Before I respond to the test we must go over the real reason ISIS got control of the land that the coalition forces took back.
The sectarian politics in Iraq is/was very complex. They don't have a two party system you know.(LOL). Al-Malici is really to blame for ISIS getting control of the land they got after the USA left. Al-Malici would not and did not work with the other sects in the sharing of the power. (Something the New York Times link leaves out). So, when the USA left the sects were not unified. By not being unified this left the weaker sects vulnerable to an attack by ISIS. The KURDS were the only sect strong enough to protect itself. When ISIS attacked the KURDS, the KURDS kicked their butt and the KURDS kept their land. The other sects were weak and when ISIS attacked them they lost their land. AL-Malici deserves the bulk of the blame for ISIS getting the land that they had.
Originally Posted by flghtr65
His name is spelled al-Maliki. I have never seen it spelled your way. Yes, he deserves a portion of the blame for Iraq falling apart. After the US pulled out in 2011, he tilted (as a Shiite) toward Iran. With no residual troop presence, we lost leverage and influence to prevent this. Your analysis also fails to mention anything about the Anwar Awakening. Our troops established good relationships with the Sunni tribal chiefs in Anwar Province during the 2007 surge. We helped them stand up to al queda and drive them out. Then we provided logistical support to keep the bad guys out. All of that stopped when we left. We turned the lights out in terms of intel collection. ISIS saw the opportunity and moved back in. They killed most of the tribal chiefs who led the Awakening. The Sunnis we had worked so hard to cultivate felt utterly betrayed. There is no way to spin this other than as a huge reversal of all the gains we achieved in the 2007 surge and a stunning betrayal of our hard-won Sunni allies. And it didn't have to happen.