Hi Chris,

Thanks for your response.

I agree with the emphasis you place on the invasion in Iraq. With what we know about it now, I think it’s safe to say that was nothing short of a cold-blooded massacre. Factor in Iraqi fighters as well, and the number of those who died passes 650,000. Not to mention thousands of American soldiers who also needlessly lost their lives.

Personally, I don’t buy the “Iraq needed democracy argument.” America has a long, I’m thinking all the way back to Nixon, been very cosy with dictators – when it suited them of course. So this wasn’t an invasion led by the desire to “liberate the Iraqi people.” I am more convinced by the theory that Bush simply wanted to, post 9/11, remind the world that America was still capable of taking others to task.

As far as the rise of ISIS is concerned, you are spot on – the war in Afghanistan would have foreshadowed that.

You say, “Do we blame America for this violence, or do we blame the factions who actually engaged in violence?” I agree when you say America was not the only player. But I don’t think we can deny America was "actually engaged" also the biggest aggressor. The bomb statistics are an example.

And again, you are correct when you say there were other nations/organisations involved. And when you say the region wasn’t in harmony before U.S. involvement. The position that the region is in however, in terms of economies destroyed, institutions wiped out, lives lost is heavily influenced by intervention of the world’s most powerful military. It took things up a notch, to say the least.

As far as what Obama should have done, it was implementing a coherent strategy to withdraw US forces. It was beyond evident at that stage that more war was not going to lead to peace. I do agree that the situation was an utter mess, but, and again, instead of implementing a withdrawal strategy, the aggression increased with every passing year of the Obama administration.

With reference to Iran, it’s well on its way to acquire nuclear weapons anyway. I think we have President Trump to thank for that.

Also, I don’t believe the drive for nuclear disarmament is going to yield any long-term solid results as long as it’s championed by an American president. Yes, I know America is the current hegemon and in that sense it seems logical. However, America is the only nation which has used the atomic bomb against a civilian population. And that rids any American administration of the credibility required to get the job done.

With reference to drone wars, you are right. However, the drone war in Pakistan was dubbed as the “CIA’s worst kept secret.” The drone figures are publicly available. That also means that information regarding the manner in which that war was conducted is available. Only a mere 2% of casualties which were high-value targets. As for curtailing terrorist activities, it barely made a dent. If anything, it probably made things worse for Pakistanis by creating more terrorists. Pakistan is now largely free of terror today simply because of the efforts of its own military (largely man to man combat).

And since Pakistan was a far lesser conflict compared to the rest, it provides a lens through which to analyse the actions of the CIA in other countries i.e. if they did this in a (relatively) smaller conflict, what did they do in the countries that ended up getting destroyed?

I do not have a problem with American administrations feeling the need to act on concerns of national security. Every nation has that right. What I do have a problem with is their consistent disregard for the loss of innocent life. Is one life in the Middle East worth less than that of a life in America? That’s certainly how they went about it.

I think until nano-drones (they are the size of a mosquito and can enter specific rooms within buildings to take out terrorists) are used by the U.S. military at large, they should give more thought to civilian populations before forming their strategies.

Once again, you are correct in tracing this back to Bush. I did not do so because that wasn’t the point of this article. Biden wasn’t his VP. And this wasn’t an academic article. Had I desired to make it one, then Biden and Trump wouldn’t have factored into the mix and I would have been discussing what you and I have in effect been discussing.

My aim was to get the point of innocents losing their lives across to the reader. Because when all is said and done, when wars are over, when presidents have come and gone, those numbers and the numbers of bombs used to kill them are the only ones that are going to matter. This was also the purpose behind me using the quotations that I did. It’s about the American people raising questions and holding their presidents accountable. It’s about voting whilst keeping those on the other side of the world in mind – people you have never met – but nevertheless people who will be affected by that vote. You didn’t ask for this but neither did they.

I think when administration after administration has failed in this regard (and this is the world at large now – not just the Middle East), it is up to people like us to raise the voices of those who aren’t heard.

As I said, I didn’t feel the need to dive into geopolitics because that wasn’t the point. That wasn’t the message. But perhaps you were right in that I should have.

I do thank you for taking the time to respond. I have certainly learned things and I hope that I have been able to get across what I wanted to say in this piece.

I do apologise for any harsh language previously used.

Best,

Sikander.