The politicians are blaming everyone but themselves for this monumental policy failure.
As President Bush continues his Nixonesque policy of “exiting” Iraq by escalation and intimidation, both Republican and Democratic politicians are also imitating the Vietnam-era rhetoric of blaming the citizens of the chaotic country and their neighbors for the mess. In fact, the politicians are blaming everyone but themselves for this monumental policy failure.
As Nixon fingered Laos and Cambodia for acting as communist havens for the destabilization of South Vietnam and expanded the U.S. war into them, Bush is raising troop levels in Iraq and blaming Iran for Iraq’s problems. The Bush administration tried to get away with accusing the Iranian political leadership of providing armor-penetrating explosives to Shi’ite militias in Iraq, but when Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw no evidence of such leadership involvement, the administration quickly backpedaled.
Of course, if the Iranian leaders aren’t providing such materials and training to Shi’ite militias in Iraq, one should wonder why not. One might forgive even the despotic tyrants in Iran for being a little nervous. Troops from the hostile government of the United States have invaded and occupied countries on both sides of Iran — Afghanistan and Iraq. If a hegemonic foreign power had invaded Mexico, who would doubt that the United States would aid Mexican resistance? Yet, contrary to the findings of the U.S. intelligence community, the administration is now trying to foist the blame for the Iraqi sectarian civil war on Iran.
The situation is so bad in Iraq that U.S. politicians of all political stripes are looking for someone — anyone — else to blame. In the debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on the congressional resolution disapproving of President Bush’s escalation of the war, Republican Ric Keller, who opposed the escalation, blamed the Iraqis for their troubles:
Imagine your next-door neighbor refuses to mow his lawn and the weeds are all the way up to his waist, so you decide you’re going to mow his lawn for him every single week. The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots you. Under these circumstances, do you keep mowing his lawn forever?
Do you send even more of your family members over to mow his lawn? Or do you say to that neighbor, you better step it up and mow your own lawn or there’s going to be serious consequences for you?
Although Mr. Keller’s opposition to the president’s escalation should be praised, the arrogance implicit in this statement also runs through similar statements by Democratic war opponents. Because they want to get re-elected, politicians can’t “blame America” for the problems in Iraq so they have to blame the Iraqis.
One should ask even Mr. Keller and many other escalation opponents why a homeowner should be presumptuous enough to trespass on a neighbor’s property to mow their lawn in the first place? Also, Mr. Keller should realize that his analogy is imperfect. In fact, what the United States did in Iraq was akin to running a car over the neighbor’s lawn mower (invading the country, ruining Iraqi social cohesion, and then dismantling the Iraqi security forces), then expecting him to mow his lawn, and blaming him when he can’t. Finally, the Iraqis, like the neighbor, know that the threat of coming “consequences” — whether civil war or long grass — is already a fact on the ground.
Hillary Clinton, however, would prefer to blame President Bush entirely for the war and take no responsibility for her own vote in favor of going to war. Her position to date has been a cop out: knowing what she knows now about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, etc., she wouldn’t have voted for the war. Instead of saying that her vote was a mistake — a colossal one given that the invasion would not have been justified even if Saddam Hussein had had such weapons — and apologizing, she is now saying that if voters want to hear an apology, they can just go vote for someone else for president. She doesn’t know it, but this stance is the kiss of death for her presidential bid. She is trying to not be dragged too far to the left during the Democratic primaries in an attempt to win the general election by retaining moderate votes.
But even after the utter repudiation of the war in the election of November 2006, Republicans and Democrats have been slow to realize that Bush’s post-election escalation will cause opposition to the conflict to be a “tsunami” in 2008. After digging in her heels about the apology, Hillary will not even be able to get the Democratic nomination. Anti-war Barack Obama, or more likely, John Edwards — who has apologized for his war vote — will be the Democratic nominee and the next president.
Because Bush’s escalation flies in the face of public opinion — in both the United States and Iraq — he has sunk the chances of the Republican Party in the 2008 election. All the major Republican candidates — John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney — have been forced to endorse the escalation. Only the courageous Chuck Hagel has criticized the President’s policy, but regrettably he will not survive the Republican primaries because of that stance.
Although the finger pointing will continue throughout the 2008 election campaign, ironically the Iraqis — aggrieved but the butt of blame for their plight — will have had a powerful influence on who is the next leader of the free world.
