Iraq

One killed in ‘riot’ in Iraq’s Erbil after attack on Khor Mor gas field | Politics News

Kurdish authorities say one killed, several wounded in riots in Erbil’s Gwer, as authorities try to restore power after attack on Khor Mor.

A group of “rioters” have opened fire at fuel tanker trucks in the northern Iraqi governorate of Erbil, killing at least one person and wounding several others, Kurdish authorities said, days after a rocket attack on the region’s Khor Mor gas field.

In a statement carried by the Iraqi News Agency late on Saturday, the Ministry of Interior of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) linked the shooting to the Khor Mor attack.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The rocket attack hit a storage tank at the gas field, which is one of the region’s largest facilities, late on Wednesday, leading to production shutdown and extensive power cuts.

The ministry said the KRG sent liquid fuel to supply power plants following the Khor Mor attack, but that “a group of rioters blocked the road used by fuel tankers and civilians in Gwer, opening fire on passersby and travellers”.

The shooting “resulted in the death of one citizen and injuries to several others”, it said.

The ministry pledged action against the “riots”, saying “we will put an end to these acts of sabotage”.

The ministry statement followed an earlier report by the Iraqi News Agency in which it said there had been armed clashes between the Harkiya tribe and security forces in Erbil, near the village of Lajan on the Erbil-Gwer road.

The agency cited security forces as saying that the clashes, adjacent to the Lanaz Company refinery, had “resulted in fatalities and injuries”.

 

Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurdish Prime Minister Masrour Barzani has announced that the KRG has agreed with the company operating the Khor Mor gas field to restart production within hours to restore electricity.

The attack on Thursday on Khor Mor was the most significant violence since a series of drone attacks in July that cut production by about 150,000 barrels per day.

“I have spoken with the company’s [Dana Gas] leadership to thank them and their workforce for their extraordinary resilience and determination amid eleven attacks on the Khor Mor field,” Barzani said in a statement posted in English.

“I have urged [Iraqi] Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani to hold the perpetrators of this attack accountable to the full extent of the law, whoever they may be and wherever they are,” Barzani added.

There has been no claim of responsibility for the attack on Khor Mor, and authorities have not said who was behind the attack.

Abdulkhaliq Talaat, a military expert and former official from the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, however, told the Rudaw news channel that the drone attack on the Khor Mor gas field was launched from an area under the control of Iraqi forces.

The storage tank at Khor Mor is part of new facilities partially financed by the US and built by a US contractor, an industry source told the Reuters news agency earlier this week.

The KRG exercises autonomy in parts of northern Iraq, where US companies have significant investments in energy.

Source link

Rocket Attack Shuts Iraq’s Khor Mor Gas Field, Causes Widespread Power Cuts

Production at Iraq’s Khor Mor gas field, one of the largest in the Kurdistan region, was halted after a rocket struck a storage facility late on Wednesday. The facility, part of a recent expansion under the KM250 project, had increased the field’s production capacity by 50% and included new installations partially financed by the U.S. government and built by a U.S. contractor. The attack comes amid a series of drone strikes and assaults on the region’s oilfields, which have previously disrupted production and raised concerns over energy security in northern Iraq.

Why It Matters

The shutdown of Khor Mor has caused significant power cuts in the Kurdistan region, with electricity generation dropping by an estimated 3,000 megawatts. The gas field supplies fuel for regional power generation, meaning interruptions directly impact homes, businesses, and local infrastructure. The attack also underscores the vulnerability of energy assets in Iraqi Kurdistan, a region of strategic importance with major U.S. and international investments in the energy sector.

Key stakeholders include Dana Gas and Crescent Petroleum, operators of the Khor Mor field under the Pearl Consortium, local Kurdish authorities responsible for regional security, and U.S. interests, given their financial and operational involvement in the field. Residents and businesses in the northern region are directly affected by the power cuts, while regional security forces and international observers monitor the recurring attacks, which are often attributed to Iran-backed militias targeting U.S. and allied interests.

What’s Next

Authorities are assessing the damage and working to restore production and electricity supply. Firefighting teams successfully extinguished the blaze early on Thursday, but gas output remains suspended, prolonging power shortages. The incident follows previous attacks in July and recent drone strikes, highlighting ongoing security risks to critical infrastructure. Local officials, including Kurdish leaders, have called for improved anti-drone and defense measures to protect energy facilities, while the investigation into the perpetrators continues.

