War Defended
Washington Post, reporting on the shoe thing, informs that Bush “staunchly defended a war that has taken far more time, money and lives than anticipated.” On the first two, true. What were they thinking? On lives, there was in fact an expectation in the invasion that thousands of Americans could be killed by stiff resistance and chemical weapons. That’s why they made everyone wear the protective gear. There was stiff resistance in places, but Iraqi tactics and weapons were poor, and while some Iraqi soldiers and fedayeen fought bravely, holding their ground, launching counterattacks and staging ambushes … as well as in cowardly fashion, moving and firing from behind civilian shields … it ended when they either surrendered or died. Contrary to the expectations of the world’s major intelligence agencies and Saddam’s own generals, there were no stockplies of chemical weapons to be deployed. The cost in American lives that was anticipated came in a manner that was not. I haven’t noticed the news media scoring any big points in the anticipation department in this war, most notably in the failure to anticipate that George Bush and the United States military could win this thing.
That out of the way, here’s the war defense:
In Iraq, Bush said the conflict “has not been easy” but was necessary for U.S. security, Iraqi stability and “world peace.” He hailed a recently signed but still controversial security pact as a sign of impending victory.
“There is still more work to be done. The war is not over,” Bush said, with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki next to him. “But with the conclusion of this agreement . . . it is decidedly on its way to being won.”
Very gracious of him not to call it victory. But it is. Had Bush done what Obama and the Democratic-led Congress wanted him to do … begin a precipitious withdrawal and leave the Middle East to it’s own violent devices … there would be more American dead and a lot more Iraqis dying. With the promise of more to come. Because that is what happens when you appease despots, stand down in the face of threats.
Bush has created a promising new stability in a democratic, U.S.-allied Iraq, with Iran for all its bluster flanked and hemmed in. It is now up to Obama not to screw up the peace. And he needs to figure out how he is going to deal with Iran. Bush is leaving him with an allied front opposed to Iran’s nukes. Obama now sounds like he wants to weasel out with a threat that when Iran gets nukes, if Iran tries to use nukes on Israel, the U.S. will be really, really angry. Obama may not fully understand that the way Iran uses nukes, at least at the outset, is the way it uses terrorism. Indirectly. As a threat. As a way of throwing its weight around and influencing the behavior of other states in the Middle East, to the detriment of those states, the region and the world, to create the greater Iranosphere the mullahs desire.
During the flight to Bagram Air Base, Bush joked about the “bizarre” shoe-throwing incident but also said he did not think the episode indicated broader resentment among Iraqis. “I don’t think you can take one guy and say this represents a broad movement in Iraq,” he said.
And Bush told reporters that the mission in Afghanistan was “the same” as the one in Iraq: “To have the young democracy develop the institutions so it can survive on its own, not to repeat the mistakes of the 1980s, which is to achieve an objective and leave.” He added that the United States also aimed to “deny a safe haven for al-Qaeda.”
Upon landing, Bush addressed U.S. soldiers and Marines on the tarmac before boarding a helicopter for a flight to Kabul, where he met with Karzai. The Afghan leader greeted him warmly, the Associated Press reported, but Karzai also emphasized that the visit, Bush’s second to Afghanistan, came only after repeated requests. He said that he wished that Bush had more time and that the Afghan people could see Bush in person.
The veil of secrecy for the Afghanistan leg was even more opaque than that for Iraq, the trip coming as Afghanistan is being wracked by levels of violence unseen since the United States invaded in 2001.
What they generally avoid saying is that “wracked by levels of violence unseen,” year to date, amounts to a bad month in Iraq in the bad old days, and that the Taliban is doing the dying in Afghanistan at the rate of about 20 to 1. (Side note: that’s also who is killing most of the civilians, on purpose, contrary to the impression you might get from news reports.) The experts are concerned that Afghanistan could tip. It is a different place, different kind of war. Fortunately Obama is inheriting a military that is experienced in counterinsurgency, and is coming off a success in Iraq that eases the strain. Now, what Obama can do with his majority in Congress, seeing as he wants to spend his way out of recession, is doing what FDR did. Build up the military. Fast. Our enemies will take notice. Things will go better.
More on the task in Iraq.
After meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani at Salam Palace, Bush hailed the security agreement as “a reminder of our friendship and as a way forward to help the Iraqi people realize the blessings of a free society.”
Bush’s praise for the pact is particularly notable given that the U.S. administration spent years dismissing proposals for withdrawal timelines as dangerous admissions of defeat. The agreement came after months of hard bargaining by Iraqi leaders, who insisted on a firm date for the removal of U.S. troops.
Actually , the agreement came after years of fighting hard against the insurgency, al-Qaeda, and Iranian-backed Shiite militias, while dismissing proposals for withdrawal timeslines as dangerous admissions of defeat until conditions on the ground cold support such an agreement.
Although Bush and his aides characterize the agreement as a sign of improvement, it is still divisive and may not last. A national referendum on the pact is required in the summer; rejection by the Iraqi public could speed the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The country’s top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has expressed concerns about the agreement. Opponents are railing against it.
