Bush makes a last visit to Iraq. Reuters:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - President George W. Bush made an unannounced farewell visit to Baghdad on Sunday, just weeks before he leaves office and bequeaths the unpopular Iraq war to President-elect Barack Obama.
…
The decision to land in broad daylight reflected confidence that Baghdad was more secure this time than during Bush’s last visit to the capital in 2006 when sectarian violence was raging.
Though Iraq has slipped down the list of Americans’ concerns as the recession-hit U.S. economy has taken center stage, polls show most people think the war was a mistake.
Either that, or they bought the distortions, outright lies and pro-jihadi propaganda they were spoonfed over the past five years by Reuters and others. Can’t just let him have his victory. Don’t worry, he’s leaving it in good hands.
It will now be left to Obama, a Democrat and early opponent of U.S. military involvement in Iraq, to sort out an exit strategy after he takes office on January 20.
With the help of Bush SecDef Robert Gates and fairweather Iraq War supporter Hillary Clinton at State. Reuters neglects to snark that:
Though the Iraq war is now looking like an astonishing success that will leave democracy and a pro-US government in a key formerly despotic and menacing Mideast nation, outraged blog chatter shows most progressives are beside themselves and feel betrayed by Obama’s rightward shift.
The short AP version on Yahoo is surprisingly charitable from Bush-bashing distortionist Jennifer Loven. Maybe she’s jet-lagged, still crafting the snark.
BAGHDAD – President George W. Bush says the work in Iraq has been hard, but is necessary for U.S. security and world peace.
…
The president is celebrating a recent U.S.-Iraq security agreement that calls for U.S. troops to withdraw by the end of 2011.
OK, here we go. Longer AP version. It’s a “victory lap without a clear victory.”
I dunno, getting the guy who spent his campaign bashing your war strategy to buy into it sounds like a victory in and of itself, before you even get to the political, military and social progress Iraq has made in the last two years … and the last five and a half, since the Republic of Fear was terminated.
Nearly 150,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq fighting a war that is remarkably unpopular in the United States and across the globe. More than 4,209 members of the U.S. military have died and the war has cost U.S. taxpayers $576 billion since it began five years and nine months ago.
I’m pretty sure the vast majority of those 150,000 troops, to include most of the combat units, are not doing much fighting at all these days.
Last month, attacks fell to the lowest monthly level since the war began in 2003. Still, it’s unclear what will happen when the U.S. troops leave.
AP, America’s second most recently minted neocons. After Obama.
Obama has promised he will bring all U.S. combat troops back home from Iraq a little over a year into his term, as long as commanders agree a withdrawal would not endanger American personnel or Iraq’s security. Obama has said that on his first day as president, he will summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the White House and give them a new mission: responsibly ending the war.
Hate to quibble, but that’s been their mission for a long time. It was Obama and the Democratic-led Congress that wanted to end it irresponsibly. But maybe by “new mission,” Loven means new to Obama.
Gateway: Met with honors.
Firedoglake: Mission Accomplished? Well, since you ask, yes. Just like last time, when the mission of knocking out Saddam was accomplished. Don’t believe me, just ask Obama. Or his guy Gates. (what the heck is a fire dog lake, anyway? Sounds kind of fierce for a site run by peacenik surrender enthusiasts.)
Surber: Mission Accomplished. He counts the ways.
Some on-the-ground context from from the sand, via Mudville.
Great minds think almost alike. Reynolds: Victory Lap? What’s with the question mark?
Personal to Bill Quick in comments. 9/11 did happen, but Saddam was a problem before that. He is no longer. Suggested reading: War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism by Douglas Feith for the front end of that issue. Jules Crittenden, Weekly Standard, Obama’s Debt of Gratitude to George Bush, for where we stand today.
Welcome Instapundit, Gateway, etal. Always so good to see you. Done your Christmas shopping? Don’t forget the guys in the sand. For the inveterate warmonger and/or combat vet on your list, here’s a Combat Vet’s Reading List. In other book suggestions, here’s me trashing my old pal Max Kennedy’s excellent WWII tome Danger’s Hour on its al Qaeda angle. And here’s my old pal Max Kennedy asking when I plan to actually read it so we can debate the issue. Read it? That sounds like work. For another new WWII view getting some raves, here’s Retribution. Meanwhile, for the detained jihadi in your life, you can’t go wrong with Guantanamo’s Greatest Hits.
