Turnaround in Iraq: Bush Deserves ‘Praise’
Now that things are going better there, doesn’t President Bush deserve more credit for sticking to his guns and resisting calls to withdraw from Iraq? According to this op-ed article from Brazil’s leading business daily, Diario Economico, ‘the commitment and persistence of the Bush Administration should be highlighted and praised. The North American President resisted pressure from all sides, both domestic and foreign, to withdraw troops from Iraq.’
By João Marques de Almeida*
Translated By Brandi Miller
December 12, 2007
Brazil – Diario Economico – Original Article (Portuguese)
Between 2003 and 2006, there were two types of news stories that were the delight of many newspapers and commentators: the attacks in Iraq and the opinion polls showing that the United States was the greatest threat to world peace. The news confirmed many of the ideas about North American “expansionism” and the “warmongering” of the Bush Administration.
In recent weeks, a different type of news has emerged, which was placed on the inside pages of the newspapers, and of course, ignored by those who know everything about the Middle East and North American foreign policy, when they report the number of deaths and refugees in Iraq. So what does the “non-news” say?
First of all, it tells us that the attacks are diminishing in Iraq. The last three months of 2007 was the period with the least amount of violence since 2004. The Sunnis that ruled Iraq during the dictatorship of Saddam and the most radical Shiite groups are starting to collaborate with the new regime. Its leaders are cooperating more and we’ve begun to hear less about dividing the country. The Iraqis are battling armed groups composed of Arab foreigners, which came to Iraq to foment civil war. Trust between the North American troops and the Iraqi population is on the rise. Also rising is optimism amongst Iraqis about the country’s future. To culminate the good news, refugees who fled to neighboring countries are returning WATCH .
This doesn’t mean that very serious problems don’t continue to exist in the country or that there are no longer cases of violence and attacks. The situation is still very fragile and there’s still much that needs to be done. And an eventual success in Iraq will not justify similar military interventions in the future – we can all agree that this point is very clear. However, the “non-news” allows us to draw two positive conclusions.
First, the commitment and persistence of the Bush Administration should be highlighted and praised. The North American President resisted pressure from all sides, both domestic and foreign, to withdraw troops from Iraq. He would have been “popular,” and would even have helped Republicans get better results in the 2006 Congressional elections. But Bush endured and showed determination, and now he’s beginning to get good news.
Secondly, we hope that in the future Iraq, will be an example of a domestically stable and externally responsible country. And it need not be a case of liberal democracy (a perspective that nobody sensible ever advocated). Now it can demonstrate that the alternative in the region doesn’t necessarily have to be a brutal dictatorship or a regime supported by radical groups and that finances terrorist attacks. And I doubt that success in Iraq will translate into considerable political pressure on Saudi Arabia, which would culminate in changes of North American strategy in the region.
But the improvements in Iraq constitute a challenge for European countries. Contrary to Iraq, in Afghanistan the situation is getting worse. In 2004, the North Americans and Europeans made a strategic agreement. The first would focus on Iraq and the European allies would increase their efforts in Afghanistan. That is what happened. Basically, British forces are the only Europeans with military weight in Iraq, and since their withdrawal from the city of Basra to the barracks in October, we have begun to hear considerable criticism on the British from responsible Iraqi officials (who would have imagined that we would hear such praise so soon for Blair’s Iraq policy). If the situation continues to improve in Iraq and worsen in Afghanistan, how will the political power in Washington (the next president) look to the alliance with Europe? It’s important to come up with an answer.
And the answer is even more important when one notes the most recent of the famous opinion polls, the results of which emerged last week. Now the Europeans believe that amongst the great powers, China is the one most threatening to European interests; that Russia could pose a threat to European security; that Europe must get closer to India; and that the United States is – amongst the great powers – the one that shares the most values with European countries.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Turnaround in Iraq: Bush Deserves ‘Praise’”
Regardless of what happens from here out (and that is far from predictable at this point) the fact remains: This was an unnecessary war, pitched and sold under false pretenses. The cost in blood, treasure, division and national credibility has been enormous. If things are showing a period of “improvement” that of course is a good thing, but are we then say to the true owners of this war that all is forgiven? If that’s the case, then there is no longer any such thing as accountability in our government, nor is there any longer a reason why the citizens of this once great country should expect or deserve a govenment in the future any more ethical than the one we’ve labored under for the past 7 years. I wish us well in extricating ourselves from Iraq, and I wish what is left of that country a better future, but I also wish for us the people of the USA to keep long and clear memories so that we can learn from this nightmare.
And no Bush doesn’t deserve praise any more than the contractor who said he’d have the job done in 1 month for $2000 does when he finally finishes 3 months later for $6000.
If Iraq turned into a stable democracy tomorrow it still doesn’t mean the entire operation was worth it. American lives by the thousands and billions of dollars to fix a country that had next to no bearing on us as it was. Gimme a break.
When do the troops start coming home?
Bush’s traits overlap with those of actually virtuous people. Thus his stubbornness at times will look like strength of character; his conscious dumbing-down of his speech at times will look like he’s got the common touch; and his warlike posturing at times will look like he’s an actual warrior.
In the case of the “surge” it has taken him the length of WWII to realize that you have to hold the ground you take or the enemy will take it back. Let’s see, how long has that been a military principle? Several millenia I’d wager. Talk about reinventing the wheel.
Another equally ancient principle is that war doesn’t solve political issues–however, it’s often a necessary precondition (something lefties rarely acknowledge). In this case, given that we’re up to our eyeballs in Iraq (and that’s a huge given, I realize), we can neither stay nor go without paying a terrible price in a variety of terrible ways. There is no easy/simple/satisfying solution. None. Even though we should never have gone in, that doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on what we should do now. If only it did–that would make things a lot easier to figure out.
