Posted on 08/15/2014 1:03:25 PM PDT by Kaslin
I am constantly amazed at the tendency of some to use the perspective of hindsight to condemn decisions of those who did not possess the supernatural gift of predictive prophecy at the time they made their decisions.
So when a friend asked whether I believe that those who supported George W. Bush's decision to attack Iraq should feel remorse, considering the chaos and genocide occurring there now, I said "no," with some qualifications.
I believe that Bush and his team based their decision to invade Iraq on the best available intelligence (as to weapons of mass destruction) and a reasonable belief that Saddam Hussein fostered and supported terrorism -- not to mention his serial violation of multiple U.N. resolutions -- and thereby represented a threat to the national security interests of the United States and its allies.
Democrats, who initially supported the war for political reasons, later conveniently withdrew their support for political reasons and lied through their teeth about their former support and the facts leading to it. Through their relentless, vicious attacks on Bush, they systematically undermined the public's confidence in the war and our ability to optimally wage it.
Should the Bush team have better anticipated the strength and resilience of the insurgency after our toppling of Saddam? I suppose so, but in this age of terrorism and asymmetrical war, I'd contend that such events are less predictable than they might have been before.
Was team Bush Pollyannaish in its belief that democracy would survive in such an environment? I incline toward thinking so, but I am not sure we can make a firm assessment either way, seeing as the experiment was cut short because of our precipitous and total withdrawal from the country.
Interestingly, I remember hearing toward the end of his term that Bush's goal was to achieve a level of stability in Iraq that even a liberal president could not easily screw up. But in fairness, how could he have foreseen that the United States would elect an extreme leftist as his successor who would not only fail to understand the global scope of the war on terror but also be as wantonly irresponsible in negotiating our withdrawal from Iraq as Barack Obama was?
Nonetheless, in light of the massacre currently underway in Iraq, it's hard for us supporters of the Iraq invasion not to second-guess ourselves and wonder whether this kind of bedlam would have happened but for the vacuum made possible -- albeit indirectly and several steps removed -- by our deposing of Saddam.
But I don't think this power vacuum that gave rise to the Islamic State was inevitable, even if I am not fully on board with "the democracy project." I think a better case can be made that the chaos in Iraq has mostly resulted from Obama's reckless withdrawal and his refusal to lift a finger against the Islamic State when it would have mattered.
His decision to leave so quickly and irreversibly was in turn precipitated by his inability to clearly analyze world events because of his disturbingly skewed worldview, his resulting ignorance about the threat to our national security interests posed by global Islamofascism, and his disgraceful and unswerving practice of placing his personal and political interests above the national interests.
Obama insisted on intervening in Libya based on humanitarian reasons but appears unmoved in a far worse situation in Iraq. Plus, the Libyan situation couldn't conceivably have involved our national security interests to the extent that the mayhem in Iraq now does. Not only do we have a vested interest in Iraq's peace and stability with the lives and treasure expended there but also the Islamic State is well on the way to establishing a regional caliphate -- a terrorist state that poses a dire threat to the region and, inevitably, to the entire world.
Can Obama not see these things? Almost everyone else can. Or is something even more cynical at work here?
I happen to believe that rank politics is at work, as well.
For the reality is that nothing led to the rise in power of the Democratic Party during the Bush years, including even the financial meltdown of 2008, more than the Democrats' and liberal media's calculated, methodical and unremitting assault on Bush's character as the most evil man in history over his decision to attack Iraq.
The moral "wrongness" of the war became an essential article of faith in the leftist religion. They constructed lie after lie to condemn team Bush as bloodthirsty liars who concocted fantastic tales to justify attacking Iraq to satisfy their bloodlust and their rapacious quest for its oil.
This narrative was so central to rallying the leftist base that no Democrat, especially Obama, is about to let go of it without a compelling reason, on steroids. Even the genocide of innocent Christians, even an obvious threat to the very security of the United States, is not sufficient to move Obama even to consider "boots on the ground" in Iraq. He must believe that if he goes back into Iraq in a significant way, he will somehow vindicate Bush by undermining the left's article of faith against intervening in Iraq. I'm not advocating boots on the ground now, but to summarily take options off the table and to telegraph that to the Islamic State is unwise.
