Jun 05 2008
Obama Needs To Stop Pointing To Bush’s Entry Into Iraq And Start Explaining What Damage He Will Accept In Leaving Iraq
Addendum: Â In the post below I note the war in Iraq is America’s war – not Bush’s war. Â I reminded folks that Congress approved the action overwhelmingly (by much larger margins than Gulf War I) and Bush was reelected in a vote of confidence from Americans themselves. Â I failed to note Congress has for each year, on completely stand-alone votes, authorized the funding of the war effort. Â Obama needs to face some hard facts, like all of us. Â The war in Iraq is America’s war. Â America needs to discuss on how we want to finish the job we started. – end addendum.
Well, now that we seem to be heading towards an Obama-McCain showdown this fall Iraq is the largest issue looming out there (followed close behind by an nuclear armed Iran). Obama is still foolishly committed to his surrender at all cost position on the war – even while we are on a clear path to victory before he even would take the oath of office. Â I heard someone on AM radio say last night (probably Hannity, which is all I could get while I dodged tornados around the DC beltway) that the terrorist would not dare attack America this year, or else they would get the wrong President (McCain).
I have thought this way for years, but the terrorists – with the lust for blood – have continued to make the wrong decisions. Â Which is why America elected George Bush for a second term, even after he invaded Iraq (and let’s make no mistake about it, this is not Bush’s war it is America’s war and we are all responsible – get over it). Â But if this is true, if terrorists have learned the lesson, not to attack America or else there will be a terrible price, then we truly are on the rode to victory. Â Because that is the meaning behind the concept of peace through strength. Â You gain peace in your lives because every thug and animal out there knows better than to mess with you. Â If we have finally reached that point – and have allied democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan as well – it is time to pop the champaign!
Anyway, here are more signs that victory is going to beat the next President into office.  First a positive report on the violence levels in Iraq:
The “surge” of American troops in Iraq last year winds to a close next month when the last two surge brigades redeploy home.
Security conditions in the Iraq they are leaving are much improved over those the extra troops encountered when they arrived, say analysts and defense officials, many of whom are confident that trend will continue even without the extra US troops.
The departure of the two brigades comes as the number of American casualties is at a new low. Of the heavy fighting that continues in Iraq, in places like Basra and the Baghdad suburb of Sadr City, much is now being led by the Iraqis themselves. As a result, the number of US casualties last month fell to 19, a number not seen since February 2004, according to icasualties.org.
The toll among Iraqi security forces has also fallen, from 980 in March to 506 in May.
“The conditions in Baghdad are changing,” says Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond, the American leading the Bagdad command. “There’s no place for those terrorists and criminals. The people are fed up with them. They’re tired of the violence and destruction. They vote to move on.”
They Move On. Â The terrorists made huge mistakes by slaughtering their fellow Muslims, creating a violent backlash in the Iraqi Muslim Street which spelled the end of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Mahdi Militia in Iraq. They are defeated, and move on. Â Wonder if the liberal left will be able to accept their mistaken choice to surrender to Bin Laden, to make him a world hero because he made America blink and back away? Â For all the calls to Bush to accept his mistakes, those who predicted defeat in Iraq better lead the way by example and admit theirs. Â They don’t have, of course. Â They can go down in history along side Neville Chamberlain and history’s other notorious appeasers who made (or in this case almost made) historic blunders.
Writing in the WSJ Foud Ajami reminded America of Ambassador Ryan Cockers important words on Iraq, which are the essence of the debate in 2008:
Of all that has been written about the play of things in Iraq, nothing that I have seen approximates the truth of what our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, recently said of this war: “In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.”
While Obama can complain about Bush’s responsibility in leading us into Iraq (again, under Congressional approval and his own mandate in his reelection), the truth is Obama wants to be responsible for how we will leave Iraq. Â And he better face up to that right now. Â If Americans felt duped by Bush, then they better not let Obama pull another sleight of hand on them by promising a quick and easy retreat! Â There was no easy victory waiting for us in Iraq – many of us who even now support the war were never so naive. Â We knew there could be scenarios where that happened, but we new other scenarios to victory looked like what we have seen over the past 5 years. Â And we knew there could be real defeat, as now only in the imagination of the far left.
But Obama (and Clinton) promise neat and clean ends by hasty withdrawals, which are simply lies to be fed to the gullible. Â America needs to stop hoping for change and start learning and understanding the implications of the proposed changes. Â There are no quick fixes, as Vietnam demonstrated with millions of people massacred after we departed that war. Â But this war is not Vietnam – the enemies have been vanquished. There are no Northern Iraqis fighting the Southern Iraqis – all Iraqis are joined in a democratic government and united in destroying the terrorist in their midst. Â Geez, even Andrew Sullivan has turned mostly bullish on the Iraq situation again.