With information from Reuters.

Source link

Iraqi PM al-Sudani’s coalition comes first in parliamentary election | Elections News

With no clear majority, formation of next government will require intensive deal-making among strongest blocs.

A coalition led by Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has emerged as winner in Iraq’s parliamentary election, according to electoral authorities.

The Independent High Electoral Commission said on Wednesday that al-Sudani’s Reconstruction and Change coalition received 1.3 million votes in Tuesday’s election, about 370,000 more than the next closest competitor.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Speaking after the initial results were announced, al-Sudani hailed the voter turnout of 56 percent, saying it was “clear evidence of another success” that reflected the “restoration of confidence in the political system”.

However, while al-Sudani, who first came to power in 2022, had cast himself as a leader who could turn around Iraq’s fortunes after decades of instability, the poll was marked by disillusionment among weary voters who saw it as a vehicle for established parties to divide Iraq’s oil wealth.

Turnout was lower in areas like Baghdad and Najaf after populist Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadrist Movement, called on his vast numbers of supporters to boycott the “flawed election”.

As expected, Shia candidates won seats in Shia-majority provinces, while Sunni candidates secured victories in Sunni-majority provinces and Kurdish candidates prevailed in Kurdish-majority provinces.

But there were some surprises, notably in Nineveh, a predominantly Sunni Arab province, where the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) secured the highest number of seats.

Meanwhile, in Diyala province, which has a significant Kurdish minority, no Kurdish candidates won seats for the first time since 2005.

No party can form a government on its own in Iraq’s 329-member legislature, so parties build alliances with other groups to become an administration, a fraught process that often takes many months.

Back in 2021, al-Sadr secured the largest bloc before withdrawing from parliament following a dispute with Shia parties that refused to support his bid to form a government.

“None of the political factions or movements over the past 20 years have been able to gain a total majority … that allows one bloc to choose a prime minister, so at the end, this is going to lead to rounds of negotiations and bargaining among political factions,” said Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Baghdad.

The poll marked the sixth election held in Iraq since a United States-led invasion in 2003 toppled longtime ruler Saddam Hussein and unleashed a sectarian civil war, the emergence of the ISIL (ISIS) group and the general collapse of infrastructure in the country.

The next premier must answer to Iraqis seeking jobs and improved education and health systems in a country plagued by corruption and mismanagement.

He will also have to maintain the delicate balance between Iraq’s allies, Iran and the US, a task made all the more delicate by recent seismic changes in the Middle East.

Source link

Contributor: Don’t count on regime change to stabilize Venezuela

As the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier sails to the Caribbean, the U.S. military continues striking drug-carrying boats off the Venezuelan coast and the Trump administration debates what to do about Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, one thing seems certain: Venezuela and the western hemisphere would all be better off if Maduro packed his bags and spent his remaining years in exile.

This is certainly what Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado is working toward. This year’s Nobel Prize laureate has spent much of her time recently in the U.S. lobbying policymakers to squeeze Maduro into vacating power. Constantly at risk of detention in her own country, Machado is granting interviews and dialing into conferences to advocate for regime change. Her talking points are clearly tailored for the Trump administration: Maduro is the head of a drug cartel that is poisoning Americans; his dictatorship rests on weak pillars; and the forces of democracy inside Venezuela are fully prepared to seize the mantle once Maduro is gone. “We are ready to take over government,” Machado told Bloomberg News in an October interview.

But as the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. While there’s no disputing that Maduro is a despot and a fraud who steals elections, U.S. policymakers can’t simply take what Machado is saying for granted. Washington learned this the hard way in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, when an opposition leader named Ahmed Chalabi sold U.S. policymakers a bill of goods about how painless rebuilding a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq would be. We all know how the story turned out — the United States stumbled into an occupation that sucked up U.S. resources, unleashed unpredicted regional consequences and proved more difficult than its proponents originally claimed.

To be fair, Machado is no Chalabi. The latter was a fraudster; the former is the head of an opposition movement whose candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, won two-thirds of the vote during the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election (Maduro claimed victory anyway and forced González into exile). But just because her motives are good doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question her assertions.

