Steel Company: Iraq is on the verge of a major industrial revolution
Today at 4:46 am by Rocky
» Economists: Citizens still prefer cash transactions over electronic transactions
Today at 4:45 am by Rocky
» The compass of Iraq's foreign policy in a world of turbulent polarization
Today at 4:43 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Finance: The federal budget is in the corridors of the Council of Ministers, and there
Today at 4:42 am by Rocky
» Integrity calls on citizens to report the inflation of funds in the sector of the Ministry of Labor
Today at 4:40 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani directs the launch of initiatives for young businessmen and investors
Today at 4:38 am by Rocky
» Representative agriculture emphasizes taking supportive measures for the local product
Today at 4:37 am by Rocky
» An economist calls on the government to support and stimulate the private sector
Today at 4:36 am by Rocky
» Al-Ittihad: Employees and retirees in Kurdistan paid the price of political differences with Baghdad
Today at 4:34 am by Rocky
» Al-Samarrai and Al-Hakim discuss the importance of achieving political and constitutional entitlemen
Today at 4:32 am by Rocky
» Only 23 million dunums. Iraq exploits approximately 50% of its arable land
Today at 4:30 am by Rocky
» Türkiye considers it a political issue.. Where have the negotiations reached regarding Iraq’s water
Today at 4:29 am by Rocky
» Sudanese receives an invitation to attend the Nuclear Energy Summit in Brussels - Urgent
Today at 4:27 am by Rocky
» Central Bank sales exceed $240 million today
Yesterday at 6:52 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Finance calls on the government to expedite sending the 2024 budget to Parliament
Yesterday at 6:47 am by Rocky
» ‘We’re So Sick of It’: Northern Border Crisis Gets Worse
Yesterday at 6:35 am by Bama Diva
» A representative holds Kurdistan responsible for the faltering legislation of the oil and gas law
Yesterday at 5:27 am by Rocky
» Warnings of the danger of the increase in foreign labor in Iraq
Yesterday at 5:26 am by Rocky
» Iraq's oil exports to America decreased within a week
Yesterday at 5:25 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani chairs an “important” meeting to form the Kirkuk government
Yesterday at 5:23 am by Rocky
» Investment confirms the adoption of a new method in new residential cities and explains its details
Yesterday at 5:21 am by Rocky
» For the first time in 2024.. exchange rates fall to the threshold of 149 thousand in Baghdad
Yesterday at 5:19 am by Rocky
» Including gold.. An increase in exports of 3 Turkish products to Iraq during 2024
Yesterday at 5:18 am by Rocky
» A detailed integrity report regarding the Housing Fund... called for this matter
Yesterday at 5:17 am by Rocky
» Resources count the number of trespassers in Baghdad.. What about restaurants?
Yesterday at 5:16 am by Rocky
» At a cost of approximately two billion dinars... determining the completion rates achieved in the Ma
Yesterday at 5:15 am by Rocky
» Parliament awaits the “Cabinet of Ministers” law
Yesterday at 5:14 am by Rocky
» Provincial councils return after an absence with a heavy legacy
Yesterday at 5:13 am by Rocky
» Iraq is the axis and meeting point of East and West
Yesterday at 5:11 am by Rocky
» One million beneficiaries of health insurance early next May
Yesterday at 5:10 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Finance: Delaying the budget had a negative impact on the performance of the ministrie
Yesterday at 5:09 am by Rocky
» The chaos of urban expansion threatens the agricultural character of Diwaniyah
Yesterday at 5:08 am by Rocky
» A project to plant Japanese trees in Erbil
Yesterday at 5:07 am by Rocky
» A team to prepare the national strategy for national security in Kirkuk
Yesterday at 5:06 am by Rocky
» Next Tuesday...concluding a contract to expand the basic design of the city of Mosul
Yesterday at 5:04 am by Rocky
» A festival to reduce food prices in Mosul
Yesterday at 5:03 am by Rocky
» Technical committees between Baghdad and Erbil to resume oil exports through Türkiye
Yesterday at 5:02 am by Rocky
» A model of economic diversification
Yesterday at 5:01 am by Rocky
» Variation in the extent to which Iraq was affected by the decision to reduce the credit rating of {T
Yesterday at 5:00 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani: Iraq has made a commitment to receive the entire security file from the Ministry of Inter
Yesterday at 4:58 am by Rocky
» The President of the Republic stresses the important role of Mr. Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim in the first st
Yesterday at 4:56 am by Rocky
» The Iraqi Center for Combating Rumors warns against social media celebrities misleading their follow
Yesterday at 4:54 am by Rocky
» Integrity investigates the work of the Housing Fund and indicates debts worth 56 billion dinars
Yesterday at 4:53 am by Rocky
» Agricultural associations in Karbala welcome the provincial council’s decision to prevent the fragme
Yesterday at 4:52 am by Rocky
» Free education lecturers demand that they be given job opportunities and contracts in Kirkuk
Yesterday at 4:51 am by Rocky
» The Digital Media Center calls for not browsing links published on a government page
Yesterday at 4:50 am by Rocky
» The President of the Republic confirms the strength of relations between Iraq and Italy
Yesterday at 4:48 am by Rocky
» A decline in Iraq's oil exports to America during the past week
Yesterday at 4:47 am by Rocky
» Economic researcher for / NINA /: Iraqi youth are qualified for the labor market and relying on them
Yesterday at 4:46 am by Rocky
» The Minister of Planning is following up on the Statistics Authority’s preparations to conduct the g
Yesterday at 4:45 am by Rocky
» 5 days after sending the money and the Kurdistan government has not paid the salaries...a political
Yesterday at 4:44 am by Rocky
» A political reading about Sudanese political concern.. Amending the election law is one of the attem
Yesterday at 4:42 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani to the Baghdad government: Pay attention to the outskirts of the capital, and drainage mus
Yesterday at 4:41 am by Rocky
» The Iraqi dinar recovers against the dollar in local markets
Yesterday at 4:39 am by Rocky
» Investment provides a summary of Bismaya units... and the new cities have “fixed prices” for the fir
Yesterday at 4:38 am by Rocky
» “Hidden commissions” on electronic fuel cards, contrary to what is advertised.. To whom does 100 mil
Yesterday at 4:37 am by Rocky
» Al-Hasnawi: The government is continuing to accelerate the completion and opening of lagging health
Yesterday at 4:36 am by Rocky
» Oil: The gasoline import file will be closed early next year
Yesterday at 4:35 am by Rocky
» “My account or your account”... a new problem behind the delay in the salaries of the region’s emplo
Yesterday at 4:34 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani: Iraq is about to host important events and conferences
Yesterday at 4:33 am by Rocky
» In Erdogan's visit to Iraq...the path of development in exchange for water
Yesterday at 4:33 am by Rocky
» An American report on Washington’s seriousness in withdrawing from Iraq: Biden does not want to lose
Yesterday at 4:30 am by Rocky
» The organization is banned in Iraq.. Baghdad decides the fate of the Workers’ Party after 40 years o
Yesterday at 4:29 am by Rocky
» The rain exposes the poor quality of service projects and calls for the dismissal of officials and h
Yesterday at 4:28 am by Rocky
» Politician: Ankara needs Baghdad economically, and the path of development is Iraq’s trump card
Yesterday at 4:26 am by Rocky
» Economic calls to adopt a new philosophy for implementing strategic projects
Yesterday at 4:24 am by Rocky
» Al-Maliki: My alliance with Al-Sadr is possible, and the movement’s distance from it is an unhealthy
Yesterday at 4:23 am by Rocky