So how will Obama leave Iraq – that is a question which America deserves hard, well thought out and researched answers to. Â As the article notes, what is being passed in the media as a serious debate is a joke:
It is odd, then, that critics have launched a new attack on the origins of the war at precisely the time a new order in Iraq is taking hold. But American liberal opinion is obsessive today. Scott McClellan can’t be accused of strategic thinking, but he has been anointed a peer of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft. A witness and a presumed insider – a “Texas loyalist” – has “flipped.”
…
The nation was gripped by legitimate concern over gathering dangers in the aftermath of 9/11. Kabul and the war against the Taliban had not sufficed, for those were Arabs who struck America on 9/11. A war of deterrence had to be waged against Arab radicalism, and Saddam Hussein had drawn the short straw. He had not ducked, he had not scurried for cover. He openly mocked America’s grief, taunted its power.
We don’t need to overwork the stereotype that Arabs understand and respond to the logic of force, but this is a region sensitive to the wind, and to the will of outside powers. Before America struck into Iraq, a mere 18 months after 9/11, there had been glee in the Arab world, a sense that America had gotten its comeuppance. There were regimes hunkering down, feigning friendship with America while aiding and abetting the forces of terror.
Now, there are real allies, real efforts to fight terrorism. Â And a real rejection of the romantic notion of Jihad – now that Muslims have seen what Jihad with the West means up close and personal. Â And for the most part, with the few bad-apple exceptions you find in all large human endeavors, we did not retaliate against the Muslim Street. Â In fact, to many Iraqis and Afghanis America liberated them from their own bad choice to subjugate themselves to the jackboot of Islamo-Fascim. Â
This is the impression of Bin Laden’s dream Caliphate I always have in my mind from their brief time controlling much of the Sunni areas of Iraq:
“AQI is both feared and hated,†Capt Broekhuizen said, referring to Al Qaeda in Iraq. “They’ve been running a brutal terror campaign. No city leaders are left here who will take a leadership role.†Marines from Golf Company said they recently fished two bodies out of the local river: a man had been decapitated, and his 4-year old tied to his leg before both were thrown into the river and the little boy drowned. The killings were a product of Al Qaeda terror.
This act is attached to the image of Bin Laden as much as his beard and hawk-nose in my mind. Â It is right up there with the Holocaust inflicted by the Nazis. Â It is a horrible reminder of how sick and brutal some people can be. Â To take a innocent four year old and not only snuff out his life, but to so make him watch his father be decapitated and then drown him with his father’s body is an act of such depravity I am not surprised most Americans (and Muslims) could not imagine the act.
But this is Bin Laden’s dream. Â This is what he and his followers want to inflict on America. Â Anyone denying this better explain how these thugs would treat infidel Americans any better than their fellow Muslims. Â So now that we have this scourge on the run, Obama needs to explain why we would let up, and give them free reign to decapitate more fathers and mothers and tie more four year old boys and girls to their bodies to drown the children? Â Why are we going to surrender at all costs Obama?
Michael Yon, the independent journalist most familiar with Iraq, has an open invitation to all Senators running for President, to come see Iraq for themselves so they can make informed decisions:
One of the biggest problems with the Iraq War is that politics has frequently triumphed over truth. For instance, we went into Iraq with shoddy intelligence (at best), no reconstruction plan, and perhaps half as many troops as were required. We refused to admit that an insurgency was growing, until the country collapsed into anarchy and civil war. Now the truth is that Iraq is showing real progress on many fronts:  Al Qaeda is being defeated and violence is down and continuing to decrease. As a result, the militias have lost their reason for existence and are getting beaten back or co-opted. Shia, Sunni and Kurds are coming together — although with various stresses — under the national government.  If progress continues at this rate, it is very possible that before 2008 is out, we can finally say “the war has ended.”  Yes, likely there still will be some American casualties, but if the violence continues to drop and the Iraqi government consolidates its gains, we will be able, in good conscience, to begin bringing more of our people home. I will be paying very close attention to the words of Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, who is replacing General Petraeus as the overall commander in Iraq.
Whatever we do in Iraq from here forward, we must strive to make better decisions than those made between 2003 and 2006.  And one way to achieve that is by making certain that our civilian leaders are fully informed. All three candidates for President are extremely intelligent, but that doesn’t mean that all three are tracking the truth on the ground in Iraq. Anyone who wants to be President of the United States needs to see Iraq without the distorting lenses of the media or partisan politics.  I would be honored to visit Iraq with Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain or any of their Senate colleagues.