Topics: Bush, Obama, media, military
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:16 am on Sunday, December 14, 2008
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 14th, 2008 at 10:39 am
[...] who showed up in Iraq? Jules Crittenden has the low [...]
December 14th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Jules, I have a problem with the generally accepted metric for “victory” in Iraq, to wit:
Ask yourself this: do you think, absent 9/11, we would have invaded Iraq? I don’t.
Since 9/11 was the proximate cause of our invasion of Iraq, what “victory” was in invasion in service to? The defeat of Iraq alone? Or as part of a larger project, the defeat of Islamofascist terrorism? I perceive it to be the second, and the Bush administration repeatedly confirmed this.
Viewed in that context, is what we have in Iraq a victory, really? We worried about Saddam getting nukes, but as a result of the Iraqi invasion and subsequent years of bungling, the US government has lost the will and the ability to stage any further military adventures, no matter how grave the situation, and so real enemies like Iran now stand on the threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons. Further, how long do you think your “victory” in Iraq will hold with a Shia government in which large parts are heavily influenced or controlled by Iran, and operating next door to a nuclear Iran?
Here’s where we stand today:
Iran: still an Islamofascist hellhole, a rabid enemy of the US and Israel, and about to go nuclear.
Syria: still the same America-hating Baathist regime, now heavily influenced and controlled by the Iranian regime.
Lebanon - a shattered checkerboard of factions, partly occupied by Hizb’Allah, (which is in large part controlled by Iran), a deadly threat to Israel and with major potential for staging Islamist terror attacks elsewhere.
Saudi Arabia - threatened by Iran on the one hand, and half-controlled by the Wahabi Islamofascists on the other. Still funneling money and men to Islamofascist terror gangs.
Pakistan - disintegrating even as we watch, and probably headed for a takeover by its most militant and anti-American Islamist factions, along with its nuclear arsenal.
Afghanistan - slowly sinking back into Islamofascist savagery, as the Taliban and its allies retake everything but the most heavily defended cities.
Osama bin Laden/Ayman Zawahiri/al Qaeda: Still alive, still in business, and effectively operating from their own nation of Waziristan.
Iraq: Enjoying a temporary respite from battle, but governed by a shaky coalition in which the Shia are by far the most powerful leg, and of which Shia many are under the control and/or influence of the soon-to-be nuclear next door neighbor, Iran.
And a host of problems with Islamofascism looming elsewhere, of which I am sure you are aware.
You may see Iraq as a “victory” but, within the context of the larger war against Islamofascist terror, I don’t. And I have to ask: Do you? Really?
December 14th, 2008 at 11:48 am
[...] Jules Crittenden has a lot more on Bush’s victory lap! [...]
December 14th, 2008 at 11:58 am
[...] President Bush is in Iraq today, taking a well-deserved victory lap for his amazing work and the even more amazing work of coalition forces. Jules Crittenden has a detailed look at this great victory. [...]
December 14th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
So, Bill, would the situation be better if we hadn’t invaded Iraq? What exactly would have been made better by not invading Iraq? You do mention freedom to act (like invade Iran); but, then you would have the same set of issues going forward (just the names of the countries are switched).
I submit that we are in much better shape with Iraq neutralized (and many, many , many jihadis dead).
December 14th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Bill, 9/11 was not “the proximate cause.” You were there as well as I was. The President gave multiple reasons for going to Iraq. Something like a dozen different reasons all came out of his mouth, and out of the mouths of his administration and those in the Congress who supported it from the beginning. Those reasons were all valid at the time they were given, and almost all of them remain valid, the canard about “lies” regarding WMDs notwithstanding.
9/11 told us we couldn’t afford to wait for threats to materialize. But reality never changed such that we could just invade every country on the planet that posed a threat. It still dictates that. We do not have the resources to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, and every other dangerous regime. We can’t.
We had to pick our most dangerous enemy. That was Iraq.
Most of the “bungling” you perceive is because (much to my shock) you’ve bought into the dominant media narrative. At its very worst, the “bungling” in Iraq was trivial compared to what’s happened in every major war the U.S. has ever fought in. The tale of this era is how the press nearly destroyed our will to fight–nearly but not quite.
