In the Arena

Obama on Iraq

Well, at least he didn’t announce the end of major combat operations in Iraq under a banner that said “Mission Accomplished.” He did it in front of the Disabled American Veterans, the most grave and sober audience imaginable. And appropriately so, after a war that should never have been fought, a war that by some estimates will cost $3 trillion before it’s done (including the health care services rendered to those represented by the DAV), a war whose casualties number in the 100s of thousands. The war in Iraq hasn’t been much in the news over the past year, but this is an important moment, a moment for  reflection, for humility in the face of a national disaster.

There is no “victory” in Iraq, nor will there be. There is something resembling stability, but that might not last, either. There is a semblance of democracy, but that may dissolve over time, or in the next few months, into a Shi’ite dictatorship–which, if not well-run, will yield to the near-inevitable military coup. Yes, Saddam is gone–and that is a good thing. The Kurds have a greater measure of independence and don’t have to live in fear of mass murder, which is a good thing, too. But Iran has been aggrandized. Its Iraqi allies, especially Muqtada Sadr’s populist movement, remain a force that will play a major role–arguably one more central than ours–in shaping the future of the country. This attempt by western neo-colonialists–that is, the Bush Administration–to construct an amenable Iraq will most likely end no better than previous western attempts have. Certainly, even if something resembling democracy prevails, the U.S. invasion and occupation–the carnage and tragedy it wrought–will not be remembered fondly by Iraqis anytime soon. We will own the destruction in perpetuity; if the Iraqis manage to cobble themselves a decent society, they will see it, correctly, as an achievement of their own.

There are other consequences of this profound misadventure. The return of the Taliban in Afghanistan is certainly one; if U.S. attention, and special forces, hadn’t been diverted from that primary conflict, the story in the Pashtun borderlands might be very different now. The credibility of the United States–slowly recovering due to the efforts of Barack Obama–is another, after a war promulgated by a gale of ignorance at best and chicanery at worst. The sense of the United States as a nation of tempered, honorable actions may never recover from the images of the past decade, especially the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison.

The replacement notion that it was our right and responsibility to rid Iraq of a terrible dictator–after the original casus belli of weapons of mass destruction evaporated–is a neo-colonialist obscenity. The fact that Bush apologists still trot out his “Forward Freedom Agenda” as an example of American idealism is a delusional farce. The “Freedom Agenda” brought us a Hamas government in Gaza, after a Palestinian election that no one but the Bush Administration wanted. It brought the empowerment of Hizballah in Lebanon. It raised the hopes of reformers across the region, soon dashed when the Bush Administration retreated, realizing that the probable outcome of democracy in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be the installation of Islamist parties that might prove more repressive than the dictatorships they replaced. Freedom may well be “God’s gift to humanity,” as Bush intoned regularly, radiating a simple-minded piety that never reflected another of God’s greatest gifts–the ability to doubt, to think difficult thoughts and weigh conflicting options with clarity and subtlety. But I’m pretty sure God never designated the United States to impose that freedom violently upon others.

It is the way of the world that Barack Obama’s announcement today of the end of the combat phase in Iraq, and the beginning of a 16-month period of advice and support for the Iraqi security forces before U.S. troops leave in 2011, will not be remembered as vividly as George Bush’s juvenile march across the deck of an aircraft carrier, costumed as a combat aviator in a golden sunset, to announce–six years and tens of thousands of lives prematurely–the “end of combat operations.” But celebration is not appropriate now. What is appropriate is what the President did: promise that amends will be made to those whose lives were shattered and that their service in an unnecessary cause will be honored. What is also appropriate now is a mournful colloquy on America’s place in the world–and how our natural leadership among nations, a consequence of the freedom that Bush misconstrued, is best utilized in the future.

As for myself, I deeply regret that once, on television in the days before the war, I reluctantly but foolishly said that going ahead with the invasion might be the right thing to do. I was far more skeptical, and equivocal, in print–I never wrote in favor of the war and repeatedly raised the problems that would accompany it–but skepticism and equivocation were an insufficient reaction, too. In retrospect, the issue then was as clear cut as it is now. It demanded a clarity that I failed to summon. The essential principle is immutable: We should never go to war unless we have been attacked or are under direct, immediate threat of attack. Never. And never again.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • Paul-no not that one

    Very nicely done, JK.

