George Bush’s Ultimate Legacy in Iraq
The accomplishment of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein may be eclipsed in years to come by the still-fragile democracy Iraq is building. Only time will tell.
To understand properly what the Bush administration’s legacy will be with regard to Iraq, one must comprehend the conditions Saddam Hussein subjected Iraq’s citizenry to prior to the country’s liberation in 2003. Moreover, one must compare those past conditions to the current condition of the newly forming democracy in the Middle East. Even so, the status of Iraq is constantly changing as the war winds down, and the threat of a resurgence in violence is, additionally, ever present; thus any assessment of Bush’s legacy regarding Iraq hinges greatly on the actions and decisions of the next commander-in-chief of America’s military forces, President-elect Barack Obama.
Prior to America’s intervention in the Middle Eastern nation, Iraqis were subjected to tyrannical rule, restricted in exercising their basic human liberties, and very often physically oppressed. Writing in the Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby extracted perhaps the most revealing quotation to explain Saddam Hussein’s Iraq from Kenneth Pollack’s then recently published book, The Threatening Storm:
This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all the bones in the feet of a 2-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father’s whereabouts. … This is a regime that will burn a person’s limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or as a means of execution. … This is a regime that will drag in a man’s wife, daughter, or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person’s anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare … not just on the 15,000 killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan.
In short, I believe it can accurately be said that no world leader was so evil, at least at the time of Pollack’s assessment. Hence, President Bush’s decision to liberate the Iraqi people from such blood-curdling terror was an act of courage that should be celebrated, even if the war in Iraq has not been perfectly executed.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Daniel Halper, a Massachusetts-based journalist, regularly writes on politics, foreign policy, and the Middle East at Commentary’s blog Contentions.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
37 Comments
1. David Thomson:I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of our liberation of Iraq. The odds are that victory has been achieved—and secular democracy can now spread to the surrounding Muslim dominated countries. George W. Bush has often done a number of dumb things. He is admittedly something of a politically correct whack job and economic illiterate. Nonetheless, he deserves enormous credit for his efforts to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. May God bless him.
Jan 15, 2009 - 2:40 am 2. Vito Danelli:Great re-write of the Bush Legacy Project talking points on Iraq. Karl Rove will be very proud of you.
Time to turn in those presidential kneepads.
Jan 15, 2009 - 3:58 am 3. vivo:Iraq doesn’t need democracy. They need education, jobs and less religion. History shows the way. Countries have become democratic because they believe it in their hearts, not imposed by outsiders. Respect for the human being leads the way.
Jan 15, 2009 - 4:11 am 4. Tony R:Just like Japan and Germany after WWII there is a desperate need for the US to maintain a visable military presence in Iraq for decades to come to allow real democracy to take hold and become the accepted norm for its citizens.
Unfortunately Islamists have shown that one of their greatest skills (other than murder, torture and ruling by fear) is breaking things. A US military withdrawal will open the door for these rats to come back out of the gutter and start dismantling Iraqs democracy. If the current Iraqi generations are not yet used to such concepts as “freedom” then it’ll be easier to take it away from them.
If Obama gets this wrong “History” will make him look like a bigger imbecile than Neville Chamberlain.
Jan 15, 2009 - 4:45 am 5. Barry:IT looks like Johnny will come marching home on Obama’s watch, and I’m sure he won’t be shy about taking credit.
Jan 15, 2009 - 5:19 am 6. spike:vivo #3: Iraq doesn’t need democracy. They need education, jobs and less religion. History shows the way. Countries have become democratic because they believe it in their hearts, not imposed by outsiders. Respect for the human being leads the way.
—————————————————-
so, ‘respect for the human being’ somehow includes YOU deciding what the iraqi people need? that’s mighty white of you…
Jan 15, 2009 - 6:10 am 7. e:@2. Vito Danelli
“Time to turn in those presidential kneepads.”
I’m sure there’s no shortage of people looking to buy a pair now.
But of course reality has no effect on how any presidency deserves to be judged?…Now where is my troll mace?