And the “Shia dominated” government in Iraq has already shown, repeatedly, that it has no interest whatsoever in dancing to Iran’s tune. There’s no reason they should; “Shia” is no more a monolithic bloc than “Catholics” are, and the Iranians are a completely different language and culture. The Iranian government itself is hated by most Iranians, so why would most Iraqis love it? Answer: they don’t.
Iraq is an astounding success story. In Bush we got the second coming of Harry S. Truman, and I’m damn proud of the fact that I voted for him.
December 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
The situation would have been better if we had not put all of our eggs into the basket of a democratizing occupation after our military victory, and then botched that.
You’re moving the goalposts. Invading Iraq and destroying the Husseini regime was fine - as a start. The whole democracy project has been a mess, and has badly sidetracked the overall war against Islamofascist terror.
It sucked up thousands of American lives, and tens of thousands more casualties, while destroying any domestic support for further military actions. If did not strike at the heart of Islamofascist terror, which springs from Iran’s desire to dominate the Islamic world, nor did it provide any permanent protection for Iraq - whose subsumption into the Iranian sphere of influence has been a goal of Tehran for decades.
Because of the distraction of the Iraqi Democracy Project, we arrive at the point I described above - arguably in worse shape than we were before that misguided exercise.
Ask yourself this question: If, the day after they pulled down Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, George Bush, with his eighty-plus approval ratings, had announced that the US Air Force had just destroyed the Iranian 3CI system, blocked their oil exporting facilities, and was providing arms, information, and Special Forces aid to Iranian “freedom fighters,” and announced the next day that Syrian military facilities had been bombed into rubble, do you think that the world might be a better, and safer place today?
Instead, we have a world filled with Islamofascist enemies who see us as a weak horse, a shaky theocratic democracy in Iraq, and a US hamstrung by its own bumbling.
You may call that a victory. I don’t.
December 14th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Dean, you’re right, I was there, as you were, and I remember the pre-9/11 time as well. And although “regime change in Iraq” had been national policy since the latter days of the Clinton administration, there was not a hope in hell of actually implementing that policy via an American invasion prior to 9/11, and you know it.
Yes, I remember the thousand and one justifications Bush advanced for the invasion - I blogged on most of them - but there is a difference between justification and cause. Without the causative trigger of 9/11, there would have been no invasion. 9/11 changed the nature of the game, and made it plain our fight was with something much larger than Iraq - and that was Islamofascist terrorism, of which Iraq was only a small part.
It also made an invasion of Iraq feasible, when it was not before.
December 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Ask yourself this question: If, the day after they pulled down Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, George Bush, with his eighty-plus approval ratings, had announced that the US Air Force had just destroyed the Iranian 3CI system, blocked their oil exporting facilities, and was providing arms, information, and Special Forces aid to Iranian “freedom fighters,” and announced the next day that Syrian military facilities had been bombed into rubble, do you think that the world might be a better, and safer place today?
Quick, you’re farking high on your own fumes. THERE WAS NO WAY the USAF or the SF could have done any of that in 2003. PERIOD. Not enough planes, intell, guys or any of that. You farking arm-chair generals do this every single time.
December 14th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden, reporting on Bush’s surprise visit to Iraq, refers to Mr. Bush taking a “victory lap.” This drew a response from Bill Quick on Jules’ blog that I believe is the best, most concise, tour d’horizon of the consequences involved as a result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq that I’ve seen in a while. (I hope that neither Jules nor Bill minds that I have reprinted the entire comment here): [...]
December 14th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Bill:
Oh come on. The day that the House voted on impeachment for Bill Clinton, the US bombed Baghdad. In fact, Zinni was concerned that our men in Kuwait would be subjected to an anthrax attack. It was about a lot more than just a liberation act. Saddam was a problem, an ongoing festering pain in the butt who made a point of shooting at our planes and sending money to terrorists. That was not going to go on forever. And if we had not gone after him, he would have all those weapons today and exactly how would that impact the situation in the region? Do you think Iran would be easier to deal with if Saddam and his psycho offspring were in Iraq?
December 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Add to that the fact that the American people have absolutely no interest in going to war with Iran and did not have any interest in going to war with Iran in 2003. My guess is if Bush had done any of that, there would have been attempts to impeach him, the American people would not have supported it and the whole thing would have been a whole lot more complicated and difficult than critics today can even imagine.
December 14th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Ironic, Quick is the goalpost-mover in chief. “But the world is still a bad place! Iraq might not workout! They should do it my way!” And then spouts something incoherent. He writes like a guy who has no clue regarding the history of war or the planet in general.
