As Iraq Flounders, Another Chance for Neocons to Attack Obama
Dec 27th, 2011 | 35 responses
Now that we have pulled out of Iraq — on a schedule negotiated by the Bush administration — and as instability and violence are on the increase there — as we feared they would — the very same chickenhawks who got us into this mess are now rearing their heads to blame Obama — as we knew they would.
They are now saying the same they would have said if we had pulled out of Iraq six years ago, or four years ago, or two years ago, and the same they would be saying — if still around one hundred years from now — if we had followed John McCain’s suggestion of a few years ago that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years.”
They are now saying that after our “post-surge military victory” in Iraq, that nation’s future has been “rendered uncertain by the premature departure of American forces.” That just a few more years in Iraq would have resolved territorial disputes, would have fully trained and “institutionalized” their military. They compare resolving the thousand-year-old Mesopotamian sectarian and tribal enmities and hostilities to transitioning to strategic partnerships “as in postwar Germany, Korea or Japan.”
They still claim that we should have stayed a little longer in Iraq, not necessarily because Iraqis “deserve” our support — “Who cares,” they say — but because it is “ideal for U.S. interests in the region.”
Rather than admitting that our interests were ill-served by our unprovoked and unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, they now claim that our interests have been “ill-served by the abandonment of Iraq by Barack Obama.”
They conveniently ignore that the bombings presently killing and maiming more Iraqis bear “the earmarks of al-Qaeda, which didn’t even exist in Iraq before the war began.”
They conveniently ignore that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — who rose to power during the Bush administration — “rejected repeated U.S. attempts to extend [the withdrawal date] so that a contingent of trainers and counter-terrorism forces could stay.”
They conveniently overlook that al-Maliki “often acts like the leader of a Shiite faction rather than the leader of a country,” and that he is acting more and more like a dictator.
But, perhaps most poignantly, they forget that … (Well, I believe that USA TODAY says it best):
The charitable interpretation of the Iraq War is that it was a misguided but idealistic bid to establish a democratic beachhead in the Middle East. The less charitable one is that the war was the product of cynical manipulation by men who sought an imperial U.S. role in the post-9/11 world. Both interpretations contain elements of truth. But either way, the war was a tragic mistake, waged at the cost of nearly 4,500 American troops, tens of thousands of severe injuries, and more than $1 trillion.
The official rationale for the war was invalidated long ago. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no alliance between Saddam and al-Qaeda. And as for establishing a democratic beachhead, well, Arabs started doing that by themselves a year ago in Tunisia and Egypt.
USA TODAY has gotten the bottom line darn right: “Too fast to leave Iraq? No, too quick to go in.”
35 Responses to “As Iraq Flounders, Another Chance for Neocons to Attack Obama”
It remains the single-most destructive thing (perhaps besides the Vietnam war) in my adult life–our country choosing to engage in a “pre-emptive” war under false pretense. History will be kind? Good grief.
The Neocon cheerleaders of this war are just as easily politically disregarded as the “there is no doubt” Cheney/Bush author of this fiasco.
Whether they should be tried for war crimes is an entirely different serious discussion, however.
When I see the local “Restore America!” campaign stickers around here my immediate reaction is: “to what? Bush-Cheney-Rove?”
I knew it, BCR screwed things up so royally that Obama can hide in their shadow and breeze through to the next term on a “it wasn’t my doing, I just followed the schedule”.
Fallacy, is the small matter of not leaving the smaller contingent to ease the transition. I know, Maliki was following Bush’s orders for a “complete” pullout.
And, besides it all, since this was a Frankenstein created by BCR, so the present circumstances can be ignored.
Live in the past, boys.
I’m with Al Gore when he called Iraq the biggest foreign policy blunder in our history. Ten years, 5,000 lives, over a trillion dollars just so they could break out into civil war when we pulled out.
I am sure analysts warned Bush/Cheney that Iraq with its long history of sectarian violence was not a good candidate for democracy.
They needed their cover for a war of aggression and got to declare victory many times even though it was basically a total loss.
That invasion and deposition was planned before 9/11 by the neocon think tank Project for the American Century. The participants all signed a letter to Clinton urging regime change. It didn’t happen during his watch, so they used the false pretense of 9/11 to invade a sovereign country.
“Fallacy, is the small matter of not leaving the smaller contingent to ease the transition.”
The U.S. State Department Mission (previously the U.S. Military Mission) in Baghdad will have a whopping staff (and contractor personnel) of 16,000 to “ease the transition.” DoD will keep anywhere from 150 to 200 service members and civilians for training, etc.
