Posted on 07/31/2008 4:16:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
There is a growing confidence among officers, diplomats and politicians that a constitutional Iraq is going to make it. We don't hear much anymore of trisecting the country, much less pulling all American troops out in defeat.
Critics of the war now argue that a victory in Iraq was not worth the costs,
not that victory was always impossible. The worst terrorist leaders, like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Muqtada al-Sadr, are either dead or in hiding.
The 2007 surge, the Anbar Awakening of tribal sheiks against al-Qaida, the change to counterinsurgency tactics, the vast increase in the size and competence of the Iraqi Security Forces, the sheer number of enemy jihadists killed between 2003-8, the unexpected political savvy of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the magnetic leadership of Gen. David Petraeus have all contributed to a radically improved Iraq.
Pundits and politicians -- especially presumptive Democratic presidential
nominee Barack Obama -- are readjusting their positions to reflect the new undeniable realities on the ground in Iraq:
The additional five combat brigades of the surge sent to Iraq in 2007 are already redeployed out of the country. American soldiers are incrementally turning province after province over to the Iraqi Security Forces, and planning careful but steady withdrawals for 2009.
Violence is way down. American military fatalities in Iraq for July, as of Tuesday, were the lowest monthly losses since May 2003. The Iraq theater may soon mirror other deployments in the Balkans, Europe and Asia, in which casualties are largely non-combat-related.
Since overseas troops have to be billeted, fed and equipped somewhere -- whether in Germany, Okinawa or Iraq -- the material costs of deployment in Iraq may soon likewise approximate those of other theaters. Anger over the costs of the "war" could soon be simply part of a wider debate over the need for, and expense of, maintaining a large number of American troops anywhere abroad.
For over four years, war critics insisted that we took our eye off Afghanistan, empowered Iran, allowed other rogue nations to run amuck and soured our allies while we were mired in an unnecessary war. But how true is all that?
The continuing violence in Afghanistan can be largely attributed to Pakistan, whose tribal wild lands serve as a safe haven for Taliban operations across the border. To the extent the war in Iraq has affected Afghanistan, it may well prove to have been positive for the U.S.: Many Afghan and Pakistani jihadists have been killed in Iraq, the war has discredited al-Qaida, and the U.S. military has gained crucial expertise on tribal counterinsurgency.
Iran in the short-term may have been strengthened by a weakened Iraq, U.S. losses and acrimony over the war. Yet a constitutional Iraq of free Sunnis and Shiites may soon prove as destabilizing to Iran as Iranian subversion once was to Iraq. Nearby American troops, freed from daily fighting in Iraq, should appear to Iran as seasoned rather than exhausted. If Iraq is deemed successful rather than a quagmire, it is also likely that our allies in Europe and the surrounding region will be more likely to pressure Iran.
These shifting realities may explain both the shrill pronouncements emanating from a worried Iran and its desire for diplomatic talks with American representatives.
Other rogue nations -- North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba (not to mention al-Qaida itself) -- also do not, for all their bluster, think that or act like an impotent U.S military is mired in defeat in Iraq.
Meanwhile, surrounding Arab countries may soon strengthen ties with Iraq. After all, military success creates friends as much as defeat loses them. In the past, Iraq's neighbors worried either about Saddam Hussein's aggression or subsequent Shiite/Sunni sectarianism. Now a constitutional Iraq offers them some reassurance that neither Iraqi conventional nor terrorist forces will attack.
None of this means that a secure future for Iraq is certain. After all, there are no constitutional oil-producing states in the Middle East. Instead, we usually see two pathologies: either a state like Iran where petrodollars are recycled to fund terrorist groups and centrifuges, or the Gulf autocracies where vast profits result in artificial islands, indoor ski runs and radical Islamic propaganda.
Iraq could still degenerate into one of those models. But for now, Iraq -- with an elected government and free press -- is not investing its wealth in subsidizing terrorists outside its borders, spreading abroad fundamentalist madrassas, building centrifuges or allowing a few thousand royal first cousins to squander its oil profits.
Iraq for the last 20 years was the worst place in the Middle East. The irony is that it may now have the most promising future in the entire region.
True, if the stupid dimlibs leave it alone and let it happen.
We'll miss him when he leaves office... but this statement is delusional.
It took us from 1776 to 1789 to seat our first President with 7 years of war in the mix...and the war of 1812 was to follow.
“if not” can be taken a number of ways. Certainly “for our times” is arguable.
I stick to my opinion and you can stick to yours, okay?
And the best president of this century (so far) is absolutely indubitable.
Lincoln was despised and ridiculed when alive (and narrowly re-elected). The Civil War was so unpopular that there were draft riots borderng on an insurrection in New York in 1863. Federal troops, fresh from Gettysburg, had to be sent to New York to restore order. (My patronymic great-great grandfather was a police captain and precinct commander at the time.)
Bush lacks Lincoln's eloquence and his formative experiences. Still, he exhibits a strong character and commitment to principle. He is far more competent than his critics portray him, but not equal in stature to Lincoln or Washington. Bush, like is father, is loyal, almost too loyal, to subordinates (something that Clinton never was) but seems to lack judgment in their selection, e.g., Scott McClellan.
Faced with the aftermath of 9/11 I do not think that Bush engaged in political calculation, but did what he thought was right. In this he acted in a manner almost the exact opposite of how Clinton would have reacted, a person for whom all decisions were based primarily on political calculation. His opponents, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid were never so constrained and he has paid the price.
Still, politics is reality. One of FDR's strength's during the War was his mastery of the political. He succeeded in rallying almost complete and unanimous support for an enormously costly and bloody war.
In the end, Bush will probably be seen as not wanting in character, but over his head in terms of ability to lead and inspire.
Stick to whatever you want... delusional is still delusional.
Dubya was/is a good president... his action in Afghanistan and Iraq will be looked upon favorably by presidential historians. But Iraq and Afghanistan are only two “storefronts” of the enemy we face... and that enemy is Islam. G. W. Bush fell short in his duty to explain that to the American citizen... it hurts us now and will will only hurt us more in the future.
This alone disqualifies him from your accolades.
At least until 2012.
I’d like to see Iraq’s Prime Minister al-Maliki hold a press conference on November 1st listing all of the obstacles that Iraq has overcome, including liberal opposition in the United States, while standing in front of a banner that says “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”.
The enemy is radical Islam. You appear to be trying to paint them all with a broad brush, which is delusional. What religion did the Jordanian agents subscribe to? You know, the ones that pinpointed Zarqari’s location?
“G. W. Bush fell short in his duty to explain that to the American citizen...”
We have military set up all over the Muslim world, Kuwait, Bahrain, U.A.E., Qatar, Iraq, Afghanistan, ect...and you want him to denounce Islam?
For these big historical achievement President Bush is a great President and he will be remembered as such few decades from now.
The best since 9/11 at most.
And the only Islams you mention... are the ones who are “weak of faith”. Make no mistake... the religion itself gives validation/vindication to its most fervent and violent members.
“And the only Islams you mention... are the ones who are “weak of faith”.”
Al-Qaeda would agree.
I understand political disagreements, but there is this rabid hatred of Bush that I cannot fathom. I was speaking to a liberal colleague the other day and stated that he would at least have to concede that Dubya was a decent family man with a wonderful family. I won't print his reply.
“The best president of this century” is currently correct. Most likely it will still be correct, no matter who wins the election this fall.
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.