Jan 15, 2009 - 6:21 am 8. Pat J:Hence, President Bush’s decision to liberate the Iraqi people from such blood-curdling terror was an act of courage that should be celebrated…
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:05 am 9. a::—————————-
Really? I thought we went into Iraq because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they were an imminent threat to the United States, and they had links to 911 and Al Qaida.
@7. e
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:32 am 10. David Thomson:“I’m sure there’s no shortage of people looking to buy a pair now.” Brilliant response! Thank you for making me laugh out loud. Troll mace – gotta get one of those! You e, do not need one, you’re doing fine without it.
“I thought we went into Iraq because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they were an imminent threat to the United States, and they had links to 911 and Al Qaida.”
The consensus view of the world community was that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. He went out of his way to encourage people to believe this to be true. Moreover, the late Iraqi dictator told American interrogators that he had every intention of getting these weapons once it was prudent of doing so. As for imminent? Who told you that? It most certainly was not the Bush administration! And there were also no claims that Saddam was definitely connected to 911 and al Qaida. Where are you hearing this nonsense? The monster had to be removed because he attempted to murder a former American president, funded world wide terrorism, and defied a UN resolution regarding the search of WMDs within the country. You obviously need to stop visiting media outlets like the Daily Kos. They are badly misinforming you.
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:36 am 11. kevin barry:Good news everyone… that great political scientist, the legendary Vivo has determined that Iraq DOESN’t NEED DEMOCRACY! Well how about that! What else does the great world class thinker Vivo think?
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:39 am 12. LynnS:Does the USA need democracy? Does Western Europe need that pesky ol’ democracy thing?
History shows the way? Oh… the good decent people of Hitlerian Germany just became democratic because they suddenly FELT IT IN THEIR HEARTS! Oh! And those imperialist Japanese just suddenly blossomed into a modern democratic nation because they were consumed with a love of all things democratic. Oh…
Not at all because they were introduced to democratic reforms. (Vivo would say they had democracy IMPOSED upon them).
Vivo… put the bong away. People are not naturally inclined to respect for fellow men. Take another look at the history books.
I think that it is a good thing that we now know that Iraq at this time, and as far as we know, is free of weapons of mass destruction. It is a good thing that Sadam Hussein can no longer play the cat and mouse game he used to strangle, oppress, torture, and kill the Iraqi People, pay suicide/killers families blood money, and tie up the international community in time and treasure. I hope that the Iraqi people use this time to build a strong democracy where freedom of religion, and the dignity and protection of all their good citizens is their goal. It is fine thing that the country has a chance to reject refuge to Al Qaeda and their training camps, raise their children in dignity and peace and use the wealth of their oil for the good of the country and the region.
President Bush, the American military and citizens, and all the other country’s soldiers and people who made and are making this happen have much to be proud of. That to get here civilians and soldiers were killed is a sad legacy of war. I hope that the Iraqi People will do what is right to earn that sacrifice.
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:42 am 13. Bugs:Whether you agree or disagree with the invasion, the fact is that Bush was a lousy leader. That is, he failed to lead the American people into and through that war. He simply laid out his case for war, said “here’s what we’re going to do,” and did it. Afterwards, it appeared he either thought everyone would naturally support him or just didn’t care what they thought. His attempts to persuade were feeble at best. It’s as if the war made him forget how to be a politician.
It’s great that he stuck to his guns for so long; history may prove him right in the end. But his lack of communication skills made the whole thing much harder on the country than it should have been.
Jan 15, 2009 - 9:49 am 14. Jbl:I support Bush’s visionary leadership in matters of foreign policy. He had the balls to do the right thing. Clinton kept telling us Saddam had WMD, but never did a thing about it. After 9/11, that had to be addressed. I also credit Bush with not tying us up in Kyoto, which the EU is finding unmanageable after all.
Bush had the courage to NOT go along with the flow, to NOT be like “everyone else.” We’re about to bring in a president who is re-playing the Clinton years. Expect Al Qaeda to rebound and start attacking us every two years as they did through the 1990’s, because they’ll know this new president won’t try to kick their asses; he’ll treat their terrorism as legal matters.
Thank you, President Bush, for keeping us safe and – up until recently – keeping the economy humming. I for one will miss you. And these other people who hate you today, in a year or two they’re going to miss you, too.