Would regime change in Caracas produce the Western-style democracy Machado and her supporters anticipate? None of us can rule it out. But the Trump administration can’t bank on this as the outcome of a post-Maduro future. Other scenarios are just as likely, if not more so — and some of them could lead to greater violence for Venezuelans and more problems for U.S. policy in Latin America.

The big problem with regime change is you can never be entirely sure what will happen after the incumbent leader is removed. Such operations are by their very nature dangerous and destabilizing; political orders are deliberately shattered, the haves become have-nots, and constituencies used to holding the reins of power suddenly find themselves as outsiders. When Hussein was deposed in Iraq, the military officers, Ba’ath Party loyalists and regime-tied sycophants who ruled the roost for nearly a quarter-century were forced to make do with an entirely new situation. The Sunni-dominated structure was overturned, and members of the Shia majority, previously oppressed, were now eagerly taking their place at the top of the system. This, combined with the U.S. decision to bar anyone associated with the old regime from serving in state positions, fed the ingredients for a large-scale insurgency that challenged the new government, precipitated a civil war and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Regime change can also create total absences of authority, as it did in Libya after the 2011 U.S.-NATO intervention there. Much like Maduro today, Moammar Kadafi was a reviled figure whose demise was supposed to pave the way for a democratic utopia in North Africa. The reality was anything but. Instead, Kadafi’s removal sparked conflict between Libya’s major tribal alliances, competing governments and the proliferation of terrorist groups in a country just south of the European Union. Fifteen years later, Libya remains a basket case of militias, warlords and weak institutions.

Unlike Iraq and Libya, Venezuela has experience in democratic governance. It held relatively free and fair elections in the past and doesn’t suffer from the types of sectarian rifts associated with states in the Middle East.

Still, this is cold comfort for those expecting a democratic transition. Indeed, for such a transition to be successful, the Venezuelan army would have to be on board with it, either by sitting on the sidelines as Maduro’s regime collapses, actively arresting Maduro and his top associates, or agreeing to switch its support to the new authorities. But again, this is a tall order, particularly for an army whose leadership is a core facet of the Maduro regime’s survival, has grown used to making obscene amounts of money from illegal activity under the table and whose members are implicated in human rights abuses. The very same elites who profited handsomely from the old system would have to cooperate with the new one. This doesn’t appear likely, especially if their piece of the pie will shrink the moment Maduro leaves.

Finally, while regime change might sound like a good remedy to the problem that is Venezuela, it might just compound the difficulties over time. Although Maduro’s regime’s remit is already limited, its complete dissolution could usher in a free-for-all between elements of the former government, drug trafficking organizations and established armed groups like the Colombian National Liberation Army, which have long treated Venezuela as a base of operations. Any post-Maduro government would have difficulty managing all of this at the same time it attempts to restructure the Venezuelan economy and rebuild its institutions. The Trump administration would then be facing the prospect of Venezuela serving as an even bigger source of drugs and migration, the very outcome the White House is working to prevent.

In the end, María Corina Machado could prove to be right. But she is selling a best-case assumption. The U.S. shouldn’t buy it. Democracy after Maduro is possible but is hardly the only possible result — and it’s certainly not the most likely.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.

Source link

Special voting for forces and displaced in Iraq parliamentary polls begins | Elections News

Nearly 1.3 million members of the security forces and more than 26,500 internally displaced people are eligible to vote ahead of Tuesday’s polls.

Members of Iraq’s security forces and its internally displaced population have begun casting their ballots in the parliamentary elections – the sixth since a United States-led invasion toppled longtime ruler Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Polls opened at 7am (04:00 GMT) on Sunday for 1.3 million members of the security forces at 809 polling centres and will close at 6pm (15:00 GMT) before they are deployed for security purposes on the election day on Tuesday.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

More than 26,500 internally displaced people are also eligible for early voting on Sunday across 97 polling stations at 27 places in Iraq, the Iraqi News Agency (INA) said.

Interior Minister Abdul Amir al-Shammari told INA that the special voting process is advancing “smoothly and in an organised manner”.

Nearly 21 million Iraqis are eligible to vote on Tuesday across 4,501 polling stations nationwide, the INA said.

