Posted on 08/04/2008 3:04:30 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In January 2007, with Iraq in flames and Democrats set to take over Congress, President Bush had two options. He could side with Senator Barack Obama and begin a gradual drawdown of American troops in Iraq, leaving the Iraqis to a grim fate and dealing a serious and consequential blow to American interests in the Middle East and beyond. Or he could side with Senator John McCain and change strategies, sending additional troops to Iraq in an effort to secure the population and assist the Iraqis in their fight against al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias--the so-called "surge" policy. This latter option was the one Bush eventually adopted, of course. And for that, he deserves the thanks of Americans, of Iraqis, and indeed the world.
The surge is over. The last of the reinforcements sent to Iraq have returned home. The Iraq those troops leave behind is an utterly transformed place. Since their first offensive operations began in July 2007, overall attacks have been cut by 80 percent. The sectarian bloodshed staining Iraq in 2006 and 2007 has almost entirely abated. American casualties have fallen dramatically, with U.S. combat deaths in Iraq in July 2008 the lowest monthly total since the war began more than five years ago. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been routed, and the global al Qaeda organization faces what CIA director Michael Hayden calls a "near-strategic defeat" in Iraq. Shiite radical Moktada al-Sadr remains "studying" in Iran, while his militia has been cut to pieces by U.S. and Iraqi troops. The Iraqi army is progressing admirably; more than two-thirds of Iraqi combat battalions now take the lead in operations in their areas.
As the advocates of the surge predicted, a population that feels secure is a population more willing and able to reach political compromise. The Iraqi government has met almost all of the "benchmarks" the U.S. Congress set for it, and, although a national hydrocarbons law remains elusive, the country's oil wealth is being divided among its 18 provinces. That wealth is increasing dramatically as security has allowed oil production to return to prewar levels (and as prices have soared). The major Sunni political bloc has rejoined the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Awakening, which began in Sunni-dominated Anbar province in the fall of 2006, has blossomed into a trans-sectarian, national, grassroots political movement. And Iraq is busy preparing for provincial and national elections that will further accelerate reconciliation by broadening and deepening the political participation of all the major groups.
It is worth pausing to reflect on what might have happened had Bush given in to popular opinion in January 2007 and abandoned Iraq. No one, of course, can say with absolute assurance how things would have turned out had the president opted to listen to Senator Obama rather than Senator McCain. But, at the very least, it is foolish to suggest that any of the military or political progress we have made in the last year and a half could have been achieved with a reduced U.S. "footprint" in Iraq. After all, it was the "light footprint" strategy of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Generals John Abizaid and George Casey that allowed the turmoil in Iraq to spin out of control between 2003 and 2007. The fact that America was continually looking for the exit during those years forced our allies in Iraq to hedge their bets and allowed our enemies to raise the pressure, eagerly anticipating the moment when they would have Iraq all to themselves.
Had Bush listened to Obama and decided to retreat last year, not only would the progress we see today not have occurred, but it is quite likely that the situation in Iraq would be much worse than it was at the end of 2006. Bereft of U.S. security, Iraqis would have turned to the nearest sectarian militia for protection from the widening civil war. An empowered and belligerent Iran would have moved to fill the vacuum America left behind, thus allowing the mullahs in Tehran to pursue unchecked their policy of "Lebanonization" in Iraq. And Al Qaeda in Iraq would have continued its barbaric killing spree, using the departing American soldiers as a recruitment tool, evidence of American weakness and unreliability. It would not be al Qaeda but the United States facing a "near strategic defeat" on Osama bin Laden's chosen front. And a defeated America would have led to a more dangerous world.
Fortunately, none of this came to pass. Bush sided with McCain, who had been calling for additional troops and a counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq since late summer 2003. We wonder what might have been averted--and what might have been accomplished--if Bush had adopted McCain's strategy five years ago. Whatever might have been, it was Bush's decision in 2007 that clearly put the United States and Iraq on the path to success. Those who attribute the gains in Iraq to other causes are deluding themselves. The Anbar Awakening might not have survived a year had it not been for the surge's demonstration of American commitment and resolve. Sadr fled to Iran and declared numerous "cease-fires" because Generals Petraeus and Odierno's full-spectrum warfare caught him off-guard. The sectarian militias were denied a safe haven and separated from the Iraqi population through effective counterinsurgency policies.