December 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Yes, it was a victory. It was a victory against Saddam, obviously. It was a victory against Al Qaeda, who declared Iraq the central front in their war against civilization, and who lost that battle decisively. In so doing, they lost a huge chunk of influence with muslims who used to be a lot more inclined to support them. Also now, societies now see from the Iraq example that they themselves can take a stand against the vicious terrorists, and win.
It was a victory against the corrupt politicians and “peace activists” and UN, who provided a buffer of corruption that protected and funded Saddam from consequences of his brutal thuggery.
It was a victory against tyranny in a place that only knew tyranny. It was a victory for democracy, and the world has two new democratic nations where before there was only torture and misery.
It was a victory against the Democrats and their Marxist elements, who wanted to force a US defeat to further their war against capitalism and American exceptionalism, or just to fatten their wallets by regaining the majority. That last part they did gain, but not at the expense of the war, fortunately.
It was a victory against the media, a giant propaganda machine owned and run largely by America’s enemies, who tried to repeat the lies of Viet Nam, but foolishly forgot about the Internet.
It was a victory for the blogosphere, which helped deflate every plastic turkey, shred every fake but accurate memo, and overexpose every attempt at fauxtography that the enemy could muster.
It was a defeat, however, for those who think we should only fight a war when nothing bad would happen as a result, when all enemies worldwide would be simultaneously defeated, when all other nations would salute our sacrifice, acknowledge our right to self-defense and thank us for their free ride.
December 14th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
[...] Crittenden calls this a “Victory Lap” which strikes me as a stretch, to put it kindly. There is, of course, the report I noted [...]
December 14th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I see nobody cares to dispute my gloomy picture of the current state of the war on Islamofascism - heck, most of you have bought into the new, improved, revised, walked-back Bush flip-flop , while you diddle around the edges of the Iraqi democracy distraction. Which only makes sense, because you can’t.
Well, be “damned glad” you voted for Bush, and keep right on sailing that doomed ship of fools into oblivion. As for the “armchair general” hooey, I can tell you that we had a heck of a lot more chance of taking on Iran in the days of the fall of Baghdad than we do today.
But of course, none of that has anything to do with George Bush, does it? Not, at least, in the fantasy world in which you live.
Always instructive to watch the Bush-infatuated armchair generals rewrite history - or perhaps they simply can’t remember it.
Support Grows for Military Actions - Los Angeles Times
December 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Please disregard
It was included by mistake.
December 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Thanks for a reasoned, rational response, complete with your cites and/or analysis supporting your opinion.
December 14th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Talking about upcoming Iranian Nuke possession as a done-deal isn’t spot on, Bill. All that is required–PLEASE GOD–is the courage & will to take out those capabilities. We or Israel need to get on with it. I personally would prefer that Mr.Bush does it as a parting gift to the Mideast and the World. However, I can’t say that I blame that large and stand-up man for taking a pass and figuring that Israel–probably soon led by Bibi Net–will take the necessary actions. I cannot imagine Obama with the required testosterone to do those insensitive things. So, IF Israel, they need to do it soon. But, it MUST be done.
With fewer Americans killed in Iraq than in Barack’s Chicago town this year, I’d say that enormous success has been demonstrated. ‘Mookie’ al-Sadr must be flexing alot more muscle than most of us here are seeing, Quick. That boy seems downright de-bollocked to me.
For the world to sit-by–within living memory of Hitler’s enablement in the 1930s–and allow Iran to gain nukes is beyond inexcusable. Israel won’t permit their own promised destruction. Nor must we allow the predicted nuclear gifts that an Atomic Armed Iran can hand to Dark Age Islamist Butchers. BUT, in an immediate post 9-11 world, it was the sewage pit of Baathist Iraq that was the most necessary cancer to dispense with.
Dean, you are right; Bill’s wrong. Baa-Daa-Bing, like dat.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
This is exactly why I stopped reading Bill Quick years ago. He shows an inherent nastiness when someone disagrees with him.
Now, Quick does give a gloomy look at the state of the middle east. But, to support that as a Bush problem, he would have to tell us which of his gloomy scenario’s would be different if we had not invaded Iraq and taken Saddam out. Since the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia started long before Iraq, it would seem that would hardly be different. It is hard to see how Iran would be any different if not for Iraq. In fact, we would most likely have the two countries building nuclear weapons. That would not be an advance.