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland
“ . . . One can, of course, reasonably disagree with the President’s foreign policy. The trouble is, most of the disagreement with it has been decidedly unreasonable, if not lunatic. No accusation against Bush has been too uncharitable, and no conspiracy theory too preposterous, for the anti-war party to bounce it around its echo chamber manically until it can hear nothing else. Yet the case for the war in Iraq – the focus (for the time being, anyway) of anti-Bush hysteria – was, and remains, extremely straightforward and reasonable: Saddam Hussein was required, as part of the treaty which ended the first Gulf War, to disarm himself of certain weapons, especially WMD, to remain so disarmed, and to agree to regular inspections intended to verify his compliance (per U.N. Resolution 1441 http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm );
1. He repeatedly violated the terms of this treaty; so,
2. The re-commencement of hostilities was prima facie justified. (The question of the legitimacy of ‘pre-emptive’ war is thus utterly irrelevant; the action against Iraq was no more ‘pre-emptive’ than is the arrest of a convicted felon for violating the terms of his parole.)
Furthermore, whereas there may sometimes be good reasons for refraining from war even when it is justified,
3. The risk of Iraqi WMD someday being slipped to terrorists for use against the United States was, post-9/11, plausibly seen as significant enough that continued Iraqi non-compliance could no longer be tolerated. (The question of whether the threat was ‘imminent’ is thus also irrelevant; also counterbalancing any possible reasons for refraining from war were:
4. The fact that modern methods of war make possible to an unprecedented degree the avoidance of civilian deaths (though of course these can never be avoided entirely);
5. The liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship would, in the short and long runs, save more lives than would be lost in a military campaign and produce other obvious benefits for the Iraqi people as well;
6. The elimination of the Baathist regime would put the fear of God into the hearts of other dictatorships who might think to produce or use WMD (as it in fact has in the case of Libya – though this has not stopped some anti-war types from denying the obvious);
7. It would eliminate an important source of funding and/or training for Palestinian and other terrorist groups; and,
8. It would allow the United States finally to pull its forces out of Saudi Arabia, their presence being, however justifiable, a source of resentment within the Arab world and a rationalization for terrorism on the part of the likes of Osama bin Laden.
“In short, there was by virtue of Hussein’s non-compliance alone a defensible justification for war; and the other considerations served to override any reservations one could raise about whether the price for going to war, even if justified, might be too high. Nor does the endless nonsense about Bush having ‘lied’ about WMD carry any conviction. No one, including the intelligence services of governments opposed to the war, doubted before the war that he had WMD; and only a fool would have interpreted his years-long non-compliance with the inspections regime as implying anything other than that he had something to hide. Finally, it takes a Flat Earth Society-level of credulity to believe that not only Bush, but also Blair and dozens, if not hundreds, of their employees, would have risked political suicide and/or criminal prosecution to cover up their alleged knowledge that Iraq had in reality absolutely no WMD to speak of.
“Now my claim is, again, not that someone couldn’t reasonably oppose the war despite the case I’ve just summarized. It is rather that the case for war is, at the very least, itself as reasonable as any case against. In particular, there is no reason whatever to appeal to sinister motives and conspiracy theories to explain the President’s actions. And the point is not merely that those actions bear absolutely no resemblance to Hitler’s – that is, to put it mildly, a fact too blindingly obvious to be worth mentioning – but rather to underline the unfathomable depth of the hysteria and disconnectedness from reality into which the anti-war Left has fallen. When you consider also that the President’s policies on such matters as the Federal prescription drug benefit and immigration have been, regrettably, the sort of stuff for which liberals have agitated for over thirty years, the Left’s hatred of him reveals itself to be pathological.”
“The Mustache on the Left”
By Prof. Edward Feser
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053807/posts
Comment by sedonaman | February 21, 2007
"One should ask even Mr. Keller and many other escalation opponents why a homeowner should be presumptuous enough to trespass on a neighbor’s property to mow their lawn in the first place? Also, Mr. Keller should realize that his analogy is imperfect. In fact, what the United States did in Iraq was akin to running a car over the neighbor’s lawn mower (invading the country, ruining Iraqi social cohesion, and then dismantling the Iraqi security forces), then expecting him to mow his lawn, and blaming him when he can’t. "
Dismantling social cohesion? Ah, the Michael Moore position. Everything was all sunshine and roses before we invaded. Stupid.
Please. Neither your nor Kellar's analogies is worth half a peso. Prior to our invasion, the Iraqis didn't even have a lawn. They were all stuffed into Saddam's shed awaiting his two maniac sons (or his Baathist friends) to decide they wanted a disposable toy, who would then disappear. We attacked Saddam, damaged the house and freed Iraqis from the shed. They, then are trying to rebuild the house that we damaged in ridding them of their slaveowner. And they're out mowing their new lawn with butter knives and forks…they don't have a lawnmower…while at the same time trying to avoid the rabid dog's that the house's old owner left behind, and all the boobie traps in the yard.
Yea, the Iraqis have done a pretty good job trying to build up the rubble of an already broken society, smashed well before the original Gulf war and further devestated by UN sanctions and neglect, all while having to deal with the realities of sectarian violence and outside dangers. The military and police forces are growing despite an over all lack of funding, and the government is doing it's part to help the surge secure Baghdad.
