Yes, Barney Frank Admits, I Want to Blame Only Bush

As a long-term strategy for defeating jihadists, Americans blaming George W. Bush ad infinitum is sure to be a winner -- for jihadists. It's right up there with American retreat from leadership in the world as high on their list of goals. And sure enough, former congressman Barney Frank heartily endorses both.

Frank was among the guests on last night's Real Time with Bill Maher, brimming with his usual persnickety bluster. At one point he tangled with conservative columnist S.E. Cupp on the subject of the abrupt US military withdrawal from Yemen.

FRANK: There's a broader question here. There are people who believe that America's role is to be the leader in the world and to preserve order and I think the time for us to say, you know what, we want to be very strong, we want to defend ourselves, we come to the aid of some allies, but we've been the leader for a while, it's been very nice, it's your turn, let's let somebody else be the leader.

MAHER: Exactly! Yes! ... They need to have this fight amongst themselves, the way the Christians and the Protestants did in the 16th century. ... It's gonna happen. Let them do it.

FRANK: There are Americans who believe that, and they say this, they criticize Obama -- what's Obama doing about that? Why is it Obama's responsibility to referee these fights with people who've hated each other for a long time. I'm sorry they do. We can't stop it. (applause)

FRANK: ... Well, he has a little in Libya. More is for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ...

CUPP: I asked you if he has some responsibility for sending forces into Libya and then leaving ...

FRANK: In other words, you got us pregnant in Libya. So you're different about your pregnancy testing.

FRANK: Yes I do! Because the war in Iraq, the stupidest thing the American government ever did, the most costly and the most damaging, is a major reason why things began to deteriorate.

CUPP: We'll talk in five years about how great that strategy is once we've left everywhere.

To recap: Frank wants the United States to be "very strong" -- providing we rarely resort to actually deploying that strength. He's more comfortable with Russia, China or, who knows, perhaps even a nuclear-armed Iran assuming global leadership while America continues its well-deserved decline. Considering their laudable track records, only an unrepentant neo-con would fear for a future dominated by any of them.

Cupp tried to rise above partisan bickering over US foreign policy in the Middle East by repeatedly asking the question -- what are we going to do about militant Islam now? Nothing, Frank answers -- "leave them to their own." He gets it backward -- it is they who won't leave us to our own, and hardly a week passes without violent and graphic evidence of this somewhere in the world.

It remains a mystery why Frank when he was still in Congress, hard at work mandating that banks provide mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, also voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act. So did well over three-quarters of his colleagues in the House, with President Clinton signing the bill into law in October 1998 -- two years before Bush was elected. Frank somehow managed to overlook that the legislation wasn't more aptly titled the Liberate Iraqis by Leaving Them Alone Act.

In October 2011, I posted a reply which also incorporated a reply from 2006, now more than eight years ago! I repost this reply now because I believe it stands the test of time and remains largely accurate. I also believe it expresses many of the reasons why we are in the mess we are in today ensuing from the initial folly of the Iraq war. Please note my mia culpa for originally getting the Iraq war wrong.

Here's that post which, fair warning, is lengthy:

So This Is How Iraq Ends, in Futility, Bitterness, and Recrimination

After nearly 5000 body bags, tens of thousands of limbs, and $1 trillion, Obama is skedaddling from Iraq, vainly attempting to put the best face on the ignominy of our departure which is demanded by the very Iraqi nation we built. A war, originally started to make a safe from weapons of mass destruction, was waged against a psychotic dictator who had no such weapons. We succeeded in regime change, which was a good thing and proceeded to build a nation, which was a futile endeavor. Somehow, we lost sight of our national strategic interests for which we sacrificed our blood and treasure.

Today, we are facing a new Islamist crescent, dominated by Iran, and running from Pakistan nearly to the Atlantic shores of northern Africa. One of these nations is in possession of nuclear weapons and a second, even more fanatical than the other, will soon be possessed of such a weapon and poses a real existential danger to the security of the United States. The original justification for the war, to prevent Iraq from building an atomic bomb and passing it off to terrorists who would smuggle it into America and destroy one or more of our cities, is even more threatening today than it was the day before we commenced hostilities.

Whatever gains we have made in making the American people safer have been achieved almost exclusively by virtue of national technical means and by old-fashioned spy vs. spy sleuthing.