How tragically ironic that Obama's blind obsession with extricating us from (and keeping us out of) Iraq to perpetuate the point that team Bush was evil may be the very thing that proves just the opposite. For in the end, Obama may just wind up vindicating Bush and incriminating himself.
“Was team Bush Pollyannaish in its belief that democracy would survive in such an environment? I incline toward thinking so, but I am not sure we can make a firm assessment either way, seeing as the experiment was cut short because of our precipitous and total withdrawal from the country.”
This is key.
IS only was able to do what they’ve done because the US quit.
It is all on us. On Obama mostly, but libertarians and some conservatives also advocated the pull-out.
Obummer’s Iraq policy can be summed up as thus: Do as little as possible and hope someone else steps in and fixes it.
Obama foreign policy: Fly like a bumblebee, sting like a butterfly
Iraq was a success after General Petreaus did the surge but more time was needed to make sure all was well. Also only a moron announces to the world what he is going to do.
That moron 0bama
Perfect description
When Bush decided to invade Iraq, I was warned by a Christian Nigerian that we would not be able to civilize those people.
That may well be, but the power vacuum wasn’t there even as recently as three years ago. Obama has been backing the virulent in nation after nation.
“Iraq was a success after General Petreaus did the surge but more time was needed to make sure all was well. Also only a moron announces to the world what he is going to do.
“
You are 100% correct. The biggest success was in creating the first Muslim democracy, and it worked. Remember the purple fingers of all the voters?
Now maybe we understand why Saddam rode his people so hard, executing more than 100,000 per year. In hindsight, maybe he was executing radicals. Different culture, different rules. That may have been what was necessary for him to control the savage forces that have taken over now.
And what a disappointment that this was so predictable. When Obama announced the pull-out date, everybody with half a brain said this would happen.
We don't know what would have happened if Saddam had been left in power. The number of people in Iraq he would have killed by now may have been much more than the insurgents and terrorists have killed since our invasion. Plus there was the danger he would acquire nuclear weapons.
I didn't and don't. As for the hopeful notion that Iraq was goona turn out OK in the loooong run because we were never gonna have another hard left president -- words fail me. Criminally reckless.
Face it -- they just wanted to take out Saddam, didn't care what they had to say to sell it, didn't care what the cost or consequences would be. Any stick is good enough to beat a dog. There's blood all over them, all of them. And yeah there's more than enough for Obama too. But we would never have had this to rub Obama's face in if Bush and his neocon handlers hadn't stirred the anthill in the first place.
The whole world would have been better off — Iraq included — if Saddam had been left alone.
Go look at a map of the region.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was to put us in proximity of the actual target, Iran.
Iran lies directly between the two.
By fleeing Bush's progress in the region, 0bama has (knowingly) turned the region back over to our enemies, erasing all gains.
That is treasonous.
So were the Bush people really expecting us to stay in Iraq in force for decades?
If they were, they didn't exactly communicate that necessity to the American people.
If they weren't, they certainly made a major miscalculation.
I happen to believe that rank politics is at work, as well.
Sure, but that's true of the article itself.
Everything is explained by the theory that Obama is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Everyone else be damned.
I always thought invading Iraq and Afghanistan was strategically sound to surround Iran. Unfortunately, the progressive idea of nation building got in the way of isolating and crushing Iran which is the real inspiration behind much of the Islamic terrorism.
I agree, but we, the US of A elected him.
And it’s not all on liberals. Libertarians and some self identified conservatives were also for quitting.
“Plus there was the danger he would acquire nuclear weapons”
That is what is was about pure and simple.
In bin Laden’s arrest warrant for the Embassy bombings it was cited that al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime were collaborating to develop weapons.
There is no way after 911 that even the most remote possibility that they could get a nuke could be ignored.
And the only way to know was to take over the country.
It’s how it had to be.
It also then provided a presence there for our forces.
It worked fine and was justified and provided for our security.
We either have to go back ASAP and really wipe out IS, or accept the coming Caliphate.
David: Changing your last sentence to “vindicating Bush and INDICTING OBAMA” for allowing preventable genocide and the rise of the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria, i.e. TREASON.
PS: My son is a veteran of Iraq (OIF).
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.