More than 7,750 candidates, nearly a third of them women, are running for the 329-seat parliament. Under the law, 25 percent of the seats are reserved for women, while nine are allocated for religious minorities.

The current parliament began its term on January 9, 2022, and will last four years, ending on January 8, 2026.

An old electoral law, revived in 2023, will apply to the ongoing elections, with many seeing it as favouring larger parties. While about 70 independents won in the 2021 vote, only 75 independents are contesting this year.

Observers also fear that turnout might dip below the record low of 41 percent in 2021, reflecting voters’ apathy and scepticism in a country marked by entrenched leadership and allegations of mismanagement and endemic corruption.

There were widespread accusations of corruption and vote-buying before the elections, and 848 candidates were disqualified by election officials, sometimes for obscure reasons, including insulting religious rituals or members of the armed forces.

Past elections in Iraq have been marred by violence, including assassinations of candidates, attacks on polling stations, and clashes between the supporters of different blocs. While overall levels of violence have subsided, a candidate was assassinated in the run-up to this year’s election.

Influential Shia leader Moqtada Sadr urged his followers to boycott what he described as a “flawed election”.

Al-Sadr’s bloc won the largest number of seats in 2021, but later withdrew after failed negotiations over forming the government amid a standoff with rival Shia parties. He has since boycotted the political system.

Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, elected in 2022 with the backing of pro-Iran parties, is seeking a second term and is expected to secure a sizeable bloc.

Among the other frontrunners are influential Shia figures, including former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Muslim scholar Ammar al-Hakim.

By convention in post-invasion Iraq, a Shia Muslim holds the powerful post of the prime minister and a Sunni of the parliament’s speaker, while the largely ceremonial presidency goes to a Kurd.

Source link

Dick Cheney, former vice president who unapologetically supported wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, dies at 84

Richard B. Cheney, the former vice president of the United States who was the architect of the nation’s longest war as he plotted President George W. Bush’s thunderous global response to the 9/11 terror attacks, has died.

Vexed by heart trouble for much of his adult life, Cheney died Monday night due to complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease, according to a statement from his family. He was 84.

“For decades, Dick Cheney served our nation, including as White House Chief of Staff, Wyoming’s Congressman, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President of the United States,” the statement said. “Dick Cheney was a great and good man who taught his children and grandchildren to love our country, and to live lives of courage, honor, love, kindness, and fly fishing. We are grateful beyond measure for all Dick Cheney did for our country. And we are blessed beyond measure to have loved and been loved by this noble giant of a man.”

To supporters and detractors alike, Cheney was widely viewed as the engine that drove the Bush White House. His two-term tenure capped a lifetime of public service, both in Congress and on behalf of four Republican presidents.

It often fell to Cheney, not President Bush, to make an assertive, unapologetic case for the American-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and for the controversial antiterrorism measures such as the Guantánamo Bay prison. And after the election of President Obama, it was once again Cheney, not Bush, who stood among the new president’s fiercest critics on national security.

In an October 2009 speech — one emblematic of the role he embraced after leaving the White House — Cheney blasted the Obama administration for opening a probe of “enhanced” interrogations of suspected terrorists conducted during the Bush years.

“We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys,” he said. The rhetoric was textbook Cheney: blunt, unvarnished, delivered with authority.

While Cheney at the time was attempting to occupy the leadership vacuum in the GOP in the age of Obama, there was little doubt that he also was motivated to preserve a legacy that appears to be as much his as former President Bush‘s. For eight years, Cheney redrew the lines that defined the vice presidency in a way no predecessor had. His office enjoyed greater autonomy than others before it, while working to keep much of his influence from plain sight. That way of operating led to a challenge before the Supreme Court as well as a criminal investigation over a leak of classified information.

Moreover, the image of a powerful backroom operator managing the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” combined with his service as Defense secretary during the Persian Gulf War and his stint as a chairman of defense contracting giant Halliburton, made Cheney a towering bête noire to liberals worldwide. To them, he embodied a dangerous fusion of politics and the military-industrial complex — and they viewed his every move with deep suspicion.

To his champions, however, he was the firm-jawed, hulking, resolute defender of American interests.