Jan 15, 2009 - 9:58 am 15. RV:Iran would greatly like to thank President Bush that Iraq is now in a position to set up their Iran friendly theocracy, which is already in the initial stages.
Jan 15, 2009 - 10:12 am 16. RV:Hence, President Bush’s decision to liberate the Iraqi people from such blood-curdling terror was an act of courage that should be celebrated…
So if that type of courage should be celebrated, what do we say about the Reagan adminstration which knew full well that Saddam was gassing his own people, but still decided to give their support to him?
Jan 15, 2009 - 10:14 am 17. Pat J:In resonse to #10:
Imminent threat quotes from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html:
“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
• President Bush, 7/2/03
“Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
• President Bush 4/24/03
“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
• President Bush, 3/19/03
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
• President Bush, 3/16/03
“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
“Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
“Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
“Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. … Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”
• President Bush, 1/3/03
“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.”
• President Bush, 11/23/02
“I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
“Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.”
• President Bush, 11/3/02
“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”
• President Bush, 11/1/02
“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
• President Bush, 10/28/02
“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”
• President Bush, 10/16/02
“There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
• President Bush, 10/7/02
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
• President Bush, 9/26/02
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
“Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
From an interview airing tonight on PBS’s Newhour with Jim Lehrer:
Q: But Mr. Vice President, getting from there to here, 4,500 Americans have died, at least 100,000 Iraqis have died. Has it been worth that?
CHENEY: I think so.
Q: Why?
CHENEY: Because I believed at the time what Saddam Hussein represented was, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, was a terror-sponsoring state so designated by the State Department. … He had produced and used weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological agents. He’d had a nuclear program in the past. … And he did have a relationship with al Qaeda. […]
And so I think given the track record of Saddam Hussein, I think we did exactly the right thing. I think the country is better off for it today.
Jan 15, 2009 - 10:21 am 18. LynnS:IN response to #17
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
Shall I go on?
Jan 15, 2009 - 11:11 am 19. Marc Malone:#13 Bugs – Just how, exactly, was Bush to communicate better with the people? He’d have to use the media… and he couldn’t. Since the 2000 recount, the Press has been in a state of mania regarding him. They distort everything he says. This leaves him cut off from his people. This weakens the Presidency, and thus, the nation, because he has no Bully Pulpit. And you blame him for that? That’s his fault, too? Make it easy for me: What in the world is not his fault?
Jan 15, 2009 - 12:54 pm 20. Terry Gain:Bush is an inarticulate visionary preceded and succeeded by articulate duds who “get it too late.
Iraq
1. Saddam not able to pursue the development of nuclear weapons as he certainly would have done the moment sanctions ended.
2. Iraq no longer harboring terrorists, including WTC bomber Yasin, and no longer running terrorist training camps, but instead hunting down and killing al Qaeda. (His least understood accomplishment. A former enemy is now hunting down and killing America’s self declared enemy.)
3. Iraq an anti-terrorist Arab democracy (which celebrates Christmas as a national holiday).
4. American military again firmly established as most lethal and moral fighting force known to Man.
5.Libya abandons pursuit of nukes.
6.Pakistani Khan’s nuclear network exposed and shut down.
7.Leftists proved wrong again.
Overall
Jan 15, 2009 - 4:12 pm 21. Terry Gain:And let’s remember over the next couple of years as it sinks in he held the line on the AGW hoax to allow the facts to overtake the fanatics. BRRR… it’s frigid outide.
outide and outside too.
Jan 15, 2009 - 4:14 pm 22. bbb:Re: #17 Pat J
Thanks for the collection of memories.
Look, people waste a lot of time arguing about the meaning of “imminent” in connection with the threat Saddam posed. I’ll waste some more, just because you wasted a lot of time putting together (or copying) a list of quotes. Only one of these quotes (McLellan, 2/10/03) features an actual administration person — and a famously dim one at that — saying the threat Saddam posed was “imminent”. In a couple of cases you claim that the administration figure responded affirmatively to a question whether the threat was “imminent” — and without looking at the video I’d have a hard time judging whether your characterization is accurate.
