Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy (a liberal's critique)

The Atlantic ^ | June 23, 2014 | By Peter Beinart

[Brad from Tennessee]

Yes, the Iraq War was a disaster of historic proportions. Yes, seeing its architects return to prime time to smugly slam President Obama while taking no responsibility for their own, far greater, failures is infuriating.

But sooner or later, honest liberals will have to admit that Obama’s Iraq policy has been a disaster. Since the president took office, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has grown ever more tyrannical and ever more sectarian, driving his country’s Sunnis toward revolt. Since Obama took office, Iraq watchers—including those within his own administration—have warned that unless the United States pushed hard for inclusive government, the country would slide back into civil war. Yet the White House has been so eager to put Iraq in America’s rearview mirror that, publicly at least, it has given Maliki an almost-free pass. Until now, when it may be too late.

Obama inherited an Iraq where better security had created an opportunity for better government. The Bush administration’s troop “surge” did not solve the country’s underlying divisions. But by retaking Sunni areas from insurgents, it gave Iraq’s politicians the chance to forge a government inclusive enough to keep the country together. . .

[WilliamRobert]

Remind me, hadn’t we won in Iraq under Bush and we were handing over victory to Hussein’s regime? Then the Regime threw it away?

[Blood of Tyrants]

But sooner or later, honest liberals will have to admit that Obama’s Iraq policy has been a disaster.

Find five honest liberals. I dare you.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Obama inherited an Iraq where better security had created an opportunity for better government."

And then 0bammy walked away from the win.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Had Iraq remained stable, grown prosperous, and expanded its experiment in democracy, the Bush Administration would have ultimately been vindicated. Consciously or unconsciously Obama sabotaged U.S. relations with Iraq in hopes it would descend back into chaos. Obama was following a liberal tradition begun 35 years earlier.

After Nixon got rid of the draft, started an all-volunteer Army and Vietnamized the war, even Henry Kissinger doubted the South Vietnamese could prevail. But the ARVN slugged it out toe to toe with the North Vietnamese, beating back two major invasions. The liberals couldn't stand the possibility of Nixon being right. So in 1975 a cabal of traitors led by George McGovern, Teddy Kennedy and fellow travelers in the House, cut off all funds to the RVN and prohibited the U.S. military from lending air or naval support.

Hanoi couldn't believe the gift Congress had handed them. Within months the Soviet-supplied North Vietnamese had blasted their way to victory.

[SharpRightTurn]

Well, for the good of our country, let’s make sure he’s “all out” if he tries for another term as Speaker.

Gohmert, Hensarling, or some other conservative needs to take Suntan Johnny on.

[pluvmantelo]

Here’s the money quote:
As a former senior White House official told Peter Baker of The New York Times, “We really didn’t want to be there and [Maliki] really didn’t want us there.… [Y]ou had a president who was going to be running for re-election, and getting out of Iraq was going to be a big statement.”

So Obama condemned Iraq to chaos for selfish poltical ends.
But, we all knew that already. Dimly encouraging, I guess, that a putz like Beinart finally figured it out.

[atc23]

Well, I suppose Bush could come out and defend himself but he’s busy wiping the spittle from his chin and painting portraits of dogs.

[sakic]

Iraq was a win? For who?

We should never have been there. There was no possible good ending.

[Uncle Miltie]

Iraq was a win in 2008 for us and Iraqis.

Historical denial notwithstanding.

[justa-hairyape]

And probably too late, these brain dead lying leftists will realize that Maliki treated Sunni’s the same way Obama treated the Tea Party.

[justa-hairyape]

There was no possible good ending.

Saddam and his sons being killed was the good ending. Country should have been split into three after that. Was going to happen in the long run anyway. The US learned a painful lesson that Arabs and Persians do not mix well.

[afsnco]

You imply that there are rational, sane liberals that would make such an admission. They can’t be reasoned with because there’s no reason in them.

[Carry_Okie]

Saddam and his sons being killed was the good ending.

In terms of blood and treasure, 4,500 men and three trillion dollars worth? That's what it will have cost by the time we're done caring for wounded warriors for an entire lifetime.

[sakic]

Really.

Getting Saddam and sons was worth all of the dead and maimed Americans?

I will go out on a limb and guess nobody close to you paid the price. If I am wrong, your opinion is even more pathetic.

[blueunicorn6]

This is the best Summer I’ve had since I was a kid! The Democrats are stumbling around like a bunch of drunks trying to play hopscotch.

[justa-hairyape]

Getting Saddam and sons was worth all of the dead and maimed Americans?

Very few Americans died getting Saddam. We smashed the Iraq forces within a week. Almost all the deaths occurred during the insurgency years later which had nothing at all to do with removing Saddam and his sons. Why are you spotting progressive talking points here ?

[justa-hairyape]

oops..spotting should read spouting....

[Chgogal]

Bush won the war. Obama lost the peace. Has nothing to do with painting dogs or spittle.

[justa-hairyape]

See my response above. Freerepublic is typically above progressive canards. Again, why does the MSM continue to equate deaths during the insurgency with deaths removing Saddam and his sons ? They were two separate operations not even related. Did not even agree with trying to nation build so I view those deaths as a great tragic loss that was unnecessary. We need to run operations like the Israelis run them. In and out.