Skip to comments.Iraq then and now: Bush was right and Obama was wrong
Posted on 03/20/2017 4:56:11 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
This is the 13th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War II.
What if President George W. Bush had not invaded Iraq? I suggest this scenario:
1. Saddam Hussein would have become a bigger threat to the region. He had clearly come to the conclusion that the West would not stop him and was acting as such.
2. Iraq would have continued shooting at U.S. and UK planes enforcing UN resolutions. How many times do you allow someone to fire missiles at your aircraft?
3. What about Israel? We do know today that Iraq won't be attacking Israel or has WMDs to threaten its neighbors. We can thank President Bush for that.
Bush's critics need to answer one simple question: what if Bush had not invaded Iraq?
I have not heard anyone explain how the region would have been better if we had left Saddam in power.
Or, they say "knowing what we know now." They have to make a call based on what we knew then. What we knew then is that the twin towers had been brought down, Saddam Hussein was behaving very badly.
If Americans have learned anything since 9/11 is that when people say they intend to kill you please take them seriously.
The second question is: what if President Obama had left a force in Iraq in 2011 to protect our gains? This is a more relevant question and the Middle East is exhibit A of what our retreat accomplished.
For the moment, President Bush gets all of the criticism about Iraq and President Obama gets a free pass from a friendly media. Over time, it will change and Bush will get credit for leadership and Obama will be blamed for retreating and forcing his successor to have to go back in.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I grow weary of “What if”. Obama was wrong and W was wrong - for different reasons. End of story
Iraq was invaded to serve Saudi interests and their security, the nation so many of the 9/11 terrorists came from.
The Leftist critics always called Bush a “Texas oil man” but as I read some months back on the BBC website a Saudi official was claiming heavy investment in the oil industry in the USA.
Our deeply in debt nation needs the Saudi money, that underlies Iraq regardless of who was president.
Obama pulled troops out to look good with the anti-war Left while he kept them in Afghanistan.
He was ultimately forced to put them back in because of the Islamic State, a problem with Saudi Arabia’s name written on it since their jihadists entered Syria to try and take power away from Assad.
Bush was wrong thinking you could build a democracy in a Mooselimb country. He had won the war and it was stable when he left but Obama pulled out leaving a vacuum for ISIS.
Bush destabilized the ME by going after his daddy’s demons instead of finding bin laden
Of course. Obama was or rather is wet behind his mega ears and never understood the mid east.
W did and continued to fight against Saddam’s war of agression
Just needed a force of 20,000 to maintain order in 2008. The Community Agitator comes in and pulls out of Iraq. Brilliant! Then destabilizes Syria, Libya, Egypt, Turkey, rewards Iran, pulls out of Afghanistan, etc... Coincidence?
Well, Bush was wrong about Iraq, Obama was wrong about Syria and they both had the unwavering support of John McCain. Who, by the way, is still out there: http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/is-mccain-hijacking-trumps-foreign-policy/
Bush is a traitor #### who I CANT BELIEVE anyone here would be naive/insulting enough to post this garbage.
He slept with the sauds so much that i’m surprised he didn’t have their babies.
#### Iraw, i two cent dictatorship.
Saudi Arabia was protected from the DEFINITE involvement in 9/11.
Have donated 10s of billinons. TENS!!
3000 are dead because of Saudi Arabia.
The towers I worked in are gone.
You insult too many people to count by posting this
Next time ignore the critics who hate this nation and do what needs to be done. You win the battle, you get the land. We did not annex it nor intend to. If we are going to expend resources in the rebuilding then we get a say in how the money and manpower is used.
Drivel...... unadulterated balderdasious drivel
Saddam was funding global terrorism in Israel and elsewhere.
Iraq and Saddam’s removal served to destabilize the ME. Now look what we have, more chaos than before. You can’t bring democracy to those who don’t want it.
1. The 500 metric tons of yellow cake uranium that was sold to Canada would still be there.
2. The chemical weapons used by Syria would still be in Iraq.
Yes, the article and any idiot who believes it is drivel, unadulterated.
I would trade Saddam Hussein being the leader of Iraq again for the return of the nearly 4,500 dead U.S. soldiers and 1.7 trillion spent on that war, to be frank.
I am sorry but Iraq was an epic mistake made by moron Bush and his idiot sycophants. He goes up there with Carter and Obama as one of the worst. Add me to the list of those who’d rather see Saddam in power than all those precious American lives and dollars lost.
What about Obama and Iraq?
I have read posts in this forum that flat out say the “Conservative Movement” in this country is artificial turf (astroturf) for the Republican Party Establishment.
I have no disagreement with such a notion.
Liberal Republicans and Statists have hijacked the “conservative” label making it tired and worn.
Labels like “Libertarian” or “Constitutionalist” seem like good ones, although I’m not endorsing the political parties with those names on them.