The context you’re missing is that some people in 2002 and 2003 were trying to delay the Iraq campaign by arguing that the threat from Saddam was not “imminent”. The Bush administration undercut that opposition by largely eschewing the word “imminent” in connection with the threat from Saddam. Amusingly, one of your quotes is of Rumsfeld, in his characteristically blunt manner, maintaining that arguments about imminence are stupid. And yet you still don’t get it.
The point is: Saddam was a threat. A “Big” threat, or even “Big Big Big” threat, if you would prefer. The fact that he didn’t personally plan 9/11 is irrelevant. For all the reasons reiterated here and in many other places, it is absolutely clear that he was a psychopath with Imami issues. He invaded his neighbors. He was using oil money to undermine the international system. He let a dozen terrorist groups operate on his soil, even in Iraqi government offices. He wanted the Bomb. And it is a fact that we were still at war with Saddam the day the Twin Towers fell. He was shooting at our aircraft every day. There is no way we could have let his regime stand on our flanks as we invaded and rebuilt Afghanistan. Get a clue. You’re going to find that all the Democrat hate-Bush rhetoric which you’ve consumed for the past five years was propagated as a political posture, to get them where they are today: in control of Congress and the White House. And they will find it necessary to defend the country for which they used such vile and nasty tactics to win. Why do you think Gates is still SecDef?
You sound like an “America Firster” in 1942, railing against the war in Europe when it was Tojo that attacked us on 12/7. Except in this case we’ve completely erased Saddam’s threat while losing fewer troops than Ulysses Grant lost in 20 minutes at Cold Harbor.
Oh, and about #8: you should really read the authorization for the use of force in Iraq. That’s all I will say until you do.
As for the President, I would say: Good Job, W. As Reagan said, “Not bad at all”.
BBB
Jan 15, 2009 - 9:14 pm 23. BC:George “Dubya” Bush — the door can’t hit his sorry, corrupt, incompetent, lying butt hard enough on his way out.
Jan 15, 2009 - 9:24 pm 24. myth buster:And FYI, there were chemical weapons in Iraq. Two US soldiers were injured by shells laced with Sarin gas.
Jan 15, 2009 - 9:58 pm 25. FD186:Was our involvement in Korea wrong? Defending democracy for South Korea? Like Harry S Truman, George W Bush had to make some very tough desicions based on someone elses input, advise and intelligence. History still has yet to judge our involvement in Iraq. I’m confident it will be favorably judged.
Jan 16, 2009 - 12:04 am 26. cedarford:To understand properly what the Bush administration’s legacy will be with regard to Iraq, one must comprehend the conditions Saddam Hussein subjected Iraq’s citizenry to prior to the country’s liberation in 2003.
To understand properly, you have to understand what Iraq was before Saddam took over and things turned sour. From the 1950s through about 1978, Iraq was a secular, modernizing nation run by Ba’athists of a “pan-Arab, non-Islamist bent”. It was marked by a rapidly increasing standard of living, excellent education and healthcare system started from oil wealth. It was a stable, secure country with a low crime rate. It created a huge middle class…and while Shiites lagged, the same can be said for the American Negro through most of our history.
Under Saddam, and with the Iran war, things slowly went to hell in the 80s.
We got rid of Saddam, but we made 3 catastrophic decisions that crippled Iraq’s ability to get back on the 1050s-70s track. For that, we will get little historical credit for “giving” Iraq anything except the absence of Saddam.
1. The Bremer De-Ba’athisation Decision wiped out the existing Iraqi middle class and their jobs…and instead of oil wealth returning to providing a good living for Iraqis from Saddam hoarding it, it then disappeared into the hands of corrupt Shia who had taken over the government jobs.
2. The Bremer decision to disband existing police and military destroyed Iraq’s security and the ability to get anything done – as Sunni and Shiite militias raged, raw new police bunkered in, and AQ rushed in to fill the power vacuum.
3. Bush then made a decision not to have Americans do security but focus on “gifting” Iraq with Western institutions like new laws, a belief in creating a Western Democracy. As 2 million people were fleeing the country in fear of their lives – mainly Iraqs medical and other professionals, engineers and technicians – a reason why 17 of 20 “key country economic performance” metrics actually fell consistently each month until late 2006, as we were pumping 10 billion plus a month in borrowed China money into the place.