One of the chief lessons of the surge is that we are not powerless. Policy matters. The previous policy in Iraq was failing; Bush tried a new policy that is working. Another lesson is that, in this era of "soft" or "smart" power, force is still an effective means of achieving strategic goals. Those who argued that violence in Iraq would not stop until political accords were reached ignored the lessons of the first years of the war, when the Iraqis made great gains politically at a time of worsening violence. It was thought then, too, that the political gains would result in a more secure Iraq. Not so. When violence careened out of control in 2006, the Iraqi government was powerless to stop it. "Soft" power was useless. Military might was required to staunch the bleeding. And only when the violence was brought under control through the application of deadly force could politics resume and Iraq make its first real steps toward normality.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, experience cannot be separated from judgment. Experience matters. It was a lifetime of service and involvement in national security issues that gave McCain the perspective and insight to urge a change in strategy as early as 2003. When it came to Iraq it was the old man, McCain, not the young, fresh, and cool Obama, who was flexible in judgment and willing to try a new approach. And Obama has been inflexible in his error. He continues to advocate a political timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and states that he still would have opposed the surge regardless of its clear success. But a precipitous and premature withdrawal would undermine all the gains made in the last year and a half, and a timeline would breathe new life into the enemies of a stable and democratic Iraq. Barack Obama not only lacks experience and judgment; he lacks the capacity to admit he made a mistake and is therefore willing to risk everything the surge has achieved. Obama got it wrong when the stakes were greatest, and on the central issue of our time. Why on earth would we choose to reward him for it?
Its hard to disagree, although Obama is doing his darndest to obfuscate.
Agree.
The several items of disagreement I have with Senator McCain pale into near-insignificance when compared with my belief that, should this country mistakenly elect Senator Obama, we may not only lose our Constitutional Republic, but also our Nationhood and a sizeable portion of our population.
To believe judgement can be separated from experience one would have to indulge in, as Hillary put it "the willing suspension of belief". How can anyone properly judge the relative merits of one course of action versus another without having at least some experience in the area of consideration? Obama claims experience is not necessary simply because he has none and so has no other choice. As for his claim of judgement, well that is certainly open to question given his past associations and statements. In the end experience is something that can be seen and confirmed while judgement is wide open to interpretation as to whether it was good or bad.
Bush “siding” with McCain is rewriting history of course. And the idea that nothing the US did in Iraq pre-surge helped with the eventual success is far fetched too.
But the overall point that McCain was right to back the surge and Obama was wrong in rooting for US defeat is correct. Really though for the current election, the important question is why would anyone vote for a president who roots for the US military to be defeated. That is much more fundatmental than any claim that wisdom of experience led McCain to the right choice.
McCain is for US success because he see the US as a force for good. Obama is against US success because he sees the US as a force for evil. The choice for president seems pretty clear in those terms.
He says he would still vote no against the surge given what he knows now, yet he wants to have a surge in Trashcanistan after we abandon Iraq.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Concerning prior education and/or knowledge learned in a candidate for office.
When a nation is at war - one who is experienced in military operations - who has learned a profession which takes years to master - which becomes second nature to decision-making -
Why would a nation select someone who has absolutely no experience in the concept of military - especially military occupation in another nation - perhaps hostile - over one who seems to be a quasi academic and charmer?
Why not? Because military people have training few civilians understand unless they have experienced it themselves. It isn’t something we pick up on the way to adulthood - and for this reason McCain is the best choice of the proposed offerings right now, in this time of success or failure in the middle east.
We are coming so close to tying up the loose ends, gradually turning over our occupation (if that is the correct word) of assisting the Iraq people - perhaps moving into a more dangerous situation such as Afghanistan on a longer term basis. The war isn’t really over - it may never be for us - but the choice seems obvious.
Which is it to be?
Cowboy Wisdom: "Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement!"
marking for later reading
I love this line quoted from your post:
“When it came to Iraq it was the old man, McCain, not the young, fresh, and cool Obama, who was flexible in judgment and willing to try a new approach. And Obama has been inflexible in his error. He continues to advocate a political timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and states that he still would have opposed the surge regardless of its clear success.”
Flexible in judgment and inflexible in his error! That is a week’s worth of thought!
Whenever I teach anything, I always tell folks that you always learn more from mistakes than successes,
and it’s always better to learn from OTHER PEOPLE’S mistakes than your own.
Barack Obama has been wrong on Iraq since 2002, when he supposedly (according to the MSM) exercised his “superior judgment” in opposing the incursion. What the MSM refuses to admit publicly is that when Obama made this statement, he was a Chicago, Illinois based back-bench hack in the Illinois State Legislature. Now, he still is a back-bench hack in judgment, but somehow has become the democrat party nominee for POTUS.
For such a verbal critter Obama hasn’t shown his real hand has he?
I mean what has the man done - in Illinois or Washington???
If he says something profound, will he change tomorrow?
Other than his Magical Mystery Tour.
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.