Globalist money is in the Libertarians and the other seems weak and ineffectual, are they paid to be so????
“Bush destabilized the ME by going after his daddys demons instead of finding bin laden”
I believe you are absolutely correct. Furthermore, with all the “rules of engagement,” and piss poor military strategy for most of the eight years of his presidency, he caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands of our young men and women while he ran up a $3 trillion dollar tab for our children to have pay back. When he was elected, I discounted those on the Left who said Boosh wasn’t particularly bright. I hate to say it, but in some sense, they were right. Don’t get me started about the feckless Obola’s role in making it an even worse mess.
+1. I know several Goldstar families and I would make that trade in a nanosecond.
“...do you complain about having troops in Germany, Okinawa or South Korea? “
Yes I do. Especially when the “host” countries don’t pony up their fair share.
Yes, that’s the big sin in all this.
If He left the 10k troops there, MAYBE, though I would still be angry at Bush for letting Saudi Arabia off the hook, Bush would have had a legacy.
Obama destroyed any chance of that.
Those 10k troops mean no ISIS, things were calming down in Iraq, and they would have been a good friend being as they are next to their ex arch enemy and our current one, Iran.
He DESTROYED the area.
The surges Iraq is making against ISIS with the help of US air support NOW may yet bring a welcome ally in the future.
We shall see.
obama’s a piece of ####.
I think it was ultimately foolish to invade in the name of establishing a democracy; first, because in that part of the world, voting for “freedom” or “liberty” or whatever constructs of democracy come to mind are apostasy over the worship of Mohammed. It is that simple. The hardest thing to get people to do is to dump their religion. This has been proven throughout all of human history over many religions. To get them to renounce Islam in favor of a Western set of idea(l)s that they hate and do not subscribe, in the format of an invasion and conquest is even harder. I think any 2nd year student of Arab studies could have seen this. But the geniuses in our government, The phd’s, could not.
Second, the idea that you are going to establish a democracy in an area where the people have had zero experience with it, have the kill-or-be-killed and steal whatever you can ethos of Islam and NONE of the morality that ALL the founders saw and knew would be required to establish and maintain our form of govt; was naive. Most of these nations were observably controlled effectively when and where they had a brutal dictator in charge. We don’t understand this calculus and we still don’t. We were obviously not going to go in and become tyrannical. But this is what these countries are used to. We can like it, we can decry it, but it is a fact. Denying facts is a tough business.
Third, Saddam may have had WMD, probably did, but I never understood why they constituted a threat to the US. Additionally, Saddam could have been manipulated to shepherd his weapons in ways that would have revealed their presence and locations by a campaign of subtle harassment the threat of overwhelming retaliation.
Fourth, the US had the best thing going as far as that part of the world when Iraq and Iran were at war and IMO that condition should have been encouraged, ghoulish as it may sound. Additional succor could have been extracted from the Saudis if the Bush admin was clever enough to manipulate instead of being manipulated by Wolfowitz et al. They just weren’t that smart. They thought they stood on a righteous and superior pedestal, much like liberals do. They were mistaken.
Japan, because of North Korea and China, are now ready to build back their military.
Instead of invading Iraq, Bush should have invaded Saudi Arabia and taken all of their oil. The Saudi’s were complicit in bombing the Twin Towers.
The Wahabi Saudi’s are the greatest menace to the world, along with Iran. They openly brag that they bankrolled 40% of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Why isn’t the media talking about that instead of the Russia/Trump fake news?
Saudi Arabia interfered in the USA elections much more than any other country on the planet.
In 2011 when we pulled out, I was in favor of pulling more troops out of Germany and sending the troop savings there to Iraq. Putin and the Ukraine changed that calculation. Last week was the first British troops of an estimated 800 being forward deployed to Estonia. There are other NATO countries (including the U.S.) that are taking part in more exercises in central European countries like Poland, Latvia and Lithuania.
Now is not the time for America to disengage from the world. Every time we have done that in the past 100 + years, it has ended in catastrophe. We need to have a proper show of force and work with our allies to prevent possible upcoming catastrophes in central Europe, Middle East and the Orient. If managed properly, I believe the world will not go over the edge. If not, I shutter to think of the consequences.
You can say that is Europe/Asia/Middle Easts problems, but before long their problems always end up being our problems. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure as they say. You want to have our country fall from Superpower status? Be involved in endless war, it’s a sure way to second country status. We need to be in the business of preventing wars right now.
0bama was supporting his mussie buddies.
BINGO!! We have a winner!
You are exactly right, and in the process Bush started the whole mess we have today. What a globalist a$$hole.
People that are suffering under a tyrannical government have the perfect right to remove and replace that government with one that respects natural rights. A free country has the right to help if it is in their rational self interest to do so.
