Posted on 06/01/2008 11:59:42 PM PDT by neverdem
[Th]ey say if it bleeds, it leads on the nightly news. The recent silence from the mainstream news media on Iraq, however, is speaking volumes. While the war remains unpopular, our success there has been unmistakable. The Iraqi people, with the help of the U.S. led coalition, have succeeded in establishing the world’s first Arab democracy. Their achievement is a milestone in the war on terror and for the cause of liberty.
Beyond the Iraqi Constitution and the elections, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has emerged as the true leader of the governing coalition. He has battled and won against fellow Shiite and problem child Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia. The Sunni, Shiite and Kurd people work together in a national Iraqi Army. Together, they are taking their county back from the foreign insurgents that have invaded their homeland. Iraqi troops took the lead in clearing Basra and Sadr City, and are now finishing off the insurgent remnants.
No one likes to go to war, but even an elective war is sometimes necessary. With all the consternation these past years, President Bush may finally be able to say "Mission Accomplished" to what he originally set out to do.
This we know, Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He even gassed his own Kurd and Shiite populations in the 1980s. What happened to those chemical weapons? Who knows? Whether they buried them in the ground somewhere or trucked off to Syria, we had every reason to believe he had them.
In the months leading up to the war, Saddam acted as if he were hiding a nuclear program by obstructing UN inspectors visiting his installations. We have since concluded that his nuclear program was still in its infancy, but we could not have known that then. Saddam's power was in his bluff, but his bluff was called.
Following 9/11, we had to show we meant business in the fight on terror. Afghanistan fell quickly, but it was a sideshow. Look at any map of the Middle East and smack in the middle of it is Iraq. Think about it, if we could flip Iraq form a dictatorial state that sponsored terrorism to a democratic republic, there would be profound implications throughout the region. When most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, we needed to show Saudi Arabia, as much as anyone, our resolve. Regime change in Iraq was militarily and politically feasible, so Iraq was where Bush chose to make his move.
Saddam fell quickly too, but the subsequent insurgency dragged on for another five years. Though our casualties have been mercifully low, the political angst against Bush has grown virulent. Maybe Bush could have handled the occupation better, and the war should have been over more quickly, but our reason to go there was strategically sound. Bush made the proper decision with the urgency of 9/11 still fresh, and with the information available to him at that time.
In the early years of the Civil War, Lincoln lost battle after battle with a revolving door of generals who could not or would not fight Robert E. Lee. Lincoln finally found his general with Ulysses S. Grant who took after Lee's army and ground it down.
Bush had a similar problem with Donald Rumsfeld and generals who would not adapt to insurgents who did not wear uniforms and hid among the people. Bush finally replaced Rumsfeld and found his Generals in David Petraeus and Ray Odierno. The counterinsurgency strategy they employed made quick work of our enemies in Iraq.
Back in the U.S., however, liberal opposition to the war has at times reached hysterical levels and threatened to unravel all that we sought to achieve. Some things do not change. They have been acting this way since our days in Vietnam. And like our experience there, instead of finding ways to win they sought the worst possible outcome by unilateral surrender.
Liberals have never considered Bush a legitimate president. They have never gotten over the myth that the 2000 election was stolen. For them, Bush's decision to enter into an elective war that took longer than expected was just too much. His presidency is too emotional a subject for them, and reasoning with them about any aspect of it has become nearly impossible. But for anyone who still cares and is willing to listen, what we are seeing in Iraq today is exactly what we set out to accomplish from the beginning -- establish a beachhead for democracy in the Middle East.
Before the war, state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East were Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq. Today, only Iran and Syria remain -- with a democratic Iraq located between them. And in the information age, don't believe for a moment that the infectious seeds of freedom are not being sown in those countries and throughout the region. The promise of freedom for the oppressed is America's greatest strategic weapon in this war. In due time, tyrants in those countries may come to fear their own people more than any army that may threaten them.
We must remember that the struggle in Iraq is only one campaign in the larger global war on terror. History will intimately judge, but yes, early indications are that President Bush's victory was a worthy step in that overall goal.