  • tyrantking

    You write fast. Or was this already prepared? Either way, well said.

  • newfreedomblog

    Forever the speculator. Forever the shill for the rabid left. Joe Klein ends with…
    .

    “Certainly, even if something resembling democracy prevails, the U.S. invasion and occupation–the carnage and tragedy it wrought–will not be remembered fondly by Iraqis anytime soon. We will own the destruction in perpetuity; if the Iraqis manage to cobble themselves a decent society, they will see it, correctly, as an achievement of their own.”

    .
    No praise for our fighting men and women who did fight a great fight. Who won this war, and are able to come back home proud with their heads held high. Despite your drivel to drive the insane left towards another Vietnam-like approach to this War, you are yet again proving that liberals not only do not have the stomach for war, but would roll over and pi$$ in your pants if you were even handed a gun to fight for freedom.
    .
    You should read the book which Patrick Sartor is touting as some kind of liberal vindication by Wesley Clark. Despite his rather liberal leanings, he too recognized that the war was not fought based on information-less quick responses or
    “Forward Freedom Agenda” as an example of American idealism is a delusional farce.

    .
    The only delusional a$$wipe is you Klein. Freedom is one of those things we hold dear to our hearts. While people like you, liberals in general, will give it up at the slightest challenge we can thank the men and women who fought so bravely in Iraq. While you say the entire affair was a fruitless endeavor, many of us are proud we as Americans took a stand against tyranny, even in a foreign land.
    .
    Squawk all you want Klein. Thankfully you were not around to write nothing when Hitler made his march across Europe, or we would be saluting “Heil Hitler” instead of putting our hands across our hearts as the National Anthem is sung across this land.

  • destor23

    Well reasoned and beautifully written. I read the part about our ability to “weigh conflicting options with clarity and subtlety” a couple of times and it really made me turn inward and ask “is that what I’ve been doing or not?”

    Of course it is what I’ve been doing, so all good. Kidding, of course. It’s really something to think about.

  • charlieromeobravo

    /me rolls eyes

    “No praise for our fighting men and women who did fight a great fight. Who won this war, and are able to come back home proud with their heads held high…”

    I question the premise that we actually won this war. The troops performed admirably under terrible circumstances and a nonexistent strategy for the first several years they were there. Why do you guys always go to the “why do you hate our troops” card when the discussion at hand has nothing to do with them? Obama (and the troops!!!) did the best they could with the hash they were handed. Declaring this the end of major combat operations is basically declaring that this is as good as things are going to get with us there. That was the point of the post, not how well the troops performed, how great their sacrifice was, how hard they worked there, etc… If you can’t address the topic without resorting to distractions and obfuscation then you probably shouldn’t be commenting.

  • stuartzechman

    Joe Klein:

    As for myself, I deeply regret that once, on television in the days before the war, I reluctantly but foolishly said that going ahead with the invasion might be the right thing to do.
    .
    I was far more skeptical, and equivocal, in print–I never wrote in favor of the war and repeatedly raised the problems that would accompany it–but skepticism and equivocation were an insufficient reaction, too. In retrospect, the issue then was as clear cut as it is now. It demanded a clarity that I failed to summon.
    .
    The essential principle is immutable: We should never go to war unless we have been attacked or are under direct, immediate threat of attack. Never. And never again.

    Well said.
    .
    Perhaps the only thing missing from this necessary acknowledgment is the admission that others, those who you routinely castigate as leftist ideologues, were able to articulate that “essential principle” with crystalline clarity –even in 2002, while the madness was happening.
    .
    Can you not only own up to your lack of sufficient opposition, but also acknowledge the courage and judgment it took in those vicious, flag-brandishing days for those on the left to defy inevitability, and tell everyone who would listen what we knew about the coming tragedy, even as we were being smeared with epithets like ‘objectively pro-Saddam”?
    .
    Can you see your way to doing that, Joe Klein, or is an admission that the outsider-left was right about something of grave national importance just a bridge too far for you at this time?

  • newfreedomblog

    The rabid left like you and Joe Klein would hold your breath and turn blue before you ever thanked the military for a job well done. This WAS Obama’s version of Mission Accomplished whether you like it or not.
    .
    Those of us including Bush II thank our troops. We cannot thank them enough in my opinion for what they do day in and day out. That alone ought to make you bow your head in shame. Ingrate.
    .
    charlieromeobravo, one would think you would have some thanks for the troops yourself since you parade around pretending to be one.