So boy… You want us to ignore the past and give those responsible a free ride?
That sounds like what your and your side of the aisle wants people to do.
Truman Library Press Release
I’ve always said that Iraq is a sovereign country and if they want and need our help they’ll ask for it. There are too many problems here at home. We need to fix our problems before we can fix anyone else’s.
Also…. if the neocons are blaming Obama for the **new** troubles in Iraq and believe we should be in Iraq… then why don’t we invade all countries that are unstable and create US friendly nations? Surely that would be in the best interests of the US.
These neocons who are attacking Obama are just full of it.
Oh and by the way, many conservatives (everyday citizens, not politicians) thought we shouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place and wanted to just nuke the whole region and be done with it. Or let them fight till they killed each other.
“Also…. if the neocons are blaming Obama for the **new** troubles in Iraq and believe we should be in Iraq… then why don’t we invade all countries that are unstable and create US friendly nations? Surely that would be in the best interests of the US.”
Stockboy, don’t give the neocons any such ideas ideas, they might not catch the sarcasm.
SK, said; “So boy… You want us to ignore the past and give those responsible a free ride?”
No, this WAS a collosal FU. What I want is proper administration NOW, and no foot dragging hiding behind the past.
If, things go to hell in a hand basket in Iraq and Iran, because there are not enough troops, please feel free to again blame BCR because after all they started it all.
Hey, how about the 2,000 or so “terps”, interpreters, that risked their lives and are in constant mortal danger now because the State Department is dragging its feet on their visas. Blame that on BCR, also.
Are you saying you want US Troops to return to Iraq and start shooting people that don’t agree with Nouri al-Maliki?
Or maybe you think we should go in and set-up yet another interim-government… eh? Boy, that would be great!
We could go back in and spend more borrowed money and show them by example just how a good government is run?
SK, again you ignore the point. Perhaps I should say two wrongs don’t make a right. As you well know, or should know, exit plans are very important, look at the fiasco in Vietnam.
And, this has nothing to do with which party is in power at any point in a war. Simple, act as responsibly and decently as possible for your side and for the enemies side as well. It’s called honor, those terps deserve our loyalty, other wise our current State Dept., and Obama are as bad as you think BCR were,
@duck: comment read
Thank you…………
We had to go into Iraq because the evil enemy Saddam Hussein used to be our buddy Saddam Hussein, until he invaded Kuwait. After Iran revolted against the dictator of Iran that we installed (please note, the leader that we overthrew was democratically elected, so the middle east had democracy long before last year), Iraq looked like a good ally against Iran.
“As you well know, or should know, exit plans are very important, look at the fiasco in Vietnam.”
Iraq, like Vietnam, is a victim of a poor entrance plan. In both cases, by the time we got around to leaving there simply wasn’t a decent exit plan – one that actually included an exit – to be had.
Some countries are just meant to be led by autocratic leaders– they force the factions that hate each other to live together. Iraq is one of those countries— and the effort will go down as the Edsel of American foreign policy.
As for the neocons– they are just unpatriotic opportunists — many of whom had multiple deferments during Viet Nam.
BTW, everyone knew that the “Victory” brought on by the surge was a temporary one that could not be sustained for any length of time. Because that occurred during the Bush administration the neocons want to delude Americans that it would have been sustainable if not for Obama.
BB, all people are capable of living in peace when given the proper chance and environment. The surge was started to help create that environment. We’ve done the best that we can. We have reached a cost-benifit threashold and it is time to leave.
Any neocon attacking Obama should armor up and put their lives on the line instead of the lives of others. Our military and the American taxpayer has paid a high enough price for their arrogance.
Shannon– I absolutely agree that we paid enough for this fiasco– and really had no business going in in the first place. Bush/Cheney and the rest of the neocons used the heightened emotional reaction of Americans to 9/11 to sell us a bill of goods. They were snake oil salesmen of the lowest denominator. Their cronies enriched themselves with enormous contracts and all for what??
As for Iraq– google the history of how the country was formed — the map was drawn by the British who occupied the country for about 10 years after the Ottoman Empire was disbanded. You’ll see that their experience was eerily similar to ours– they tried to institute democratic institutions- but after they pulled out, the Iraqis were unable to sustain them, and the country dissolved in sectarian violence. The violence eventually led to the autocratic rule of the Baathists–the last of whom was Sadaam.
