Posted on 06/16/2014 8:28:29 AM PDT by jazusamo
The news from Iraq that Islamic terrorists have now taken over cities that American troops liberated during the Iraq war must have left an especially bitter after-taste to Americans who lost a loved one who died taking one of those cities, or to a survivor who came back without an arm or leg, or with other traumas to body or mind.
Surely we need to learn something from a tragedy of this magnitude.
Some say that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. Others say we should never have pulled our troops out when we did, leaving behind a weak and irresponsible government in charge.
At a minimum, Iraq should put an end to the notion of "nation-building," especially nation-building on the cheap, and to the glib and heady talk of "national greatness" interventionists who were prepared to put other people's lives on the line from the safety of their editorial offices.
Those who are ready to blame President George W. Bush for everything bad that has happened since he left office should at least acknowledge that he was a patriotic American president who did what he did for the good of the country — an assumption that we can no longer safely make about the current occupant of the White House.
If President Bush's gamble that we could create a thriving democracy in the Middle East — one of the least likely places for a democracy to thrive — had paid off, it could have been the beginning of a world-changing benefit to this generation and to generations yet unborn.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Except that the Middle East is not a casino and the outcome of the "Iraq bet" was not determined by the roll of the dice or the flip of a card. There were too many factors in play that could simply not be controlled. That's what made it a bad gamble. If it were as simple as a casino table game, then I'd agree with your assessment.
The alternative of inaction in the face of Saddam’s continuous provocations is an unknown that might have turned out worse.
Saddam caused 100,000 deaths per year for over 20 years. We cut that dramatically. Less death is a net good, in my book.
There wasn’t a clean answer. Non-action was also a bet. Which we could easily have lost. We all have to accept that dirt was going to accumulate to any position we chose.
The result historically is fact: America chose to go to war. Democrats demanded a vote so that a majority of them could vote “Aye”. The whole of our polity made the bet that action was better than inaction.
Inaction on Hitler was also an option. We didn’t take that bet on inaction either.
Nothing is so antiseptic as all that.
“At least in this case, “Unlucky” means 0bama squandered any chance of the bet paying off.” As soon as barry bastard boy changed the ROE to benefit the Islamic terrorists it was quite apparent that this current bastard in the Lie House was actively trying to make it not work. It is not lucky or unlucky when the enemy within commits treachery against our people in uniform. Obama is the domestic enemy of The Republic, the perfect democrap leader.
It's called the trial and error method. It would have been the perfect solution: defeat the bad guys, give the good people a chance to have freedom and democracy. All the other Middle East countries would have turned on the extremist mullahs.
We now move to the next best choice, and then the next best until we solve the problem or one of our cultures gets eliminated.
That's right, Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton (and Valerie Jarrett) were responsible for policy in Iraq. If we are going to lose Iraq to the Taliban or Charlie's Aunt, Barry Obama had the watch and he's responsible (even if he was too busy golfing or fundraisers). Hillary was Secretary of State — WTH was see doing besides playing hide the salami with Huma Abedin-Weiner?
Which one of the Republican castrati have the courage to state the obvious? This emperor lost Iraq and he's going to lose Afghanistan, too. [The sound of crickets is deafening.]
No doubt that you're right and he'll make a point of it before he leaves office, if he leaves.
Every president thinks they are going to be the one who can bring peace to the Persian Gulf. Why?
I am not saying that it was the right thing to do against the American Indians but it is a template. Concerning the Muslims - hunt them down. Disperse the tribes. Put them on reservations. Teach them English. And - this is the big thing - constantly introduce them to new ideas and new religions. Bombard them constantly with Chrisiianity, Bhuddism, Shinto, etc. Make them see that there are other viewpoints that do not promote forcible conversion and/or death.
But all this requires a will and the ability to explain to the American public what we want to achieve. And we are sorely lacking in both since Ronald Reagan left office.
We lessened nothing.
We DID, however, affect the TIMING of the deaths.
There is still, and always will be, one death per person - as long as that person is a Christian.
I hear there is something called the SECOND death that can evidently be avoided.
Chivington said...
Why?
Because they’ve been ELECTED by an astute American populace: one well acquainted with History and the issues at hand?
Well, I sure didn’t vote for getting involved in a permanent war in the Persian Gulf.
The book The Generals, by Thomas Ricks, is a history of civil-military relations in the US. It has a chapter on the utter failure of both the President and the generals in command in Iraq to agree (or even recognize the need for an agreement) on what the desired "end state" should be, and what actions had to be taken to reach it. This wasn't the only problem, of course, but it was the root problem from which all the others flowed.
Another good book on the Iraq disaster is We Meant Well, by Peter Van Buren. The author was a Foreign Service Officer involved in "reconstruction" in Iraq. His tale of how the "occupation" was botched, despite the best of intentions, is enough to make one cry.
I’ll add that during the 90s, I flew patrols over Iraq for nearly half of each year. By the 2000 time frame, we were being shot at regularly. Iraq was not a good choice for places to do nothing at all. Bush didn’t have GOOD choices.
His failure was he did not lay the groundwork for us remaining for 50 years with enough force to intimidate anyone who wanted to cause trouble.
Thank you, Dr. Sowell. Hard to believe a Republican administration embraced this idiocy and that so many "conservatives" cheered on the madness. Why W decided to listen to the chicken-hawks who wanted to recast his presidency along the lines of LBJ will always be a mystery to me. The conservative movement will be tainted with this disaster for years to come. Any future conservative standard-bearer should make it clear they will bury the putrid corpse of "nation-building" for once and all.
I always felt W had a grudge to settle against Saddam for trying to assassinate his father.
I cut him some slack for that.
Since reading one freeper’s “Century of War” and his many references to Thucydidies I recall one reason the Athenians lost the Pelopenesian War. They were so convinced of their superiority and victory they didn’t need to engage in ugly brutality. Their enemies took this for weakness. Hence the war dragged on.
That partition has kept tribal/religious factions within national boundaries at each others' throats for some time--which may well have been the intent.
Good point. Yet, even if the sects had their own countries, they would fight over the boundaries instead of within them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.