Our national security posture is substantially weaker. The nation has contributed to its own bankruptcy by squandering trillions of dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan. The war has estranged us from Europe and left us vulnerable to attack through that flank. It has aroused and energized the Arab street. The Mexican border remains a backdoor open to infiltration by terrorists carrying weapons of mass destruction as small as a mason jar full of germs. At the other end of the spectrum, Iran is at the verge of obtaining an atomic weapon and the means to explode it in the heavens over the homeland which could knock out our electric grids and leave tens of millions to die of thirst and starvation because they would be beyond the nation's power to succor them.

Whatever chance we had to prevent Iran from getting the bomb was always limited to a military strike and that option was swallowed up in the sands of Iraq.

Out of bitterness and frustration, we have turned upon one another in recrimination, even blaming John McCain of all people.

As a result of the American electorate's frustration with the war, Republicans were driven from office on Capitol Hill just days after the piece quoted below was written and they were later driven from the Oval Office. Today, we are ruled over by a potential tyrant whose allegiance to this country is dubious. His elevation to the highest office in the world could not have happened without our involvement in Iraq.

The following is a post which I first put up on these boards on November 4, 2006. As it says at the foot of the post, I invite your reaction. I do not repost this out of vanity but out of frustration and an aching heart. Above all, I ask what have we learned and where are we going?

Here is the piece:

Before the invasion I wrote that "God help me" I wanted the invasion to begin as soon as possible before the inspection regime or the French could so undermine the administration that the war could not be started.

Unlike these treacherous neocons, I will admit that I was wrong. In my own defense I can say, for what it's worth, that I was never seduced by the idea of imposing Wilsonian democracy on Iraq, although I of course would not have spurned it, but I saw the war in what I arrogantly believed were grown up and real world considerations of geopolitics. I wanted forward bases in the Mideast from which to strike at Syria and Iran if intimidation alone did not work. I wanted us to get all our hands on the oil fields to deprive Muslim terrorists of petrodollars with which to buy weapons of mass destruction. I wanted us to demonstrate to the Muslim world that no leader could sleep safe if he played a double game with America. I wanted to so intimidate the Muslim world with our military prowess that they themselves would turn against the terrorists in their midst because I believed, and still believe, that the only way we ultimately can win this war is to turn the sane Muslims against the crazies. And, of course, I wanted a regime change as the only effective defense against WMD's in Iraq. My mistake, and I believe Bush's, was to underestimate the tenacity of the Muslim belief system and to see the war in a two dimensional geographical box, like a game of checkers, where squares were to be taken and held.

Not only was I wrong but the result has been calamitous and every one of the "strategic" reasons for waging war in Iraq have been stood on its head. I suspect that the main reason there has been no terrorist attack on the heartland is because Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as well as Iran, are quite content to see America founder in Iraq. Iran, likewise, is the big winner from all of this as it moves closer to upsetting the entire balance of power in the Middle East when it acquires the bomb and perhaps fashions a Shi'ite Crescent running to the Mediterranean Sea. I believe my error came out of the false understanding of the nature of the global intergenerational war against terrorism: that somehow it was a war which could be conceived of in geographical terms. It is not-- although if it is lost the ultimate impact will be geographical. This is a war for the soul of Islam and we must not lose our own souls before we can save theirs.

Perhaps the very worst legacy of this whole Irak tragedy is that we are a daily demonstrating to the world that we are presently incapable of winning asymmetrical wars of terrorism. The Israelis just proved that in Lebanon. The people in Afghanistan are beginning to understand it. The tide in the Muslim world is rising against us as their fear drains away. So the goal of saving the soul of Islam has been made more elusive.

To compound the catastrophe, the "socialist" world of Cuba and Venezuela, Russia and China can read the daily events in Iraq and are emboldened as they have not been since the first Iraq war and seem eager to make mischief 1960s style.

Meanwhile, we've increased the danger of losing our own soul as defined as the will to win. Western Europe already lacks it and half of America possesses an anemic red blood count. Another tragedy of the Iraq war might will be to cause the installation of a Democrat regime in America which will align itself with the appeasers in Europe and so fatally succumb to jihad. The danger is as near as next Tuesday when, if the Republicans suffer a stinging repudiation of the polls, Bush might be left in as feckless a state as Gerald Ford was during the final pathetic agony of Vietnam.

