Why is this article written like an op-ed, despite being Reuters?
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
I somewhat agree - not necessarily with your content here, but that the article is written ... strangely.
For instance:
> US forces leave country where 4,500 of them died in worst US war of 21st century
I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war. Perhaps the Iraq war was objectively worse, but since the sudden withdrawal in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge, I am not so sure which war was worse. I am not even sure how to qualify it, so Reuters stating this was the worst war is ... indeed a strange label to use. Wasn't Reuters indeed more objective in the past? And with that I mean objective at all times, not white-washing or black-washing.
I now finished reading the article and it indeed seems op-ed. The reader now thinks that the war against Iran must continue. I still fail to understand why the USA invaded the area. Other than some making enormous profits, of course. If 911 was used as a rationale, why was not Saudi Arabia attacked?
The US had a clear reason to be in Afghanistan. It was a brutal quagmire with thousands of deaths (and many more Afghani deaths), but one could at least argue there was purpose in the beginning.
Iraq was 4500 dead for one Texan trying to imitate daddy while listening to his CEO buddies.
It was red herring. None of the villains on those planes are Afghanis or even Taleban. And the entire 20 years saga fighting there not even against the OBL but more of Taleban and bringing freedom that supposely Brits and Soviet cant. OBL troops morphed into Syria where infamously Obama crossed it with his "red lines" without boots on the ground but tons of CIAs operatives running around. We now know it has nothing to do with 911 but more of diverting the "real villains" attention far away in neighboring countries. But at least we bring freedom right? Unfortunately the Kabul government didnt even last 24 hours after we left in the most humiliating way possible. We surely made Soviet look incredibly powerful and foresighted. Their version of Afghan government lasted AFTER Soviet collapsed on budget while we burnt 10T. And then just like Pikachu surprised, China overtook USA as world most powerful country with weapon that we failed (railgun), own space station, robots, drones, rare earth, and even mbridge currency. Meanwhile we got the stable genius with flappy bird planes. And if you do OSINT way way more than 4.5K American KIA there. Way more. But hey, we cant even audit our Pentagon but we can trust-me-bro those number right?
I also tripped over that line but I think it’s content is very specific and the number of deaths is the clue: in terms of deaths the Iraq war is definitely the worst war of the US in the 21st century. You have to very literally read that line. And in that context that claim makes sense: In terms of deaths the Iraq war was the worst war.
Now, there are certainly other axis along which you can judge a war.
meowface · · focus · HN ↗
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
shevy-java · · focus · HN ↗
For instance:
> US forces leave country where 4,500 of them died in worst US war of 21st century
I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war. Perhaps the Iraq war was objectively worse, but since the sudden withdrawal in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge, I am not so sure which war was worse. I am not even sure how to qualify it, so Reuters stating this was the worst war is ... indeed a strange label to use. Wasn't Reuters indeed more objective in the past? And with that I mean objective at all times, not white-washing or black-washing.
I now finished reading the article and it indeed seems op-ed. The reader now thinks that the war against Iran must continue. I still fail to understand why the USA invaded the area. Other than some making enormous profits, of course. If 911 was used as a rationale, why was not Saudi Arabia attacked?
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
Arainach · · focus · HN ↗
Iraq was 4500 dead for one Texan trying to imitate daddy while listening to his CEO buddies.
Haven880 · · focus · HN ↗
arrrg · · focus · HN ↗
Now, there are certainly other axis along which you can judge a war.
pathsjs · · focus · HN ↗
esseph · · focus · HN ↗
> I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war
The Iraq war from 2003-2011 (8-9 yr) had twice as many US troop deaths (4430) as the Afghanistan war (~20 yr)(2450) in double the amount of time.
esseph · · focus · HN ↗