Michael Yon braved the war zone on his own nickel to report the truth of Iraq to America. Â He pulled no punches – he was very negative on the beginning phases, which were mishandled. Â Senator Obama cannot expect to walk into the Oval Office without understanding the core issue of our time – how to finish succeeding in Iraq. Â Senator, you can blame Bush or you can finish the job he started. Â You can’t do both (no one will believe your intentions to finish the work right).
Â
Obama has already said that the likelihood of a genocide in Iraq
would not be a reason to stay. That’s his answer. If millions die,
he can blame it on Bush.
Can Americans actually see through this BS? Please, AJ,
tell me they can.
By the way, I think Iran is number one, not number two.
Iran will have nukes by 2009 and they mean to use them.
They are convinced in the messianic mission. They don’t want them
as some sort of shift of power in the middle east. They intend to
fulfill the Hojattieh Shiism vision of the end of days.
Read about Ahmadinejad here:
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/06/02/ahmadinejads_past_tells_it_all/8411/
There’s no refuge in calling the guy crazy. Crazy people kill other
people all the time. It’s what they’re good at.
Michael Yon is the closest thing to Ernie Pyle the war in Iraq will ever seen.
As for the whole McClellan thing, the little man is not an insider, he is an opportunistic press secretary who shopped around stories until he found one that would sell. He thinks there are enough suckers out there to lay down money to buy his book to make it worth his while to “pen”.
Whatever.
More Democrats voted to support this war than voted to support the Gulf War and Obama was not even in the Senate at the time. By 2004 he was saying his views and Bushes were not all that much different, by 2006 he was saying something else.
The truth is that harping on why we went into Iraq is getting dull. It is like Groundhog Day, that movie with Bill Murray. This is one loop I am getting tired of.
In fact the socalled war with Hussein began long before George Bush came to Washington DC and while the Democrats might feign innocence they were mostly responsible for the policy in the 90s which in turn helped shape the policy after 9/11.
Maybe they think the world would be a better place with Saddam and his sons thumbing their nose at the world while they kill and torture their fellow Iraqis and use that oil to help fund weapons programs and terrorists….BUT, I don’t. I just think people are tired of it all and so they like the idea of it being over.
dave m:
If millions die Obama can try to blame it on Bush, but I don’t think it will be that simple, not even for the Chosen One to spin away genocide.
87 Senators voted to go to war twice in a Democratically controlled Senate. To pretend otherwise is a lie, premeditated.
Doesn’t the good news that things are getting better in Iraq lead to how to get out responsibly? To infer that Obama will have no prudent foreign policy cabinet members or advisers, but in fact will make a worse mess of Iraq than the Bush administration, seems a bit simplistic to me. Is this obviously capable politician really incapable of seeing the situation for what it is, and willing to mess things up even further? Or is that really disappointment with the current administration, not a reasoned assessment of what the next one will bring? He seems like a reasonable steward over what appears to be an improving situation, nothing more, nothing less. I don’t get the impression that he’s blindly poll-driven the way Hillary would have been; she would withdraw just because the public wants it. (I also don’t get the impression he’ll be advised by oil and war contracting connected neocons.) At worst Obama is inexperienced and untested; at best he’s determined to do what’s right, and willing to reach across the aisle to get there. Is McCain a better choice? Probably. But I don’t see how he can win after the Bush years.
Excellent reminder that there is pure evil in this world and no amount of promised “change” will end that. And more reason why someone who has seen war in person is more qualified to be POTUS than one who hasn’t. Let alone more deserving of the job.
Luckysun
If one were to believe Obama’s words, he said he would convene a group to get the troops out immediately. He further stated that the Commander in Chief directs the military. Petraus takes orders from the Commander in Chief. So does it sound like he is interested in what the commanders have to say? When John McCain suggested he go to Iraq, he suggested that John visit the streets of Detroit, the schools of North Carolina and mentioned another place that the money, a figure I don’t remember, would be better spent. His whole domestic program is built on the money that we now spend in Iraq, schools, teachers and a slue of other bribes. So he is either telling a lie, not so far fetched as the dems just told the same lies to get elected, or he thinks he is so slick no one will notice.
Obama said he would pull out even if it resulted in genocide. And I am tired of that crap about neocons and oil and all the rest of it. It is propaganda, pure and simple.
funny thing but congress just said it was propoganda (a nice word for lying) that got us into iraq. but i’m sure y’all are already spinning that away.
millions will die if we leave? millions???? either y’all need to stop taking whatever it is youare on, or you need to start taking what the doctor prescribed.
and i guess you better get used to it because it looks like even the iraqis want us out. maliki is meeting with his buddy in iran…i’m sure that’s only a good thing.