It wasn’t until Bush had his head handed to him with the 2006 elections that he began getting his shit together..which took until late 2007 just to undoe the damage America, not Saddam, did from 2003-2006.
And Afghanistan, the place his dull vapid bitch traipsed around in announcing that women were “freed of their Burquas” and a “model democracy of freedom lovers” existed thanks to her American Churchill husband??
Well, Afghanistan is now run by one of the most corrupt clans on the planet, most in the heroin smuggling trade. They are now negotiating for a peaceful return of the Taliban, rather than be defeated by them. Which is a good thing for the women, because almost all of them were smart enough to realize how stupid George and Laura Bush were, and sensibly kept their burquas on.
***************
myth buster:
And FYI, there were chemical weapons in Iraq. Two US soldiers were injured by shells laced with Sarin gas.
It was mustard gas, from shells in a bunker that Iraqi soldiers overlooked when they were destroying the rest of their stocks in the early 90s. Same thing that injures or kills a few Belgians and French every year from plowing up misplaced, buried WWI gas shells.
They did get a few dud Sarin shells some Iraqi discovered, left over from the Iran-Iraq war, found buried in sand berms.
***************
bbb – You sound like an “America Firster” in 1942, railing against the war in Europe when it was Tojo that attacked us on 12/7. Except in this case we’ve completely erased Saddam’s threat while losing fewer troops than Ulysses Grant lost in 20 minutes at Cold Harbor.
1. Saddam was never a threat to us, unless you consider Our Special Friend some sort of 51st State.
2. “Just” losing 4,000 is not the whole story. Both Left and Right go along with the media’s fixation on death tally sheets as the only thing that matters about a war.
a. That neglects the massive loss of US prestige and clout internationally. Chinese leaders now say they believe America’s significant decline as a world power actually started in 2004, well before capitalism’s economic catastrophe.
b. That neglects about 40,000 casualties – besides the all-important (to some) death tally, that also means 20,000 suffering significant maimings, including about 4,000 “total disability” cases, who mostly would have died of brain injuries, burns, limb and organ losses in previous wars.
c. The Iraq War also cost us 1 trillion, more expensive that Korea, WWI, and Vietnam. And we haven’t even started paying off the Chinese, Japanese, French, and Saudi lenders yet.
d. Our enemies know that with our ground force committed to two for now “endless wars” that have gone on longer than the Civil War or WWII did and look to exceed Vietnam’s time – they can do most of what they want with no fear of the US Army or Marines..just a slight risk of airstrikes from a carrier or USAF. Which Chavez, Iran, the Jangaweed, NORKs, and Pakistanis don’t seem to be fretting about…Air power will only damage, not defeat, a foe.
As for Grant, Cold Harbor was just a step closer to him getting Unconditional Surrender. Iraq and Afghanistan are just steps closer to the US getting out with some dignity, hopefully, and Islamists back in charge again.
Jan 16, 2009 - 1:14 am 27. vivo:Perhaps democratically elected, West-hating Islamists, like Iran now has, that clueless Dubya may claim in memoirs few will read that it “vindicates” his Iraq and Afghanistan adventures.
6. spike:
“so, ‘respect for the human being’ somehow includes YOU deciding what the iraqi people need? that’s mighty white of you…”
You should realize that I didn’t DECIDE anything, it’s just my opinion. They should decide, but it makes sense, if I was a progressive Iraqi.
Jan 16, 2009 - 3:40 am 28. vivo:11. kevin barry:
“Vivo… put the bong away. People are not naturally inclined to respect for fellow men. Take another look at the history books.”
Maybe I should have written that they don’t need democracy NOW as their first PRIORITY. I guess I wasn’t clear.
By saying that History leads the way, I meant look at the History of the USA and other democratic nations and how they eventually developed into democratic nations, because they felt it in their heart. If Germany and Japan became democratic, although they were pressured, they immediately liked the idea and accepted it. The Iraqis cling too much to their religious beliefs and are not ready for democracy yet.
Jan 16, 2009 - 3:53 am 29. vivo:14. Jbl:
“Bush had the courage to NOT go along with the flow, to NOT be like “everyone else.”