And furthermore, why would we have left the Pro-Saddam forces intact and expected them to be our ally? If Bush is being hardheaded, this approach would've been naive. "Here now, I'm going to give you a knife and turn my back to you…please don't stab me or anything."
Your analysis is ridiculous.
"Because Bush’s escalation flies in the face of public opinion — in both the United States and Iraq — he has sunk the chances of the Republican Party in the 2008 election."
This kind of hackneyed, over-bland type of generalization does nothing but reinforce previously held notions. "The public voted Democrats in…therefore they want the war to end." Even though every single poll conducted since the election shows that a majority of Americans want to win in Iraq…and winning cannot be achieved by either retreat or phased withdrawl.
Who cares if the American public, or even Congress, doesn't like the surge? It doesn't affect them in any way, shape or form. And they don't have the knowledge or experience to be lending their "expert advice" to the equation. The Constitution leaves our Commander in chief in charge, not Congress, and not the citizenry. Deal with it.
And finally,
"Instead of saying that her vote was a mistake — a colossal one given that the invasion would not have been justified even if Saddam Hussein had had such weapons — and apologizing, she is now saying that if voters want to hear an apology, they can just go vote for someone else for president."
And strike three, we're done here.
You're absolutely correct that it doesn't matter whether Saddam had weapons or not. You're dead wrong in asserting that it wasn't grounds to invade Iraq.
His non-compliance with the original cease-fire's conditions to let the UN inspect whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted…nullified the ceasefire, and gave us more than enough justification to invade and depose him…UN support or not.
Anyone who asserts otherwise either no understanding of how cease-fires work, or is too agenda driven to put forward a truthful analysis.
Oh, and just to clarify…not only did Saddam have WMDs, we found them.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Now you can stop spouting the discredited line that Saddam had no WMDS.
Have a nice day.
Comment by WolvenBear | February 22, 2007
Indeed WolvenBear. In fact, the Iraq war is over. Iraq is an emerging democracy in the midst of a troubled area. Soon, millions of Iraqi's will forsake violence and embrace life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Yes, thousands of years or tribal and religious sectarinism will melt into eternal bliss. Sunni and Shia will embrace. Arab and Kurd will break bread as one. George W. Bush will be remembered as the greatest president since Lincoln.
Fox News, warmly remembered as the network that discovered the weapons of mass destruction, will cover the death of the lone remaining terrorist in the Middle East. "The last terrorist is dead", Geraldo will report. "Middle Eastern terrorism has ceased to exist. We now go forward in peace."
This will happen if we surge and stay the course. President Bush was right all along. If we just believe in the man and the mission, all of our dreams will be filled with milk and honey.
Greg
Comment by GreginNY | February 23, 2007
I like now Greg not only didn't address a single point made in WolvenBear's actual comments, but also didn't make a single point or comment relevant to what was said in the original article either. Well done. Are you running for the Democratic presidential nomination, per chance?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 23, 2007
Patrick,
You are right. I didn't address a single point in the article, or in WolvenBear's response because it doesn't matter whether invading Iraq was the correct thing to do. The fact is we are there.
Before the war begain, I said that the result of the war would be the partitioning of Iraq into three states. One for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis and one for the Shia. I still think that is possible. Iraq is a balkanized state. It isn't a homogenious country like Iran.
I think the other possibility is that Iraq will become a Shia Theocracy. The Shia in Iraq have sufficient population and Iranian support to exert their will on Iraq. That is the less desirable of the two outcomes, but it will take care of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Could Iraq become a functioning democracy? Possibly. Anything COULD happen. But, in my opinion, that is ninety percent neo-con fantasy.
Wheter we were sold a bill of goods getting into Iraq is debatable. It's also moot now. We're still being sold a bill of goods on the outcome of the war. That's what matters now. What do you see as the outcome in Iraq?
Finally, I'm not running for president on the democrat ticket. I'm a republican. You'd call me a RINO, because I'm not "on message" with the party. That's fine. The on message republicans had their butts handed to them last November.
Greg
Comment by GreginNY | February 24, 2007
Every single soldier who has died in Iraq is the diect responsibility of the anti-war crowd, as is every dead Iraqi. The only reason that the enemy keeps fighting in spite of their continued losses is in hopes that those who want this war to end will pull out and hand them Iraq.
If this country could show 1/100th the resolve our soldiers have shown, this war would be over.
Comment by WolvenBear | February 25, 2007
"Every single soldier who has died in Iraq is the direct responsibility of the anti-war crowd, as is every dead Iraqi."
I'm a supporter of the war, and I think this comment is deranged. It would have been absurd enough if you had left out the word "direct." But "direct responsibility?" That's worse than absurd. That's essentially accusing principled opponents of the war of murder.
Since you believe public opposition to the war "directly" hinders the war effort, do you propose making the expression of such opposition a crime? If you really believe what you write, you should.
Comment by Katzen | February 27, 2007