Standing with the administration was more than a duty to Cheney; it was an article of faith. The invasion of Iraq “was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it over again, we’d do exactly the same thing,” Cheney said in a 2006 interview, even as the nation slowly learned that U.S. intelligence suggesting Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction was simply not true.

Three years earlier, Cheney had pledged that the U.S. would be greeted in Iraq as “liberators” — a comment that haunted him as insurgents in the country gained strength, killed thousands of allied troops and extended the conflict for years. The war in Afghanistan would drag on for 20 years, ending in 2021 as it had begun, with the Taliban back in control.

While Cheney will largely be remembered for his leading role in the response to the 9/11 terror attacks, he had long worked the corridors of power in Washington. He was a White House aide to President Nixon and later chief of staff to President Ford. As a member of the House from Wyoming, he rose quickly to become part of the Republican leadership during the 1980s. In the early ’90s, he ran the Pentagon during the Gulf War.

Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney was born in Lincoln, Neb., on Jan. 30, 1941, and spent much of his teenage years in Casper, Wyo. His father worked for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.

As a young man, he was more interested in hunting, fishing and sports than in academics, and a stint at Yale University was short-lived. He eventually obtained bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Wyoming and studied toward a doctorate at the University of Wisconsin.

In 1964, he married Lynne Ann Vincent, who became a lifelong political partner while strongly influencing Cheney’s conservatism. Daughter Elizabeth, who was elected to Congress in 2017, was born in 1966 and her sister, Mary, arrived three years later. The sisters became embittered years later when Elizabeth — who preferred Liz — took a stance opposing same-sex marriage, which seemed a slap to Mary and her wife. Cheney, however, offered his support for such unions, an early GOP voice for same-sex marriage. Years later, he came to Liz’s defense when she broke with fellow Republicans and voted to impeach President Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In addition to his wife and daughters, Cheney is survived by seven grandchildren.

A fellowship sent Cheney to Washington, where he soon began working for a politically shrewd House member who also was a lifetime influence, Donald H. Rumsfeld. When Rumsfeld joined the Nixon administration, Cheney followed.

After Ford succeeded Nixon in the wake of Watergate, Rumsfeld served as chief of staff, with Cheney at his side. Ford eventually appointed Rumsfeld secretary of Defense, and Cheney, at 34, ran the White House. Even then, his calm reserve was a hallmark.

Although nearly everyone working for him was older, “He was very self-assured,” James Cannon, a member of Ford’s White House team, said years later. “It didn’t faze him a bit to be chief of staff.”

Ford lost a narrow election to Jimmy Carter in 1976, but Cheney’s Washington career was just getting underway. He headed back to Casper and in little more than a year was running for Congress.

His health, though, already was a factor. In 1978, at age 37 and in the midst of a primary election campaign, he had a heart attack, the first of several. He would undergo multiple surgeries, including a quadruple bypass, two angioplasties, installation of a heart pump and — in 2012 — a transplant. His frequent trips to the hospital and seeming indestructibility provided fodder for late-night talk show hosts during Cheney’s vice presidency.

With the help of television ads reminding voters that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson had served full White House terms despite having had heart attacks, he narrowly won the Republican nomination and, in November 1978, secured election to the House of Representatives from Wyoming’s single district.

In Congress, he was known as a listener more interested in problem-solving than conservative demagoguery, even as he quietly built a voting record that left no doubt about where he stood on the political spectrum. He quickly moved into the ranks of GOP leadership.

Cheney stepped into the public spotlight after he was named Defense secretary by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. As the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War cooled, Cheney was charged with overseeing a Pentagon that was more fractious than usual. In a test of political and managerial will, he oversaw major reductions in the Defense budget, a profound downsizing of forces and the closing of obsolete military bases. He helped implement the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 to oust the country’s leader, Manuel Noriega, for drug trafficking and racketeering.

But Cheney — along with his hand-picked chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell — made his mark in the American response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Cheney played a key role in persuading the Saudi royal family to allow American troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against a looming attack from Hussein’s forces.

The Cheney-led Pentagon then shifted to offense in 1991, amassing an enormous American force that totaled more than 500,000 soldiers, nearly twice the number employed in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. The U.S. military, with help from allied countries, overwhelmed the Iraqi forces in Kuwait in only 43 days and easily entered Iraq.