I like your analysis. Our deep state is indeed in bed with the Saudis. A divided, chaotic Iraq is much preferable to the Saudis than a strong-man dictator like Saddam Hussien.
Syria is another Saudi power play and once again, they supported Jihadi groups to do their dirty work for them. They seek to turn it into a Sunni satrapy, and also make it safe for their oil pipelines to Europe. The deep state also likes the idea of poking Russia in the eye, so they were all-in as well in the destruction of Syria.
“Iraq and Saddams removal served to destabilize the ME.”
You left out a few things: The Iran/Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam’s apparent involvement in the first Trade Center bombing. Doesn’t seem like a real stable part of the world to be disengaged from if they are threatening us. Saddam was Bush 1s problem, but the electorate kicked him out before he was able to clear it up. Clinton refused to do anything and fostered conditions for 9-11.
You are right on the democracy thing. A bad sign was the very limited obvious popular support of Iraqis for the defeat of Saddam. living under a tyrant who thought he was the reincarnation of Stalin and Hitler probably didn’t help.
Perhaps I should have said “further destabilized” the ME. Historically, it has been and will always continue to be a hotbed of war/terrorism, etc.
Do I agree that we needed to wage a battle against those who attacked us? Absolutely. Do I agree that Saddam was Bush 1’s issue, yes. Did Clinton do anything with Bin Laden when he had the chance? No.
Yes, it’s a lovely thought that democracy reigns and all countries enjoy it. IMHO, it is just not possible for all countries. Not when it’s been a certain way for millennia. Doesn’t mean it can’t change, but that change has to be gradual and with the will of the people, not forced down their throats by the well meaning US/Coalition forces.
With due respect and I know that reasonable people can differ , let me answer your questions. I think Donald Trump, our president, was right and I will briefly address each point in caps to distinguish your hypothesis from mine.
1.” Saddam Hussein would have become a bigger threat to the region. He had clearly come to the conclusion that the West would not stop him and was acting as such”.YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF THE THREAT THAT WAS CREATED BY REMOVING HIM. IT IS CALLED ISIS. THERE WERE ABSOLUTELY NO WMD SO WHAT DID WE INVADE THIS COUNTRY FOR. THERE WAS NO THREAT TO THE UNITED STATE WHATSOEVER.
2. “Iraq would have continued shooting at U.S. and UK planes enforcing UN resolutions. How many times do you allow someone to fire missiles at your aircraft?” DID YOU KNOW THAT OUR IMPOSED “NO FLY ZONE “WAS ILLEGAL AS HELL? IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT REPEAT NOT SANCTIONED BY THE UN. IN FACT IT WAS REBUKED AT THE UN. WHAT GIVES US A RIGHT TO IMPOSE A “NO FLY ZONE” OVER A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY? THIS WAS A VIOLATION ON INTERNATIONAL LAW. THE GULF WAR HAD BEEN OVER FOR 14 YEARS !! YOU ARE OK WITH CHINA IMPOSING A NOFLY ZONE OVER THE U.S. AND WE DON’T FIRE MISSILES AT THEM?
3. What about Israel? We do know today that Iraq won’t be attacking Israel or has WMDs to threaten its neighbors. We can thank President Bush for that. ISRAEL?? IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED ISRAEL!. WE BLOW 3 TRILLION DOLLARS 9ENOUGH TO REBUILD THIS COUNTRIES INFRASTRUCTURE) 5000 DEAD SOLDIERS , 40,000 WOUNDED AND MAIMED SOLDIERS ,OVER 300,0OO CIVILIAN IRAQIS SO THAT SOMEDAY SOMEONE WON’T ATTACK ISRAEL? WHO IS NEXT? SAUDI ARABIA?
GOERGE W. BUSH MADE THE GREATEST BLUNDER OF ANY PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY FOR WHICH HE TOTALLY PUT THE DEMOCRATS IN THE PRESIDENCY.
"ISRAEL?? IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED ISRAEL!"
Sorry you are so clueless, Wendle.
1991: Iraqi Scud missiles hit Israel
Iraq has attacked two Israeli cities with Scud missiles, prompting fears that Israel may be drawn into the Gulf War.
Israel's largest city, Tel Aviv, and Haifa, its main seaport, were hit in the attacks, which began at 0300 local time (0100 GMT), when most residents were asleep.
Reports from Tel Aviv say the air was filled with the wail of sirens and minutes later up to eight missiles streaked in and exploded in balls of flame.
Residents scrambled for protective clothing and gas masks, issued to most of the population before the conflict began. It is the first time Tel Aviv has been hit in the history of the Israel-Arab conflict.
Israel has the strongest military forces of any Middle Eastern country, and has said that any attack by Iraq would bring massive "punishment".
