“By his decision to get us into Iraq, Bush risked the Republican majority.”
Leaders don’t send troops to war based on whether it is politically expedient. The Intel Bush got made it imperative that we go to Iraq.
His error was not in going to Iraq, but in not getting the hell out after the WMD was not found.
I suspect you are more of a national security conservative than I am.
I appreciate that, in spite of opposing Bush’s war on terror (whatever that refers to) prior to his election, Obama wound up basically following through on the plans that had been laid out during the Bush Administration.
Just as General Schwarzkopf said that he, as a theater commander, had to be a strategist, a tactician, and a logistician, in addition to being a general and a soldier, so too does the leader of a democratic nation engaged in a “long war” (as is envisioned in certain military circles) have to lead the people, see to it that the economy is running well, that the finances of the country are in good shape, and that the families of the country are functioning as they need to be.
But, Bush and Obama have demonstrated that they are about as competent of fulfilling the obligations of a leader of a democratic country engaged in a long war as Schwarzkopf found Saddam to be as an adversary.
If our country really is at risk because of something over there, we are now much weaker than we were in 2001 in terms of running our military personnel down, wearing out our weapons systems, using up our reserves of munitions, exhausting our allies, emptying our treasury, destroying our economy, and disrupting family formation.
And, we face the real prospect of a neo-Marxist radical being re-elected President.