The Iraq War does matter
It’s barely on the radar screen any more, but there are lessons of the Iraq War that matter in this election. It was a necessary war no matter how the Left wants to make it about weapons of mass destruction that weren’t found. I’ll never concede that point. It was a costly and foolish endeavor to keep Hussein in his “box” as the pundits liked to say. Countless surface-to-air missile assaults on our pilots made it clear that Hussein was never going to be a rational actor.
Everyone seems to forget that Bill Clinton deployed combat troops to the Kuwait border with Iraq no less than three times during his eight years. Terrorist training camps existed in Iraq, whether Hussein supported them or not is irrelevant, those camps would never have been closed without US intervention there.
The infrastructure to begin weapons development existed. Hundreds of tons of yellowcake uranium were found. Hundreds of chemical weapons were uncovered. The fact remains that Hussein was a threat to world peace, no matter how much the Left plays down his capabilities.
After Hussein, al Qeada became a threat to world peace from Iraq. They thought they had a chance to get some world-class propaganda by driving the US out of Iraq, because the US Left was ready to capitulate at a moments notice. George Bush dashed al Qeada’s hopes when the Democrats won Congress and he increased the presence in Iraq.
That brings us to this election. In the Wall Street Journal this morning, Robert MacFarland, a Reagan Administration National Security Advisor writes “Obama was Willing to Lose in Iraq” which chastizes the presidential hopeful for his short-sighted cavalier attitude towards losing in Iraq;
A profoundly important point is being missed in the campaign debate over which candidate was right on Iraq. In 2006, when conditions on the ground were trending downward and a decision was required either to continue the struggle or to cut our losses, Barack Obama stated that the proposed deployment of more forces, the “surge,” was doomed to failure and instead called for a phased withdrawal of all forces within a defined period.
In short, Sen. Obama was willing to lose. It was an astonishing display of ignorance to be so cavalier about defeat, almost as if losing a war was tantamount to losing a set of tennis — something without lasting consequence.
I recall very vividly April 30, 1975, the day we acknowledged defeat in the Vietnam War — the day Ambassador Graham Martin and others were evacuated ignominiously from the roof of our embassy in Saigon. Only later did it become clear how damaging that defeat was.
In Vietnam, when the overall strategy was failing, the US sought negotiations to end our involvement. When the overall strategy in Iraq was failing, we changed the strategy. It took decades to recover from the politicians’ defeat in Vietnam. If we had capitulated to Congress in regards to Iraq, it would have taken far longer and cost far more in terms of lives, homeland security and defense spending.
Obama and Biden both claim they were right and Bush and McCain were wrong on Iraq. Well, that’s easy to say and harder to prove. When the war is fought from a podium, it’s easy to be cavalier about our national security. It’s not so easy on the battlefield. Biden and Obama have never spent a day in uniform, they’ve never had to sacrifice, their battles have all been fought in the air conditioned, carpeted splendor of legislative office. They don’t understand the cost. Cost to them is the number of votes they surrender when they embrace a policy with which their constituents disagree – the constituents in their echo-chambers.
The Iraq War does matter and everyone who thinks it doesn’t can’t see past the end of their collective nose.
Category: Politics
I like the choice of the word cavalier, bec. that is how — to me — Obama and Biden come across about Iraq. Kind of that, Oh, don’t want to talk much about that and that’s a real distraction, let’s talk about what I want to do to make America great. As if sweeping it under the rug will make it go away.
Which is why I think he has a lot of young people’s votes, because they don’t understand the war and also see it as an annoyance and a bother. If a war that is so intricate and so devastating can be called insular or singular, I believe that’s what has happened. Until it touches you, personally, it’s just “over there” and is of no real importance.
Our youth generally have little or no knowledge of military history and history in general. Within this context, the Iraq War is only as important as Jon Stewart makes it.
We are losing the war of knowledge and perspective, and that bodes very ill for America and the world. Without perspective the Obamas of the world have leverage unknown since the days of Pharoh and Ceasar.
I’ll always have a subconcsious loathing of the Dems for how they conducted themselves on the Iraq war when they got a majority of congress in 2006, and I agree that it remains important. But I think A-stan/Pal is more important now, and I just wish they would articulate their policies on it more. That’s what bummed me out about last night’s debates.
The Iraq campaign is of strategic interest in this war, where the Afghanistan campaign is of tactical interest. Both need to be won and will help in the victory of the “Long War”. The problem is most democrats/MSM talk as if if just winning in Afghanistan, leads to victory.
yatyas,
I was singing a different tune last year when the surge started in Iraq and it was more important, but I think Al-Qaeda has been pretty well cleaned out/killed in Iraq and egregious problems loom in Pak.
And Jonn, don’t forget the FACT that cliton sent troops to die in countries that NEVER attacked us, like BOSNIA and SOMALIA, where 18 Army Rangers were led to their deaths by cliton like lambs to the slaughter!!!!!!
Funny how the gutless, hate-filled, anti-military extremists con-VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-niently forget THOSE facts!!!!!!!!!