Ending on multiple ironic notes:
Last week in a speech at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., Bush vigorously defended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and argued that his administration had “laid a solid foundation” for Obama overseas. Bush also urged Obama to “stay on the offensive” against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
…
Bush drew acclaim from leaders in both countries. Talabani, speaking in English, called Bush a “great friend” who had “helped to liberate” Iraq. “Thanks to him and his courageous leadership, we are here,” he said.
Maliki thanked Bush for his support. “Today, Iraq is moving forward in every field,” Maliki said before the shoe incident.
And Karzai said, “I and the Afghan people are very proud and honored to the profoundest depth of our hearts to have President Bush with us here today.”
After the chaotic news conference, Bush went to Camp Victory, where hundreds of U.S. troops greeted him with cheers and whoops. “Thanks to you, the Iraq we’re standing in today is dramatically freer, dramatically safer and dramatically better than the Iraq we found eight years ago,” Bush said, positioned beneath an enormous American flag.
After Bush left Iraq, the al-Baghdadia network released a statement demanding Zaidi’s release from Iraqi custody “to spare his life.” It was unclear Sunday night what charges he might face for throwing the shoes.
“Any step taken against him will be a reminder of the dictatorial time and the violence and lack of freedom that Iraqis faced,” the statement said.
They probably should just smack the dope with a couple of sandals and send him on his way. But that would be a violation of the rights that American and Iraqi soldiers fought so hard and died to give him.
Outside the Beltway, re Iraqi scribbler’s shoes vs. troops’ cheers:
It’ll be interesting to see which attitude is more prevalent, say, ten years from now. While falling far short of its original objectives of creating a shining Arab democracy that would create a chain reaction throughout the region, we’re on a path to pull back much of our troop presence and turn security over to the Iraqis. It’s not inconceivable that Bush will be considered a heroic figure at some point in time, despite an invasion which spawned a bloody conflict.
It’s much less likely that Bush’s image will be rehabilitated at home. It’s quite likely that, contrary to what most of us expected even a few months ago, that Iraq will be a footnote to his legacy and the financial crisis — which happened on his watch even if it’s not his fault — will be what he’s remembered for.
Maybe, but that depends to a large extent on Obama; and it depends what we are remembering him for, if you’ll excuse the tautology. Ongoing success in Iraq and the Middle East means a dramatically changed dynamic there, and if democracy takes root, historians will be forced even if against their will to credit the man who forced the issue in a backward, despot-plagued region. Blame for the economic thing, too many people already know, is a shared burden.
History can wait, deep thot hurts, segue to yuks:
Gateway has fun with the shoe thing.
Hot Air, crediting al-Maliki for the block, notes Iraqi scribblers with manners are apologizing for their colleague.
Malkin: An Austin Powers moment.
Here’s a good one. Balloon Juice wants you to expend precious moments you’ll never get back watching the sockpuppet also known as Glenn Greenwald on Moyers arguing for the investigation and persecution of the Bushitler regime. John Cole says he understands why the Obama admin won’t, but wants them to do it anyway. Says we are, legally, two nations. (OK, let’s do the math on how many nations we’ll be, legally, after Obama sets up that special jihadi judicial system). But I support Cole on this. I think a long, dragged-out series of vindictive rearview hearings, court cases, all that, in the middle of a war and an economic crisis will help the GOP considerably in 2012. Especially since it looks like Obama wants to leave the door open to committing some of the same heinous crimes. I also hope, since Obama is about the hope and change, that he isn’t turning (more) gutless and avoiding persecution of the Bushitlerites just because he doesn’t want to be persecuted for whatever war crimes and outrages he’s getting ready to commit.
Topics: Afghanistan, Bush, Iraq
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:12 am on Monday, December 15, 2008
5 Responses to “War Defended”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“staunchly defended a war that has taken far more time, money and lives…”
U.S. military deaths 1980 = 2,392
1981 = 2,380
1982 = 2,319
1983 = 2,465
Now compare:
2003 = 1,228
2004 = 1,874
2005 = 1,942
2006 = 1,858
Conclusion: We were losing more guys NOT fighting the cold war than we are fighting the Iraqis and Afghanis.
For some strange reason the boys in the media were/are strangely silent regarding the tens of thousands of guys we lost (going back to the 1940s) NOT fighting the Cold War, but they’re constantly moaning over the 5,000 or so we’ve lost in Iraq and Afganistan.
Go figure.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Thank God for this ‘Right Man’ to trudge through to successes, no matter what the slicks and naysayers and haters did to sabotage the mission. President Bush is a very large historical figure of honor, determination, bravery and unfaltering love of country. They hate this great, good man all the more for his being right about the war, right about the nature of our enemy and right about staying on the offence.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
“While falling far short of its original objectives of creating a shining Arab democracy that would create a chain reaction throughout the region,…”
This is baloney. Nobody with any sense would expect the “chain reaction” to have happened by now. It is WAY too earlier to say this objective has not been met.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Oops. Way too early.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
[...] Yes and yes. [...]