Mr. President, the Long War Won’t End in 2010
One suspects that Iran and al-Qaeda won't believe the stroke of midnight on August 31, 2010 will mark the end of their war on us.
At first glance, President Obama’s speech on Iraq was heartening. While he did not credit his predecessor or election opponent for implementing and championing the surge that saved the war effort, the strategy he vehemently opposed as a candidate, Obama praised the success of our soldiers and Marines in some of his most appreciative and admiring language yet — and that’s enough. He called Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno “two of our finest generals,” and to be sure, they most certainly are. Though belatedly, he also recognized the bravery of everyday Iraqis who have fought against dictatorship and struggled to establish self-rule and consensual governance for years.
All this and more is good. It is high time for a deep national exhale on Iraq: through all the years of carnage and uncertainty, our military stuck it out and now might just end up leaving behind something once considered miraculous. But we should not get ahead of ourselves — and I fear some of President Obama’s statements point in that direction.
It is a good thing that the war, as we once knew it, is wrapping up. But Mr. Obama’s nomenclature is unsettling. “Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end,” the new commander-in-chief told Marines soon to be deployed to Afghanistan. “Let me just say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,” he concluded.
This smacks of President Bush’s similar mistake, declaring an end to “major combat operations” on May 1, 2003. In Bush’s case, an inaccurate assessment was made of what was happening at the time. In Obama’s case, he is predicting what will happen 18 months from now.
If there is one lesson President Obama can learn from his predecessor, it is this: we do not have the final say on when this war will “end,” in the sense that we want it to end. If you recall, the earliest and most principled advocates of destroying Saddam’s regime — Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, etc. — all opposed a long-term occupation of Iraq, contrary to conventional wisdom and pop-culture caricature.
They felt, correctly I believe, that sending Paul Bremer to govern Iraq would be counterproductive. If it had been up to them alone, the transition to Iraqi sovereignty and self-policing would have happened much earlier. If it had been up to all of us, the war would have “ended” six years ago — sometime in the days or weeks following the toppling of Hussein’s statue in Baghdad’s Firdos Square. If we had our way, April 2003 would have been the last time an American fired his weapon in Iraq. We might have our preferences, but that does not always translate into concrete reality.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
N.M. Guariglia is a foreign policy analyst and columnist who writes on Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitics. He is a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and blogs at WorldThreats.com. He can be reached at nickguar@gmail.com.
 |
 |
 |
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.
14 Comments
1. M Davis:It is very obvious, President Obama has a certain “stigma” that simply says, if I say it, it’s true, settled, and done with. Just simply telling insurgents in the Middle East, as he’s done here, I won, you lost, get over it. If you’ll excuse the experssion, that ain’t gonna work! Islamist extremist have shown a tenacity of being able to wait, plan accordingly, and be patient. This, however, does NOT seem to be the current administrations greatest trait. To be redundant, in a way, time will tell!!
Mar 3, 2009 - 3:08 am 2. Peg C.:It’s the height of arrogance to declare a war over that was started by the other side. We perceive the war declared on us to have started in 2001 but in actual fact it’s been going on much longer and will outlive all of us. These religious extremists are in it for the ultra long haul – centuries if necessary. We have attention spans dictated by news cycles. We have yet to be really tested and find out if we have what it takes to fight. The past 8 years may likely be as nothing compared to what is yet to come.
Mar 3, 2009 - 3:32 am 3. vb:Obama is still in campaign mode. That speech was mostly for his anti-war supporters. He does not realize that our enemies also have TVs and will hear and interpret his every word in a quite different manner. Furthermore, the spin his words get from foreign media will be quite different from that of US MSM, which carried a lot of water for him.
Mar 3, 2009 - 5:23 am 4. Ryan Mauro:Did anyone else catch President Obama’s declaration of victory in the speech? He basically said the troops completed their missions.
Mar 3, 2009 - 6:18 am 5. Scott:As always, wise ol’ experienced Bambi knows all the right moves. Everyone knows that revealing your future plans to your enemy has no negative effects at all. None. Never.
His never ending egofest causes him to make these foolish ejaculations.
Mar 3, 2009 - 11:18 am 6. Marc Malone:August 31, 2010? Hmm. Isn’t that the beginning of campaign season for Congressional mid-term elections. Oooo, looky, I wrapped the war up even earlier than projected. How wonderful is it to be me? Re-elect Dems! Just another campaign tactic. It’s all about power. He couldn’t care less about the eventual fate of Iraq. Like all Libs/Socs, he only cares about the domestic agenda. Who cares about foreign affairs, anyway?
Mar 3, 2009 - 1:54 pm 7. vivo:The “war” will be over when people start respecting each other. Is that about 2050?
Mar 3, 2009 - 8:30 pm 8. typos_R_us:Vivo, there is a generation gap at work. My generation sees respect as something that is earned, yours sees it as a right.
Why should I respect anyone just because they can suck air thru their pie-hole?
While the left blames Bush 43 for everything, it is his fault that the War on Terror is not seen as the global war it is. If Dubbau had ponied up to the facts he would have called the War on Terror what it is, which is the 6th ( or 7th? I lost track somewhere in the 17th century) Crusade.
After all, the moslims understand that the WoT is another crusade, even if the west claims it isn’t.
Once you look at the current crusade in it’s historical perspective, it becomes obvious that pushing the Jihadists from one bit of dirt to another isn’t doing anything to WIN the crusade.