Kathie
Immediately withdraw? Show me where he said that. Again, if you think he will throw away any progress to satisfy some far left agenda.. well that just doesnt seem likely. Will he get out? Yes, as the situation warrants it. And yes, the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, always has been. Petraeus is one of a few generals who hasn’t disagreed with Bush’s policies (yet. i’d wager his book will come out sometime next year). Bush has more unilateral power over the military than any president since Nixon, so accusing someone who isn’t in office yet of being even moreso has no basis in fact.
Terrye
We can debate the influence of Bush’s advisors, but to imply they have no connections to war contracting and big oil is simply wrong. Look at Cheney and Wolfowitz’s resumes. If you mean the strength of their influence is propaganda, ok, you may have a point, but they are who they are, can’t change that now.
And yes, genocide is a scary word. What has been going on in Iraq for the last 5 years are scary facts.
Cheney: His halliburton retirement is predetermined and in no way benefits from any government policies subsequent to his leaving Halliburton.
If we leave Iraq: Yes millions did die from our precipitous VietNam withdrawel. And the perps show no remorse.
Nixon and Bush had the same “control over the military” as all presidents.
O’bama: How would you assure the safety and freedom of Iraq that was purchased with our blood and treasure?
luckysum:
Here is one of many instances of Obama promising to immediately begin troop withdrawals. Go google it yourself and see the results.
As for Halliburton, that is so lame. Halliburton is not some evil organization. They have been in the business of doing defense contracting since WW2. My little hometown of Duncan, Oklahoma was headquarters for Halliburton for years. In fact Clinton used them in the Balkans.
So what? Cheney was out of there all ready. There is nothing wrong with running a company like that. It is not a crime.
As for oil, what the hell is that supposed to mean? For years I have been listening to this silly stuff about oil and there has been no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim that big oil had anything to do with this. Just more propaganda.
I can remember Rockefeller and Levin and Richardson all talking about Saddam and his weapons and his ties to AlQaida and the need to remove that man from power, long before Bush got the authorization to invade. After that, they found it was more politically advantageous to pretend they were against the war and so they revised history. Now with Obama the nominee, they will have to say all sorts of things to help him win. If those things are lies, so be it. They do not care.
I forgot to add the link to my last: Obama promising to run from Iraq
Needless to say there are dozens of other instances when he said the same sort of thing, both before and after this particular interview.
Luckysun…….believe what ever you want…….if you want to believe Obama is reasonable on the war and Moveon.org is not directing his campaign go right on and believe. The questions were asked directly of Obama and I stated the jest of his answers. I guess when you want to like someone so badly you will excuse anything.
Didnt say it was a crime, just that I dont think Obama would hire the same type of advisers. And they had their sites on Iraq long before 9/11 or Congress did under the auspices of the Project for a New American Century (a real organization, not propaganda, google it). its widely acknowledged that Bush and his advisers pushed for this war. I suppose if it had gone better you’d agree.
Heres the quote from the link you posted:
Barack Obama: Well, we will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will give them a new assignment and that is to bring our troops home in a careful, responsible way, but to end this occupation in Iraq. I will call in my Secretary of State and initiate the diplomacy that’s needed to make sure that exit is accompanied by negotiations between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
You can call it running, surrender, or whatever, I call it dealing with W’s mess. Someones gotta do it.
Only those totally ignorant of the forces that animate the Islamic world would call the state of the world “W’s mess”.
Luckysun,
your not so lucky today to try and bluff your way on this site – I have too many posts to too many news sources for you to spin history. Obama DID say he would remove all troops, regardless of the impact , by year’s end:
It was in one of the last debates he and Clinton both stated clearly they would retreat no matter what the circumstances. (check the link and enjoy the wonders of You Tube)
Obama promises 15 months and all combat troops out – no matter what the result.
Welcome to the Strata-Sphere – were you liberals are sure to get an education.
AJStrata
Luckysun……I quess I don’t think that someone “has got to do it”, why?
luckysun,
If all you see is a “mess,” you have a problem recognizing patterns.
The “mess” in Europe after WWII resulted in free governments. This “mess” has resulted in two so far.
so you compare liberating france, poland, etc, to the unprovoked invasion of iraq. and the eventual outcome will be the same. ok…
and thanks for the education (nice blog by the way), but getting out responsibly in a year and neogtiating with the various sects is Obamas goal, and its certainly debateable if its a wise one. getting out immediately with out regard for the situation on the ground is not what anyone sane would do at his juncture. and i’d like to say that im voting for mccain, i just think obama has the momentum to win this year. i also hope he will be able to make progress there.
if you dont think iraq is, at the very least, a mess with a potential silver lining, thatn i guess we will have to agree to disagree