I’ve had the same article/question asked since 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and I have the same answer: F’N yes.
Of Course it made us even more of a Lethal Power in Learning Urban Combat with our Strijing Power!
Someone’s ass needed to be kicked, and Iraq was the ideal candidate for the role. Large-scale terrorism requires state sponsorship, and if the states are afraid to do the sponsoring, terrorism will take a huge hit.
About 5 years ago, W, in a candid moment that nobody noticed, though I’m sure the video can be found, said we could go into Depression if we didn’t handle the ME carefully.
He was being honest about how we could all go back to eating grubs if the oil flow wasn’t protected.
I wish I could find that clip. It’s the most Presidential moment I’ve seen from him. He actually brought up the D word, at a time of growth, and he said it with alarm.
Damn! I'm suing for plagerism. I said exactly those same points on many posts on Free Republic.
My vote; F’N YES also!!
It’s half worth it.
Iran is the other half.
100% Ditto. Afghanistan and Iraq are unfinished business as long as the Mullahs rule Iran.
Rumsfeld was wrong on troop levels. Hindsight is 50/50 but the surge should have taken place earlier. Despite their unpopularity among many here on FR, McCain and Kristol were right on this all along.
Well, if you're a liberal, the answer is NO...no way Americans should be dying for a bunch of brown skinned people....but that's because liberals are inherently racists.
I think history will be good to W.
Me too. He did what he had to do with a situation he inherited from the Clinton administration and international organizations without installing a strongman regime.
Which war are we talking about? The initial invasion? The early occupation? The overthrow of the Baathists? Or later, when we tried our hand at nation building, or later still when we first realized we needed to switch to counterinsurgency mode. There have been lots of little wars against AQI and JAM, Sunni extremism and Iranian influence. Some are resolved, some are ongoing. Which war do we mean?
What value are we talking about? Taxpayer dollars? Human life? U.S. prestige? All parties involved have paid a number of prices. Some of them low by historic standards, some of them high. Are we getting a good return on our investment?
Who are we talking about this value applying to? The U.S. taxpayer? The U.S. citizen, who wants to send a message the U.S. will not stand for Saddam's thuglike actions and WMD ambitions? The Soldier on his 4th rotation? The Sunni who hasn't had regular electrical power since the invasion? The Kurdish nationalist who no longer has to worry about Saddam's goons disappearing him and his family? The Shia laborer who's now free to be as fundamentalist and extreme as he wants in his religious practice, without a secular government to hold him back? The average European, who's afraid of inflamed tensions with their aggressive Muslim minorities?
The answer to 'Was Iraq worth it?' depends deeply on what you project onto the question. It's easy to argue one way or the other, for whatever result you want.
You are right, SolidWood. Rumsfeld cost this country so very much. As inspiring as he was for the initial offensive operations, it would have been nice if he could have been a positive influence after...but he failed to appreciate the change in the situation, and his arrogant dismissal of the generals who did recognize the changing situation (remember the patronizing condescention against Gen. Pace?) kept us bogged down in ineffectiveness.
But remember that ultimately, it is the responsibility of George W. Bush. Sec. Rumsfeld offerred to resign, but Pres. Bush kept him on. If only the initial resignation had been accepted, we could be remembering Sec. Rumsfeld as having led a brilliant campaign to take Iraq, and thousands of Americans and Iraqis would still alive, with hundreds of billions of dollars saved, with Al Q on the ropes years sooner.
But then again, if Pres. Bush did not have such loyalty to his close associates, perhaps he wouldn't be where he is today...and we'd have had AlGore in there.
“tolerant values toward women”...Isn’t there a better way to say this? Tolerating someone just doesn’t quite capture the magic.
The author forgets the “no-pest strip” strategy which essentially depopulated Islam of its more virulent anti-US mental cases. They flocked to Iraq on Bush’s dare (Bring ‘em on!) and were slaughtered like pigs.
bump
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.