A verbis ad verbera
Posted on 06/29/2009 6:09:06 PM PDT by presidio9
Against all expectations, Iraq has been one of the lesser problems on President Obama's crowded plate. With American casualties and civilian deaths far below their peaks, Obama has been able to focus on fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But with American combat troops completing their withdrawal from Iraqi cities this week, that could change in a Mideast minute. Iraq could be back in the headlines as a major problem for the White House.
There are sharp spikes in violence - a bomb killed at least 76 people in a Baghdad market last week - and Iraqi and American military officials say there is a good chance violence will get worse when unproven Iraqi forces take responsibility for security in all cities. Under an agreement signed by President Bush, that handover is to be finished this Tuesday, June 30.
American commanders are sticking to the schedule, closing outposts they once deemed vital. They've stopped most patrols and reports say there is little American military presence on most streets, even though 130,000 of our troops remain in the country.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared Tuesday a national holiday and likened the hand-over to a victory over invaders. So much for gratitude.
Still, the pullback is a victory of sorts for America, too, not least because of the flexibility it could provide the Pentagon. With the Taliban gaining ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama has ordered another 21,000 troops there for a war he calls necessary.
While he has made no secret of his distaste for the Iraq war, Obama's policy has nonetheless been solid and responsible. He stuck mostly with Bush's team, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and, given the Bush-negotiated timetable for getting all combat troops out of Iraq by next year and Iraqi desire to establish control, he has embraced the city pullback.
The only qualm is that Obama never acknowledged that the surge, which he opposed, was right. He has copied it for Afghanistan.
In any event, so far, so very good, assuming the handover to Iraqis is successful.
But what if it's not? What if recent attacks are prelude to a return of the sectarian slaughters that ended with the help of the troops now pulling back?
Would Obama watch Iraq unravel, or would he authorize the use of American firepower to re-establish order?
At a news conference Friday, he expressed concern, but didn't offer a Plan B if Iraq spirals out of control.
"I think the biggest challenge right now," he said, "is going to be less those attacks by remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq or other insurgent groups, and the bigger challenge is going to be, can the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds resolve some of these major political issues ... If those issues get resolved, then I think you will see a further normalization of the security atmosphere inside of Iraq."
You can't blame him for hoping that's how it ends, but Iraq routinely defies expectations. It went from hell to cakewalk to hell, then turned around when it looked absolutely hopeless.
Yet it remains a tinderbox. The government is weak and, as Obama noted, political reconciliation is elusive. Gangster thuggery and criminality are also big problems.
The battered Iranian regime could demonstrate its survival by stepping up murderous aid to terrorists in Iraq. Indeed, there is perhaps no clearer way for the mad mullahs to re-assert themselves than through their proxy armies, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
As of Friday, 4,315 American soldiers had given their lives in Iraq and more than 31,000 had been wounded. Hundreds of billions have been spent on a war that most Americans, including the President, believe was a mistake.
That's history. Looking forward, it would also be a mistake to allow progress to be squandered and for hard-won gains to be swallowed by darkness. Like it or not, Obama could soon face the fact that Iraq is his war, too.
I am a regular Fox viewer, and I can remember seeing Goodwin a couple of times. He is best decsribed as a right-of center NeoCon. Conservative on defense, liberal on social issues. But he's far from a regular on that channel. Bob Beckel and Juan Williams are on every day. So how does contriubting to Fox automatically make someone a hard-core conservative?
Barry’s Fault.
“That’s history. Looking forward, it would also be a mistake to allow progress to be squandered and for hard-won gains to be swallowed by darkness. Like it or not, Obama could soon face the fact that Iraq is his war, too.”
Obama now owns Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever happens is on his watch and if it goes down the crapper it is his responsibility.
Cheney warned you monkey-boy.
LLS
Obama won the Dim primaries becuase of his stance against the Iraq War that played well with the hardcore left. Then, during the general election, with Iraq a non-issue following the sucess of the Surge, he was able to dodge his anti-war past and entirely ignore Iraq. McCain should have made Iraq an issue but didn’t.
Oh, the ironies, that Obambi was elected because of W’s success in Iraq, and will now have problems there (and in Afghanistan) of his own making.
Iraq won the primary because John Edwards stayed in the race and got 24% of the vote in Iowa. Clinton got 25%, but probably would have beaten Obama's 33% without Edwards. Edwards stayed in, because he was holding out for the VP nod.
The Surge was not an issue in the general election, because the clown car media did not admit it was successful until after it decided that the economy was the major issue in the election, because McCain told them it was. McCain won the Republican primary, because Mike Huckabee took enough votes from Mitt Romney. Had Mitt Romney faced Obama with the economy as the main issue, there would have been nothing the media could have done to stop him.
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.