  • pintortwo

    Well said Mr. Klein. We appreciate the introspection.
    .
    I have questions, however.
    .
    We should never go to war unless we have been attacked or are under direct, immediate threat of attack. Never. And never again.
    .
    Al Qaeda attacked us and we should have invaded Afghanistan to eradicate its camps. Our military accomplished this via mobile special-ops forces and quickly rendered AQ a non-factor in Afghanistan– they can no longer attack us from there.
    .
    The on-going mission to build bases, squash the Taliban and make a “nation” out of Afghanistan is a different story.
    .
    Did the Taliban attack us? What threat of immediate attack do they pose now? Will regional military bases mitigate the threat of future attack, or enhace it? Will nation-building prohibit al Qaeda from plotting terror, or have they already moved-on and would not gain any tactical advantage in coming back to Afghanistan?
    .
    Thank you for considering.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    I was going to block-quote that same paragraph, so I will just reply to this comment. Very well stated, Joe. We could use more of this honesty about tone and substance from our pundits.
    -
    I think that Stuart’s point about the range of respectable opinions is a very important one. I supported the invasion at the time, and I was wrong at the time, based on publicly available information (based on Bob Graham’s reaction, UAVs, aluminum tubes, Scott Ritter’s expertise, and the points raised in “This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism,” the finest bit of punditry to appear in the MSM in the runup to war).
    -
    Now, the fault is my own. That almost every opinionator at Time, Newsweek, the Post, and the Times supported, or failed to oppose, the invasion, definitely didn’t help my decisionmaking much. Probably it didn’t help that of the country altogether much, either.

  • smilingl8dy

    Hi Joe
    I am a fan although I was very angry about your posture before the Iraq war. It makes be angrier now to hear that you had doubts then. Why couldn’t you have spoken loudly then and gotten Colin Powell to do the same thing. Has it occurred to you that the victims, civilian and military, men, women and children could have been spared such terrible pain.

    I appreciate you deep insights and your decency in general but I was and am horribly disappointed in this regard.

  • gysgt213

    What did we accomplish in Iraq and was it worth it? And for who was it worth it? There is no victory, there is no democracy and there is no stability. All there seems to be is dead people with the prospect of more dead people. And the most we got out it is Obama didn’t put up a mission accomplish banner. WTF?

  • gysgt213

    Rusty. Please give up the fake praise our troops crap you are pushing. This is not Russia, China or old WWII Germany. There is no reason why free people need to praise the troops in every writing and every utterance they make. You been on this meme for post after post so I can only assume this is what you are picking up from the latest talking points scanned into your head while you slept this weekend. But the BS is getting old.

  • http://echoslogos.wordpress.com abandyyang

    I agree, very well said.

  • Ivy_B

    Thank you, Joe. Hope your colleagues who were cheerleaders read this and take it to heart as well.

  • shepherdwong

    A very courageous admission, Mr. Klein. My compliments.

  • shepherdwong

    Yes, as a form of contrition, perhaps some new insight from our centrist friends. At this moment in particular, the phrase “liberals were right about [insert "conservative" or otherwise stupid policy that liberals warned about here]” can’t be overused.

  • maurice2u

    U.S. veteran here.
    .
    Reality is, those who serve (and have served) know that veterans are still people. In other words, yes there are some who have done amazingly heroic things, but that happens outside the military too. Not just by cops or fireman, but by just plain old Janes and Joes everyday. They also make mistakes, and sometimes do terrible things, just like the rest of us.
    .
    As Charlie said, this blog post was not about any of that to start with, so maybe focus on the content at hand?
    .
    In general, what people need (and have needed for the last 3 millenia or so) is less emotional hyperbole and more intellectual pragmatism. That will make it a lot easier for America (and human beings in general) to learn from the past, adapt to the present, and prepare for the future.

  • jmack387

    Mr. Klein, this is well said. While honoring our troops who fought bravely in this war, we have to be accountable for the destruction. As you probably know, our State Dept conveniently ignores crimes committed by us and is going after other nations for war crimes. Meanwhile, our liberal lawmakers are helping terrorists that are on our Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) setup shop here in the US, and profiting from it.