Then, too, it is doubtful that Syria and Hezbollah would be doing anything different if Saddam controlled Iraq, So, if Quick is arguing that the Middle East is tough, I agree, But, if he is arguing it would be better if we had not invaded Iraq, well, that takes a bit more justification than he is offering.
Rick
December 14th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Bill Quick:
” I can tell you that we had a heck of a lot more chance of taking on Iran in the days of the fall of Baghdad than we do today.”
Now there’s myopia for you. Shia influence can flow both ways you know. It’s stunning that Bush detractors apparently can’t see a single benefit from turning Iraq into a U.S. ally, and have been busy assuring the world that the U.S. has zero interest in a presence there. A friendly Iraq is the only new thing that could conceivably be added the repeatedly & massively failed equation of carrots and sticks that has been the West’s approach to Iran to date. An approach that Russian & China have, and will be, all too happy to foil. Even if a military incursion on Iran were desirable, the idea that removing American troops from the neighboring ground would make it easier to accomplish is tactically risible.
December 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
they bought the distortions, outright lies
“But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.” -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03
December 14th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Suggested reading: War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism by Douglas Feith
Um, what did Tommy Franks call Feith?
December 14th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Islamofascist terrorism, of which Iraq was only a small part.
Iraq wasn’t a part of this AT ALL.
December 14th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
A democratic Iraq will put enormous pressure on Iran in the coming years. The Iranian regime knows it, too. That’s why they invested so much effort into undermining Iraq’s fledgling democracy.
December 15th, 2008 at 2:35 am
‘That is what this war was about and it is about.” -Ari Fleischer’
Maybe for you…not for me.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what kind of weapons they had.
December 15th, 2008 at 3:34 am
“Though the Iraq war is now looking like an astonishing success”
Some of us noticed that about five years ago.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:54 am
[...] Crittenden: Hate to quibble, but that’s been their mission for a long time. It was Obama and the Democratic-led Congress that wanted to end it irresponsibly. But maybe by “new mission,” Loven means new to Obama. [...]
December 15th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Yes, It is Victory Lap in Iraq. We won the war in Iraq, some time ago, when Iraq has its own trained troops to defend itself. And we took Saddam Out. The previous administration (Clinton) and the Democrats are on the record claiming Saddam had WMD. Foreign intelligence (British, German) were certain he had it and they drew the U.S. to protect its interest against terrorists. The war on Iraq was continuation on war on terror and is justified.
Ben Ladin is completely irrelevant even to his own Al-Qaeda group.
Lebanon, has always been unstable thanks to Syria. Thanks to Israel Syria lost some Nuke plants. Pakistan has always been unstable, since British mistakenly partition it out of India.
If you look at Middle East, all our problems point to One President poor Decisions. President Carter by taking out the Shah of Iran, and bringing back Ayatolah Khomieni, created the root of terrorism and instability.
President Bush, has done great job to protect America’s security
In few years, his presence shall be missed.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
MaryStella, you Iranian-American minx, how good to see you and your very special prose here.
Iraq, piniella, was a cancer that had to be cut out in a post 9-11 world. Period. Cut your vacation from critical thinking short and start reading. Come to think of it, Doug Feith’s tremendous Inside Memoir, “War and Decision”, is a dandy place to start. But, maybe a few basic works like Dr.Khidhir Hamza, “Saddam’s Bombmaker” and former UNSCOM Chief, Richard Butler’s “The Greatest Threat” to get you using some muscles first.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Bill, I think your analysis that March 2003 was the right time to hit Iran and Syria is woefully illconceived. I will assume you recognize the political, tactical and strategic reasons that made going into Iraq the right action and focus solely on what you have proposed as a post-Saddam strategy.
Saddam was a committed enemy prior to invasion and an acknowledged fiend, but look at the opposition to invasion that was still mounted by the pro-Saddam/pro-jihadi/anti-American coalition worldwide. Politically, had we wheeled about and headed to the east and north-west with the smoke still around our ears we really would have seen as the world bully. Strategically, as others have pointed out, we simply didn’t have the assets or materiel to effectively address either objective you proposed. And tactically, I can’t imagine a worse situation than turning our forces toward Iran only to leave the Ba’athists and Saddam in our rear to reconstitute, leading to a self-inflicted two-front war.