The American President, George Bush, issued an appeal to Israel to hold back from retaliation for the attack.
Allied commanders have been ordered to make special sorties to seek out and destroy Iraqi missile sites and mobile launchers which could threaten Israel, and Mr Bush emphasised his determination to protect Israel from further attack.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, called an emergency meeting of the ministerial defence committee of senior ministers and military officers to decide Israel's response.
After the day-long meeting, the Foreign Minister, David Levy, told journalists no decision had yet been taken on whether to retaliate.
"Israel reserves the right to retaliate in the manner and with the scale and method of its own choosing," he said.
Any Israeli military action could break apart the multi-national coalition against Iraq by provoking the Arab members to withdraw their support.
"ISRAEL?? IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED ISRAEL!"
Sorry you are so clueless, Wendle.
2 Die as Scuds Hit Tel Aviv,
January 27, 1991
Patriots shoot down all but one of seven missiles fired at Israel. The Jewish state holds its fire despite internal pressure to retaliate.
|From Times Staff and Wire Reports
TEL AVIV Iraq fired a rain of seven Scud missiles into Israel on Friday, and one crashed into a house in Tel Aviv, killing a neighbor next door. But Israel refrained from retaliating despite complaints that allied Scud-killing in Iraq has been too slow.
A barrage of Patriot interceptors blew apart the other six Iraqi Scuds in midair, scattering debris over greater Tel Aviv and near Haifa. Shutters shattered, windows broke and shingles fell on city streets. None of the Scuds carried poison gas. But 66 Israelis were injured, authorities said--most of them slightly.
Baghdad's latest military communique claimed that most allied attacks on Iraq were directed at civilian targets. CNN's Peter Arnett, the last foreign correspondent in Baghdad, said the Iraqis took him to a small town where almost two dozen homes were destroyed in what he was told was an air attack. The Iraqis said 24 civilians were killed in the attack, he reported.
The Scud attack also came as the United States was rushing more Patriots to Israel. The Israeli army said the U.S. missiles would be operational "in a short time."
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is trying to draw Israel into the gulf war in hopes of driving some Arab states out of the anti-Iraq alliance and onto Iraq's side in a war against their traditional enemy, the Jewish state.
Baghdad radio Friday night appealed to Arab officers and soldiers to defect. "Do you not feel proud," the radio said, "to see us stand up against all the Arabs' enemies, not scared or frightened? . . . Then why do you not join us?"
It wasn't clear if the often-jammed and static-filled radio, which was monitored in Nicosia, Cyprus, could be heard in the Saudi desert where Syrian and Egyptian troops are camped.
He ‘kept you safe’
ITEM--After meeting over room-temperature Brie and chilled Krystal at the Four Seasons, neocons came back to their office IN THE WH, and duped GWB into believing the Iraq strike would cost $50-60 billion American tax dollars.
Later an angry Bush fired advisor Larry Lindsey because Lindsay dared to say the war might cost more like $100 billion.
That was in 2007 dollars.
FAST FORWARD TO TODAY Iraq and Afghanistan today have cost the US some $3 TRILLION and counting....and rivers of young blood. We/re still pouring US tax dollars into those decrepit Mideast countries, and..... as Donald says....the US got NOTHING in return.
BTW, look who controls most of the Iraqi oil fields today.
Could THIS be what the calculating neocons are after (/snix)?
ITEM--The war profiteering was outrageous. Neocon godfather Richard Perle relaxing in Paris (above the fray---nowhere near his cohorts plotting in the WH Office of Special Ops) got so rich w/ insider info, the wsj reported Perle started his own oil company.
The Chinese put China first. The Russians put Russia first. Israelis believe in Israel first. So, whats wrong with Americans seeking to put our country before a faceless, vacuous globalism that has eaten away at our manufacturing base, taken the lives of our best and brightest overseas, and threatened our standard of living for decades?
According to neoconservatives like Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, apparently a lot. Kristol let out a tweetstorm before and during Donald Trumps America First themed inauguration speech Friday, highlighted by this gem: "I'll be unembarrassedly old-fashioned here: It is profoundly depressing and vulgar to hear an American president proclaim "America First."" Depressing and vulgar
Wow! In a prime example a true globalists gloves coming off, Kristol and his neoconservative ilk cant help but expose themselves for the anti-American hucksters they are.
In a classic example of the strawman fallacy, they like to link the movement to put our people first, just as every other nation does, to the often pro-Nazi America First movement that existed prior to World War II. But Trump is having none of it. (Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
You forgot to mention Ross Perot.
Yes. The Weakly Standard, and National Review, are neocon traitors to the conservative cause in general, and the USA in particular. I include the whole Bush clan.
Wait a minute— WE ATTACKED IRAQ 12 YEARS LATER. I missed that reason. silly me , I thought it was WMD. How could I have missed that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.