Phil Giraldi : Did the US Really Leave Iraq?

Summary of the Video’s Main Points

The discussion, led by Judge Andrew Napolitano and guest Phil Giraldi, argues that U.S. foreign policy is characterized by illegal “undeclared wars” and preemptive aggression that the public largely tolerates. The speakers frame this as a broader constitutional crisis: they contend the government has abandoned the Constitution and that the use of force should be rejected to build a genuinely free society.

1) “Did the US really leave Iraq?”

The central question is whether American troops actually left Iraq. The answer given is that troops did leave Iraq but were not fully withdrawn from the region—they were moved to nearby countries, particularly Jordan.

The rationale offered is strategic: positioning U.S. forces farther from Iran to reduce the risk that Iran could directly strike bases in Iraq, while keeping them available for future operations (for example, actions related to Iran depending on U.S. political decisions).

The speakers also claim that bases vacated in Iraq would likely be handed over to Iraqi forces and/or Iraqi-affiliated militias, noting that many Iraqi units were trained by the U.S. They add that militias with Iranian ties could gain control of some facilities. The U.S. presence is described as continuing through influence (including the large embassy and leverage over events) and through past threats of sanctions.

A key controversy raised is that the Iraqi parliament repeatedly voted ordering U.S. troops to leave, which the speakers say was ignored because the U.S. treated Iraq as something it could control “by right of conquest,” despite earlier claims of supporting Iraqi democracy and the rule of law.

2) Intelligence/Espionage Cases as Examples of State Dysfunction

Before turning fully to Iraq, the show highlights two alleged intelligence-related scandals to reinforce a theme: adversarial espionage and undermining can occur within or between major intelligence services, and may be driven by money.

• Germany intelligence case: A former head of German intelligence is said to have been arrested for espionage/treason for allegedly selling classified documents to an unnamed—implied as—Russian adversary. The discussion suggests thousands of documents were allegedly leaked through a paid middleman, raising concern that partner nations (including the U.S.) could have had their intelligence compromised.

• U.S. CIA case: A former CIA officer, David Rush, is described as pleading guilty to embezzling a reported $46 million in gold bullion and using stolen funds to buy real estate. The speakers speculate on how such fraud could happen in intelligence contexts (e.g., fictionalized operations, manipulation of access, and vulnerabilities in oversight). They also describe the CIA’s Science & Technology Directorate as potentially “the gold standard” of intelligence—arguing that control of technological intelligence systems can grant broad access.

The show also claims (citing an article) that German authorities intend legislation to reshape German intelligence to reduce destabilization—contrasting this with what the speakers portray as the CIA’s long-standing destabilization role.

3) Why the U.S. Invaded Iraq (as Presented Here)

Phil Giraldi offers an explanation blaming the invasion primarily on misinformation and political interests rather than legitimate security justifications. The narrative includes:

• Historical U.S.-Iraq ties in the 1980s (including chemical weapons support during the Iran-Iraq war)
• A post-9/11 shift, attributed to neocon-influenced elements in the U.S. Department of Defense and figures linked to accusations that Iraq was involved in 9/11—paralleling similar claims made in Afghanistan
• Claims that a propaganda campaign pushed false allegations about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction and delivery capabilities to avoid a “mushroom cloud” scenario
• A further claim that Iraq was targeted because it supported Palestinians and opposed Israeli interests, describing a rationale for “making Iraq an enemy”

The discussion also references General Wesley Clark’s account of a reported plan to remove multiple countries in five years, presented as likely based on an Israeli-generated list. It argues that countries that “caved in” to U.S./Israeli pressure were positioned as safer, while others—like Iraq and Syria—were targeted for regime change.

4) Connecting Iraq to Iran and the Regional Strategy

The speakers argue the U.S. occupation never really ended in effect: troop movement to Jordan is framed as maintaining pressure and proximity to Iran.

They portray U.S. actions as supporting groups that destabilize Iran and as moving the region toward a confrontational crisis.

---

Presenters / Contributors

• Judge Andrew Napolitano
• Phil Giraldi
• David Rush (discussed; not a presenter in the dialogue)
• General Wesley Clark (referenced)
• Winston “Scooter” Libby (referenced)
• Wolfowitz (referenced)
• Doug Faith (referenced)
• Chancellor Merkel (referenced)
• Bill Burns (referenced)
• Professor Mohammad Marandi (listed for future episodes; not part of this discussion)
• Lieutenant Colonel Bill Astorre (listed for future episodes; not part of this discussion)
• Pepe Escobar (listed for future episodes; not part of this discussion)
• Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (listed for future episodes; not part of this discussion)
• Max Blumenthal (listed for future episodes; not part of this discussion)