And don’t forget that one of these terrible prices is what’s going on in “Afghanistan, which will never get solved until or unless Al Quaeda’s and the Taliban’s stronghold in Pakistan is eliminated. Another potential price is China possibly deciding that we’re too entangled in Iraq to defend Taiwan, leading China to invade and conquer Taiwan soon after the Olympics. These are just two outstanding flashpoints. There are others as well. People all over the world carefully examine every move America makes, and then decide what moves they’ll make.
So taking all that into account, should we praise Bush for starting to do part of the right thing four years late? Yes we should. Centrists show they’re centrists by always giving the devil his due. That’s what “nonpartisan” means.
But now what will he do with the reduced level of violence there? Iraq’s million-odd Christians (many from families that have been in Iraq for literally thousands of years) are nearly all in exile today in Syria and Jordan, expelled by the forces we set loose when we decapitated Iraq’s government. Southern Iraq is more or less a province of Iran. Kurdistan is doing relatively well. Baghdad and western Iraq are still war zones, albeit at a lower simmer.
And the “government” of Iraq shows no interest in compromise with the Sunnis. The purpose of the “surge” was to make peace possible between Iraq’s opposed sectarian factions and apportion the country’s oil wealth fairly. But the “government” there appears to regard the current situation simply as a time to rearm and regroup for the coming civil war. As do many Sunnis.
I’ll give Bush plenty of praise if he can crack that nut.
Ehkzu- yeah I generally agree with you. But you mentioned that it took Bush four years to realize that in war you must hold the ground you take form your enemy. I agree with that- but I’ll also point out that he made the same mistake in Afghanistan. I think he was right to send troops to Afghanistan- that is where everyone knew terrorists were hiding (including bin-Laden). But he pulled out of Afghanistan too soon (to “shock and awe” the world with his grand invasion of Iraq) and now there’s that awful mess there. If he had stayed in Afghanistan he could have gotten that right- all the way.
When do the troops start coming home….soon I hope.
This is unfortunately not so much about Bush as it is about the Iraq’s I fully believe are now suffering from the Bosnia syndrome.
They killed each other till they got so weary of killing each other that they finally are now looking for ways to end this carnage.
This I believe has been the hope of the world since the carnage began. Perhaps now with additional troops in place they can hammer out some form of compromise and throw out the insurgents who only care about death and destruction and not the Iraq people.
When launched many of us saw it as regrettable but likely to forestall a worse war later.
In hindsight, it can be much uglier than that. I hinted a while ago, elsewhere, at something I have yet to have seen anybody else mention on this site, which would have been an alternative to the war we conducted, while being more forceful against the Hussein regime’s continued game-playing (truly suspicious and threatening conduct).
We are against an invasion of Iran. Why? It’s because that would be lunacy; what is seen as any acttion we would take against Iran would consist of air strikes and naval operations to protect oil transport and defeat Iranian naval adventures.
Few, if any, advocate such action against Iran now. (The hard-core neo-cons had their ambitious and their conceit struck down and they have largely left the Bush administration.) But what this Iranian issue also does is bring to light an alternative that could have been taken against Iraq.
That is, simply conduct air strikes against suspected WMD and missile sites in Iraq rather than invade and occupy and try to reconstruct the country.
It would be particularly effective for us to do this where the UN falls laughably short. Iraq would likely learn a lesson after the second or third time, from a new process the USA could follow. When a rogue nation refuses inspections somewhere or ejects inspectors from somewhere, that site should be destroyed without warning. Two or three times should be sufficient to gain much more, much better, cooperation with anti-proliferation efforts.
I’ll follow up and then yield the floor.
1. Air strikes often don’t need manned aircraft, just a cruise missile or two. Cheap and less risky for our personnel. (No captured pilots for them to beat — or to “waterboard.”)
2.
The struggling and stumbling made me think of:
a) He changed his tune from earlier, and said we should speak English, instead of when, earlier, he used Spanish during his first campaign.
b) He didn’t speak Spanish so much como turista but rather como un borracho.
DLS
I dont agree that airstrikes would have done much at all.
Lets say Iraq had 1000 WMDS for the sake of argument and airstrikes got 750 of them. Now you got a pissed off Saddam Hussein who has even more reason to arm Terrorists with WMD’s and send them packing after us.
Either you invade and get them all or you continue with sanctions and containment.
I advocated the latter.
At the time of our invasion of Iraq, Iraq’s military was weak. Wasn’t there a no fly zone over 1/3rd (or was it 2/3rds) of the country put in place under Clinton and still in effect? There were all sorts of restrictions on what Saddam could (or couldn’t) do. Under the UN the world had worked together to make sure that Iraq was not a threat.
Bush said that Saddam was a threat. Bush said he absolutely knew that Saddam had WMDs and programs to build WMDs. Since Saddam’s military was effectively castrated Bush couldn’t just strike at WMD targets and be done with it (targets that didn’t even exist).
Bush had to topple Saddam and that meant a ground invasion to find him. How many months did we spend turning over every rock before Saddam surfaced?
Bush thought he could be the bully and take out Saddam and gain an oil prize- Bush, having never served in the military (and I don’t call whatever hour he spent in the TX National Guard military service) underestimated the strength a country can pull together when faced with an invasion.
Simply attacking Iraq’s WMD sites would not have worked because Bush said that Saddam had secret places and the only we we could guaranty our safety was to go in, take over the country and ferret out those secret WMD production facilities.