I agree with that statement. Unfortunately, he made many wrong decisions and created a mess.
Jan 16, 2009 - 3:58 am 30. vivo:26. cedarford:
Thank you for you highly enlightening historical perspective. It should be required reading for everyone at all levels.
Jan 16, 2009 - 4:13 am 31. bbb:Re #26 cedarford:
Thanks for the thoughful reply. I couldn’t disagree more.
“Saddam was never a threat to us…”
…is at the root of your misconceptions. We were at war with Saddam the day Bush took office, indeed the day Clinton took office. This is why on September 11th informed people immediately asked whether Saddam had anything to do with the attacks. I’ve already recited the list of risk factors associated with leaving Saddam in power. But you are welcome to believe in your Moorish (Michael Moore-ish, that is) fantasies of an alternative kite-flying Iraq. It’s a free country.
“Which is a good thing for the women, because almost all of them were smart enough to realize how stupid George and Laura Bush were, and sensibly kept their burquas on.”
Words fail me. This attitude is so completely grotesque that one struggles to find historical analogies. It’s as though you were arguing that sensible Jews in Nazi Germany refused to take off their gold stars. And it is not as though you are adopting the (defensible) attitude that other cultures just have different values — you are calling it “sensible” to wear a burkha, which means that you agree with those values.
“That neglects the massive loss of US prestige and clout internationally. Chinese leaders now say they believe America’s significant decline as a world power actually started in 2004, well before capitalism’s economic catastrophe.”
You seem to be under the impression that we had massive prestige to lose, and that there was some kind of value to that prestige that would compensate for, say, the loss of an American city to a terrorist bomb. And you seem to be ready to believe the Communist reading of history over our own. There’s a word for that….
“Our enemies know that with our ground force committed…. Air power will only damage, not defeat, a foe.”
Not that I’m endorsing the Clintonian approach, but air power did seem to be decisive in Serbia…. But your point seems to be that we could be using ground troops to fight Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il, to which I would say, “Get in line!” Fighting has its own deterrent value in other theaters. And I flatly disagree that we are now unable to deal with a threat in, say, the Korean Peninsula. Perhaps you mean to imply that we could at least to hold ground troops in reserve as some kind of deterrent threat to discourage them from acting against American interests. But this theory would only make sense if you believe that Iran and North Korea started their nuclear programs, for example, AFTER the Iraq invasion… is that really what you believe? Do you really think Iran and North Korea were well-behaved prior to 2003? Fascinating.
“As for Grant, Cold Harbor was just a step closer to him getting Unconditional Surrender. Iraq and Afghanistan are just steps closer to the US getting out with some dignity, hopefully, and Islamists back in charge again….”
…which convinces me you know even less about the Civil War than about the current situation. As Grant himself said, “At Cold Harbor no advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained.” It was a Union defeat. But my point was not about defeat or victory, it was about perspective on the magnitude of casualties. You might want to consider that we lost more men in a single training accident in WWII than we did in any year of the Iraq campaign. (Try googling “Slapton Sands”). Or that more troops were killed on duty during the Clinton years than during the Bush years. We honor our war dead, but it serves only the enemy to exaggerate those losses to the point it impairs our judgment.
BBB
Jan 16, 2009 - 6:58 am 32. LynnS:#31 Bravo!
I wonder when it will be safe for discussions about what the Bush Administration did for our military overseas in all the countries we still have a presence in. I recall that the fringe elements were becoming more and more bold, to the point where our soldiers were being attacked on their way to work. I especially recall incidents in South Korea and the South Korean government officals reluctance to address the problem. Too many country’s leaders have used us as targets for the citizens to attack in order to divert attention away from their own performance. When Donald Rumsfield spoke of the “realignment” of our troops on the world stage it was not too soon afterward when those countries we have been helping to protect from the savages at the gates stood up, took notice, and requested that our troops remain. Any observant person with an interest in the world and the part we play in it had to see for the past eight years before the Bush Administration was elected we were becoming a country of experts in our own self-flagellation bowing and apologizing for our very existence. It was hard to witness and leading to our mortal wounding.