Duck there is the AA saying where you accept the things you can not change. Well, once Saddam was removed from power and his army disbanded, civil war in Iraq was inevitable. There is nothing we can do at this point that will turn Iraq into a stable nation, they are going to have to sort it out for themselves and that is obviously going to involve a lot of dead people. And ultimately its the fault of the US for going in there. But like Vietnam, the people don’t want us there and no matter how badass we think we are we just can’t fix that place. Better to leave now than later and get this mess over with.
So yes, I absolutely blame BCR for this whole mess. It was at the beginning where this could have been averted not at the end. Obama is simply following the only logical course of action to bring this to a close. Its easy to wreck things and its really hard to fix them. To blame Obama because he couldn’t find an elegant solution to one of the greatest foreign policy blunders since just before WWII is incredibly stupid and unfair, and it seems that Obama’s opponents and chickenhawks are attempting to do just that.
Let me put this in a metaphor since conservatives seem to really like those. A surgeon is operating on a guy. He makes a few really big mistakes, ends up slicing a few arteries and organs he shouldn’t have. First surgeon is told to leave the OR and another surgeon takes his place. Over the course of several hours second surgeon doesn’t slice open any arteries or organs, however the patient is too far gone and after several more hours of surgery dies on the table. Do you blame the second surgeon or the first?
I’ve lost all respect for McCain. He’s crazy. Thank God he is not President. All of these Republican jackasses that think we have infinite resources to fight wars and make populations into some Norman Rockwell fantasy are crazy too. For crying out loud, get a clue!
I guess the standards for journalism has decreased to the point that someone like Dorian De Wind can make all accusations and claiming “THEY” are saying this.
I didn’t see one name tied to these THEY people.
Anyway I want to remind everyone that the smartest woman in the world voted for the war. Either she was in on this Iraq invasion or she got fooled by the dumbest man ever in the WH. I can’t believe the smartest woman in the world got fooled by a dumb@ss so she must have been in on it!
BB, people evolve. 150 years ago we were keeping slaves and committing genocide on native americans.
Iron, the commenters here are on a BCR roll, please refrain from throwing sand in the gears.
Slam, the trouble with metaphors is they can be twisted around. The second surgeon should just do the best job he can do and not whine about the first guy cause it doesn’t help the patients outcome.
Allen, what can one say to such brilliant predictions.
IronMikeHouston says:
December 28, 2011 at 7:34 am (Edit)
“I guess the standards for journalism has decreased to the point that someone like Dorian De Wind can make all accusations and claiming “THEY” are saying this.
I didn’t see one name tied to these THEY people.”
IronMike:
Every “They are now saying,” “They now claim,” etc. was linked to a specific statement made in USA TODAY either by Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign and defense studies at the American Enterprise Institute or by the USA TODAY editors.
Thank you for your comment and have a Happy New Year.
FYI: Pletka, in his Opposing View to this editorial concluded:
“Do the Iraqis “deserve” our support? Who cares. The question is what will serve American interests? And it appears that our interests were ill-served by the abandonment of Iraq by Barack Obama.” Correct or not, I don’t know.
I do know the people that helped our soldiers don’t deserve to be ignored or left to twist in the wind. Or is it because it was the BCR war that taints them?
Hi dduck,
Thanks for your comments. As I believe I have mentioned before, the plight of the Iraqi refugees — especially of those who helped us at the risk of life — is tragic and very important to me. I have written several pieces about this issue and may highlight the situation again. In this case nothing to do “with BCR,” albeit the refugee situation existed already “during BCR” and I wrote plenty about how not sufficient was being done about it. Wish you a Happy New Year.
BTW Danielle Pletka is a woman.
Shannon- I’m in favor of allowing people to live in freedom as much as the next person– but I don’t see much evolution in the Middle East. They were given two chances at democracy and they swing it.
Our tax dollars at work.
Dorian, thanks for your support of these people caught between a rock and a hard place.
Have a prosperous New Year.
Somebody help me, with reference to Iron’s comment, who the heck is the smartest women in the world Michele Bachmann?
@BlueBelle:”They were given two chances at democracy and they swing it.”
As I noted before, they already had one until 1953, and WE swung it for them.
Allen, it is Lady Gaga.
Duck-
Iron knows Gaga? Can he get a couple of stage passes?
Hillary Clinton. He was referring to Senator Hillary Clinton. I suspect (though do not know) that his claiming her to be the smartest was supposed to be sarcasm.
oops- last comment should read “couldn’t swing it”.
Lately however I’ve been getting the distinct feeling that if America had been recently democratized, our chances would likewise dissolve in a barrage of sectarian violence.