The reason there have been so many crusades is because all the west has ever done is push the Jihadists off of a bit of dirt. Then after a few years, or centuries, the Moslims make a comeback. Look at Spain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Muslim_presence_in_the_Iberian_peninsula
The battle for Spain ( Iberria) went on from about 800 AD to 1500 AD.
At least that episode. It isn’t over yet, since Spain is in greater danger of returning to Islamic control today then it has ben for the last 1000 years. There will be no ‘peace’ until Islam is destroyed, or rules the world.
What’s it gonna be? I gotta know right now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwDInHYzQRc
Mar 4, 2009 - 3:55 am 9. vivo:8. typos_R_us:
“Vivo, there is a generation gap at work. My generation sees respect as something that is earned, yours sees it as a right.”
No, I agree with you. I’m just hoping that the expansion in world communications (Internet, TV, etc.) will open minds and bring reactionaries to grasp some understanding. I know it’s taken thousands of years with no change, but the circumstance are changing. 2050 seems optimistic, but who knows?
“There will be no ‘peace’ until Islam is destroyed, or rules the world.
What’s it gonna be? I gotta know right now!”
Destroying Islam would require killing millions of people: that’s not going to happen.
Islam ruling the World?
Islam 1.5 billion, 21% of world distribution
Christianity 2.1 billion, 33%
Non-religious 1.1 billion, 16%
Hinduism 900 million, 14%
Others 16%
You simply can’t rule over 80% of the world!
Mar 5, 2009 - 4:53 am 10. typos_R_us:“I know it’s taken thousands of years with no change, but the circumstance are changing”.
Technology changes, People and circumstances don’t.
“Destroying Islam would require killing millions of people: that’s not going to happen.”
Actually, no. I didn’t express myself well. Islam is an ideology as well as a religion. Ideologies AND religions can be destroyed without killing the people that believe in them. Islam can be changed into a kinder and gentler religion. The Christians of 1000 AD were MUCH worse then the Muslims of today. And in the 21st century, it is safe to invite Christians into your home, so long as they don’t number more then 4 or so. A Christian from the 11th century would murder a 21st century Christian as a heretic. No questions asked, right to the stake for burning.
Where do you get your numbers? I used the UN and CIA population figures and got between 850 and 1 billion. That was back in ‘98 or so. Muslims are like blowfish in that they inflate their size to appear more formidable then they actually are. The 7th century mindset of population equals military strength still prevails in the Muslim world. In the 21st century, large populations just means bigger body counts. As Stalin said, “One man’s death is a tragedy, a million men’s death is a statistic”.
I really should have used the word ‘convert’ instead of destroy. Both sides want to convert the other. In both cases, conversion would equal destruction.
Mar 6, 2009 - 5:25 am 11. ib42:Islam was spread by the sword. As religions go, it has nothing to offer that makes it superior to any other religion. So when the Muslims bumped up against the Europeans, they were stopped because they couldn’t defeat the European on the battlefield except in rare circumstances.
The Eastern Roman empire held out for a thousand years despite being outnumbered 20 or 30 to 1. It was Christians that finally put paid to the Romans. The Ottomans just feasted off the left overs.
The ‘war’ in Iraq was not one. It was an invasion started by a stupid, lying lttle cowboy from Texas to prove to himself that he had a dick. And he did. dick cheney. It was and is is outright robbery and rape of an entire nation which had nothing to do with the terrorists of al-qaeda. Now, it’s the only sensible thing to try and stop the killing by ending it. Not an easy task, but Obama has the strength to do the right thing.
Mar 7, 2009 - 12:01 am 12. GEORGE WU, A.I.A.:EVEN THERE ARE SO MANY JEWS CONTROLLING THE MEDIAS, I STILL WANT TO SAY WHAT I WANT TO SAY! BECAUSE OF THE JEWS, BUSH SENT TROOPS TO IRAQ ( YOU DONT WANT ME TO GO INTO DETAILS AGAIN). THE REASON IS OBVIOUS ! THE AMERICAN TROOPS CAN PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY PROTECTING ISRAEL. NOW OBAMA IS TALKING ABOUT WITHDRAWAL. ANYONE EVER ASKED HIM WHETHER THE JEWS APPROVED HIS DOING?
Mar 7, 2009 - 12:46 am 13. GEORGE WU, A.I.A.:BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, OBAMA CANNOT ALLOW ANOTHER 700 BILLION BUCKS FOR ANOTHER SIX YEARS, UNLESS HE DID NOT WANT TO BE REOELECTED !
THE ONLY REASON WHY OBAMA BECAME THE PRESIDENT IS BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO OPPOSED THE WAR IN IRAQ FROM THE BEGINNING!
Mar 7, 2009 - 1:04 am 14. deguello:THE POWERFUL MEN IN THOSE DAYS, NOW THEY ALL DISAPPEARED LIKE THE MICE,EVEN HAD GLOBAL PLAN FIRST IRAQ, THEN IRAN, NORTH KOREA NEXT AND MAYBE CHINA.
ALL ARE IN THE NAME OF THE SURVIVAL OF ISRAEL !
By 2010, the US will be so broke thanks to the O’holes crashing the economy, that it will be unable to afford a military capable of overseas deployment. The US ceased being a world power, and joined the rank of the dysfunctional ,impoverished third world,when it stupidly elected this Hugo Chavez wannabee. Poor, third world nations do not have effective,world-class militaries.
Mar 10, 2009 - 11:03 am