Jan 17, 2009 - 9:16 am 33. Marc Malone:There’s lots of criticism of every administration whe it comes to the subject of war, because it is rarely done right. It almost can’t be, by its very nature.Did Bush make mistakes? Yep. So has every Prez. Grenada was a boondoggle for our special forces. Losses were heavy. Vietnam was a mess. We screwed up big in Korea. Our performance in Europe in WWII was poor. WWi was a complete boondoggle for the allies, including the peace-terms afterwards. The list can go on and on.
Bush’s conduct of the war was initilally poor, but we faced the hardest kind of challenge: guerrilla warfare backed by religious fanaticism. We eventually learned how to beat it, something Napoleon and Hitler could not. It was an amazing feat of arms to anyone who knows their military history. Criticize all you want. That fact stands true. Neither Johnson nor Nixon were able to do the same in ‘Nam. Bush was able to win and those guys couldn’t. That’s enough legacy for me. The conduct of the Iraq war will be studied forever in military colleges.
Jan 18, 2009 - 2:55 am 34. bod more:Bush is taking credit for the fact that there have been no “terrist” attacks on Americans in the past 7 years. What he conveniently left out was the fact that one main reason for this is that he and Cheney and Rumsfeld set up a Terrist Theme Park in Iraq where every Islamist nut-job in the world could come to kill Americans at will. It’s been a veritable shooting gallery in Iraq where 4500 of America’s best have been killed (and countless Iraqis) for no other reason than to secure Iraq oil. Why go through customs and Homeland Security in the US when you can kill Americans outside the country. Maybe we should ask the families of these brave servicemen and women how safe they have felt during Jet-Pilot George and Five-Deferment Dick’s tenure
Jan 18, 2009 - 9:40 am 35. Thom Fisher:“still fragile democracy in Iraq.” Who are you kidding? We have three Iraqs now: Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. North, South and West. They have their own tribes, their own governing bodies. It will be that way for decdaes to come. Democracy. Who wants a democracy? I don’t. Capitalists don’t. Rich people don’t. Pure Christian countries don’t. Democracy means a variety of opinions, which invariably leads to sharing power and wealth. NOBODY WANTS DEMOCRACY! Not even Americans. We want herds of sheep following one strong leader. No need for congress, no need for judges, lawyers, no need for agencies. Just one strong leader. Like Mao. Or Stalin. Hitler. Bush (OK, Bush needed Cheney to be strong). Like Mussolini. Like the Pope. Screw democracy.
Jan 19, 2009 - 5:46 pm 36. Lone Oak:The mission in Iraq will be celebrated as one of the most important and positive transitional events in the history of the Middle East if not the world. George Bush will go down in history as the liberator of Iraq and the father of Iraqi democracy.
Jan 19, 2009 - 10:04 pm 37. tournefort:From 2003: “In three articles published by the London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, columnist Kamel Al-Sa ‘doun, an Iraqi writer who resides in Norway, justified the U.S. occupation and political rehabilitation of Iraq.”
Some excerpts from those articles posted at MEMRI:
“Yes, the occupation is a blessed and promising liberation for Iraq, even if the U.N., Europe, Russia, India, and all the Arabs say otherwise.” …
“Iraq and the whole region are on the threshold of deep fundamental changes… My country reached [a level of] devastation that other [nations in the area] never experienced… As we all know, the Americans, who took upon themselves to affect change, are the trail blazers in eliminating a bloody regime the likes of which the world has never seen… [We should admit] honestly that if we want to affect true change in Iraq, one that will cut through the layers and reach the core, there is no escaping [help from the U.S.]” …
“We the Iraqis have already proven our helplessness. With all our ideological forces, our leaders, our masses and the weapons we possessed, we have proven our inability to move even a single hair in Saddam Hussein’s mustache… and since only the Americans are able to change Iraq, and since they are the only arm capable of reaching the thief in his den, the terrorist in his cave and the despot in his hiding stronghold… there is no escaping from American help…” …
“[What we want] is a safeguard that will create an open vista in which we can thoroughly reexamine our assumptions, just like Germany, South Korea and other nations… which the Americans liberated…”
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iraq&ID=SP59003
Feb 26, 2009 - 4:20 pm