Iraq Violence Raises Questions About U.S. Strategy

(Thumbnail image: The New York Times)

“Iraq’s Parliament has called a special session to investigate security lapses in the wake of Tuesday’s terror attacks that claimed at least 127 lives yesterday. More than 500 people were wounded.” (The Today Show)

The attack was the third large-scale, coordinated attack since August. The violence has raised questions about whether the U.S. is paying enough attention in Iraq and what this means for American and Iraqi security forces looking ahead of the planned U.S. withdrawal next year.

Newsy takes a look at perspectives from PBS, The Atlantic, Al Jazeera English and others.

The PBS News Hour reports on the significance of the attacks.

“The attacks shattered a month of relative calm. Violence in Iraq has diminished over the last 18 months, and November saw the fewest civilian deaths since the U.S. invasion in 2003.”

So has the calm allowed America’s attention to drift? A columnist for The Atlantic says it shouldn’t.

“Those who believe Iraq is over as a story are not, in my judgment, paying attention.”

Al Jazeera English provides a reason why the public may be losing focus on Iraq.

“But the White House decision to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan means Iraq certainly has fallen by the wayside in terms of public perception. Here in Washington over the past few weeks, much of the talk has been focused on Afghanistan, not Iraq. So even on a day when more than 120 people have been killed in bomb attacks in Baghdad, there’s not much public interest on the streets.”

Al Jazeera English also highlights the U.S government response, saying Iraq is still a priority.

“I take your point that there has been a lot of focus on Afghanistan, but I assure you, all of us spend a considerable amount on time on Iraq.  We still have a 115,000 United States troops in Iraq as a very strong signal of continued commitment here.”

So, what does the violence mean for future military plans? CBS News reports on the state of the Iraqi forces and the possibility of more attacks.

“Iraqi forces are struggling to take a front line role in security before U.S. forces begin to pull out next year. The blasts are the biggest in more than a month and come as the country announces plans to hold parliamentary elections in March. Security forces worry the lead-up to the vote will trigger even more deadly attacks.”

A Commentary Magazine column says for now, the U.S. needs to stay in Iraq.

“All we can know for sure is that the presence of U.S. troops provides a vital stabilizing element that prevents Iraq from going off the rails entirely.”

But The Wall Street Journal reports that the violence will not sway U.S. plans for withdrawal.

“I think certainly U.S. officials are looking at this transition period very carefully. The next couple of months are going to be very critical in terms of how they plan for the logistics of the withdrawal. That said, there has been no indication from U.S. officials in Baghdad or in Washington that there’s any backtracking on the basic outline of the Obama administration’s plans to withdraw next year.”

So what does the recent violence mean for the U.S. in Iraq? Does this change your opinion on the planned U.S. withdrawal next year?

Writer: Melissa Ulbricht

Producer: Katlin Chadwick