Characteristically, Cheney would defend the then-controversial decision to halt the U.S. advance toward Baghdad, which left Hussein in power. “I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country,” he said in a 1992 speech. “We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.”

Cheney’s efforts to station U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, considered critical to the push to repel Iraq, would have unforeseen ramifications. The military presence there helped radicalize young Islamic militants such as Osama bin Laden.

After President Clinton’s victory in 1992, Cheney left government service. Three years later, he assumed the helm of Halliburton, one of the world’s leading oil field companies and a prominent military contractor. The company thrived under Cheney’s leadership: Its relationship with the Pentagon flourished, its international operations expanded and Cheney grew wealthy.

In 2000, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican nominee for president, asked Cheney to head up the search for his running mate, then ultimately chose Cheney for the job instead. He brought to the ticket an element of maturity and Washington gravitas that the inexperienced Bush did not possess.

Cheney’s lack of design on the presidency, and his willingness to return to government 10 days shy of his 60th birthday, seemingly gave Bush the benefit of his experience and earned Cheney a measure of trust — and thus authority — commanded by few presidential advisors.

Once in office, Cheney, mindful of lessons learned in the Ford White House, sought to revitalize an executive office he believed had become too hemmed in by Congress and the courts. He termed it a “restoration.”

“After Watergate, President Ford said there was an imperiled president, not an imperial presidency,” said presidential historian Robert Dallek. Cheney, he said, felt “he badly needed to expand the powers of the presidency to assure the national security.”

In office barely a week, Cheney created a national energy policy task force in response to rising gasoline prices. A series of meetings with top officials from the oil, natural gas, electricity and nuclear industries were closed to the public, and Cheney refused to reveal the names of the participants. Cheney would exert similar influence over environmental policy and, with an office on Capitol Hill, forcefully advance the president’s legislative agenda.

A lawsuit seeking information about the task force made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in the vice president’s favor in 2004. One of the justices in the majority was Antonin Scalia, who was a friend and, it was later revealed, had recently gone duck hunting with the vice president.

Another hunting trip gone awry earned Cheney embarrassing headlines in 2006 when he accidentally shot and wounded a member of the party with a round of birdshot while quail hunting on a Texas ranch.

More troubling to Cheney was a federal criminal probe in connection with the 2003 leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. The investigation resulted in the conviction four years later of Cheney aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. Libby was later pardoned by President Trump.

Cheney, however, will be largely remembered for his unwavering belief that the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq — especially the latter — were essential, a stance he maintained even as the missions in both theaters evolved from rooting out suspected terrorists to nation-building, and even as the casualties skyrocketed and it became clear the 20-year mission was doomed.

When U.S. troops and civilians were pulled out of Afghanistan in a fraught and fatal departure in 2021, it was Cheney’s daughter who spoke up.

“We’ve now created a situation where as we get to the 20th anniversary of 9/11, we are surrendering Afghanistan to the very terrorist organization that housed al Qaeda when they plotted and planned the attacks against us,” Rep. Liz Cheney (R.-Wyo.) said.

The former vice president’s steely resolve was captured years later in “Vice,” a 2018 biographical drama in which Christian Bale portrayed Cheney as a brainy yet uncompromisingly uncharismatic leader.

It was Cheney who insisted early on that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us,” Cheney said in August 2002. The U.S. eventually determined that Iraq had no such weapons.

He argued forcefully that Hussein was linked to the 2001 terror attacks. When other administration officials fell silent, Cheney continued to make the connections even though no shred of proof was ever found. In a 2005 speech, he called the Democrats who accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war “opportunists” who peddled “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” to gain political advantage.

Cheney also frequently defended the use of so-called extreme interrogation methods, such as waterboarding, on al Qaeda operatives. He did so in the final months of the Bush administration, as both the president’s and Cheney’s public approval ratings plunged.

“It’s a good thing we had them in custody and it’s a good thing we found out what they knew,” he said in a 2008 speech to a friendly crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“I’ve been proud to stand by him, the decisions he made,” Cheney said of Bush. “And would I support those same decisions today? You’re damn right I would.”

Oliphant and Gerstenzang are former Times staff writers.

Staff writer Steve Marble contributed to this story.

Source link