Our dilemma is that we cannot win in Iraq and we cannot abandon it. We cannot win until we learn how to fight asymmetrical insurgencies against our occupation. We show no evidence that we have any idea how to do this at a price America is willing to pay. The training up of Iraqi forces, especially the police, is clearly a failure. So we are mired in a situation that spills our blood and empties our treasury and turns our friends against us. Meanwhile, the existential threat against America, represented by Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon which it passes off to terrorists to explode in the heartland, grows daily closer to reality. Our efforts in Iraq have so attenuated our military force that we probably cannot mount an invasion and air power alone probably cannot interdict Iran's nuclear program. This is well known to the whole world and especially to Iran so our ability to intimidate the Iranians into good behavior has bled into the sands of Iraq along with the Bush Doctrine.

Soon it will be fashionable even in conservative circles to blame Bush just as the neocons now are doing so ignominiously. My belief is that the miscalculation was to presume that the Iraqis, read Muslims, would behave rationally when presented with the opportunity for self-determination and democracy. It is not really that we made fatal tactical military mistakes in Iraq which we can lay at the feet of Bush or Rumsfeld, rather it is the nature of the traditional Muslim society that caused all of this bloodshed to be inevitable. Iraq has revealed that America has no stomach for the pain which must be endured to see such a traditional Muslim society through to Western democratic values.

Asymmetrical warfare works against armies of occupation but these tactics do not work against 21st-century Blitzkrieg, American-style. I fear that the American military will engage in another Vietnam style soul-searching and draw the wrong conclusion, that military force does not work at all in the war against terrorism. I am tempted, therefore, to argue that it was the occupation and not the war itself which was the bridge too far. After Iraq, I am humble enough to admit and perhaps it is I who misses the lesson.

I am well aware that new military adventures will be virtually impossible to sell until the inevitable happens: a strike is made against the homeland. If Al Qaeda strikes with anything less than a mortal blow, ie. a series of nuclear explosions, America might yet be able to find its finest hour. But strike it must if Al Qaeda intends fulfill its ambitions. God grant that they settle for half a loaf with an intensity level not exceeding 911.

We must fashion a new policy, a new strategy for winning this intergenerational worldwide war against a portion of 1.4 billion Muslims who inhabit the earth. We must turn rational Islam against this jihad or we will perish because we will rot from the inside out or we will simply surrender after our cities are turned into glass. We cannot hope to prevail if we eschew all military operations as ultimately counterproductive. We must find what works. Above all, we must not lose our soul.

I too supported the invasion as set forth in my mea culpa of 2006, reproduced above.

I supported the invasion mainly because I bought the idea that a nuclear powered Iraq could strike at the homeland by handing an atomic weapon off to a terrorist group who would put it on a ship and dock it in American harbor or simply smuggle it across the Mexican border where one or more bombs could be exploded. I even wrote about a scenario in which multiple explosions in American cities would quite probably lead to our capitulation.

There were, of course, other reasons to support the invasion of Iraq but the popularly understood casus belli was certainly the bomb. When that quest was revealed to be quixotic, the whole of Europe smugly said, "we told you so." Our relations with Europe had not been the same since and it provided a wedge for Obama to nearly break apart NATO. The connection today with our problems in Ukraine while Obama snubs the commander of NATO must be seen in this context. The occupation of Iraq, as you point out, was a disaster and permitted the Democrats to disengage from the war while pointing at the Republicans, win the Congress, and win the White House. At the end of the occupation it is not true that we had a civil society in place or a democratically functioning government ready to make Iraq safe. We had a Shiite regime persecuting Sunnis thus opening the back door for Sunni Isis to come in from Syria, thus opening another door for Iran to come in. Disaster piled on disaster.

The same rationale for going into Iraq now applies to Iran but we have neither the president nor the will to obstruct Iran getting the bomb. Disaster upon disaster multiplied.

Meanwhile, we simply have no idea how to counter the spread of the caliphate. Soon we will be forced to negotiate with Iran as we are forced to negotiate with Pakistan, North Korea or the Russians who have the bomb. That is, we simply lose almost all leverage and that loss of leverage is likely to extend from Pakistan's border with China to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean in Morocco. At that point we lose our allies in Europe who will pusillanimously cut separate deals with Islam to appease both the caliphate' s atomic threat and to appease Muslim minorities at home. As America becomes isolated, the Democrat party will become more and more traitorous.

These are the fruits of the folly of Iraq. I do not know if refraining from occupying lands we invade is key, certainly it is worth a try, we had no other policy because we have no policy other than whatever duplicity animates Barack Obama.

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.