    Get the details here:

    http://www.island.lk/2008/02/11/features1.html

    http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2009/06/06/fraud-by-ltte-tamil-tiger-terrorists-obama-on-usa-today/

    http://www.slnewsonline.net/JM_20090323_To_New_York_Times.asp

    Back then I wrote this: Unfortunately, some of these Tamils who get a free education from Sri Lanka that immigrated to the UK, US and Canada tend to hold radical and violent ideologies and have setup front organizations that fund terror in Sri Lanka. An example is the front organizations for the Tamil Terrorists in the United States that hired attorney Bruce Fein to ‘legitimize’ their criminal activities in the U.S.
    Hope you can help us by informing the six former American ambassadors who are mentioned in your article about terror operating right in their own back yard. Let us admit that the foundations of democracy in the country would not have been under assault if the world did the right thing 30 years ago – and that is to work with Sri Lanka to solve the terror problem. Instead the world took money from the LTTE and let it run amok killing thousands.

    A simple question here is: are we Americans and our western allies accountable for anything or to anybody?

  • maverick2k9

    … says the person who probably never served and actively avoided serving in a real war.. just like his leaders Dubya and Cheney.
    -
    All the troops ever get from the chicken hawks like Rusty are empty words of praise.
    -
    Of course, empty words help the troops survive an IED attack better than, say, an armour plated humvee.
    -
    Rusty, should we also be proud of the soldiers who perpetrated the Abu Ghraib atrocity. Or do you want that swept under the carpet of (fake) patriotism or better still – American Exceptionalism?

  • margicmacker

    Good grief! Where to begin? Just a few points. WMD were not the”original casus belli” of the war (all these years and you still haven’t read the Congressional Resolution Joe?) Saddam’s capacity to manufacture WMD and his failure to allow inspections (thank you Bill Clinton) were just a few of many reasons he needed to be taken out…..which we did, and expertly I might add (ie. Mission Accomplished). The insurgence, is something we were not prepared for, but eventually adapted to and were successful in defeating. What is never mentioned was that we drew Iranian operatives and jihadists from all over onto a field of our choice (see GWB’s 9/21/01 speech before Congress) and slaughtered them pretty much at will. Of course they, being the cowards they are, chose to kill thousands of their fellow Muslims.
    But you are correct, Iraq (and the rest of the world) are better off without Saddam, and things will continue to improve.

    I could go on, but I won’t. This piece is nothing more than an attempt to justify a certain segment of our electorate’s decision to root for America’s enemies for the purpose of defeating a Republican President. Well you didn’t beat Bush, but you muddied him up pretty good and greased the skids for the disaster that is the Obama administration.

    One final thing, you finish with: “The essential principle is immutable: We should never go to war unless we have been attacked or are under direct, immediate threat of attack. Never. And never again.”

    Given this logic we should have stayed out of Europe during WWII and let Hitler have his way with Britian . F.D.R. and H.S.T. weep from the grave to see what’s happened to the Democrat Party.

  • newfreedomblog

    “Can you not only own up to your lack of sufficient opposition, but also acknowledge the courage and judgment it took in those vicious, flag-brandishing days for those on the left to defy inevitability, and tell everyone who would listen what we knew about the coming tragedy, even as we were being smeared with epithets like ‘objectively pro-Saddam”?

    .
    Could you cite your reference where it is written someplace stuart that the courage and judgment it took in those vicious, flag-brandishing days for those on the left to defy inevitability, and tell everyone who would listen what we knew.
    .
    Where exactly did you or any other liberal make that claim? Are you sure you are not just confused about the far left extreme of liberalism which has always been against any war of any kind what-so-ever clear down to the very last conscientious objector?

  • newfreedomblog

    Context? Here is the opening statment, try reading it again.
    .

    “Well, at least he didn’t announce the end of major combat operations in Iraq under a banner that said “Mission Accomplished.”

    .
    Of course I am sure you missed it through the rest of the liberal regurgitation of apology 101 which has been the mainstay lately for most all liberals as their mentor Obama has done ever since taking office.
    .

    “There is no “victory” in Iraq, nor will there be.
    .

    Certainly, even if something resembling democracy prevails, the U.S. invasion and occupation–the carnage and tragedy it wrought–will not be remembered fondly by Iraqis anytime soon.
    .

    What is also appropriate now is a mournful colloquy on America’s place in the world–and how our natural leadership among nations, a consequence of the freedom that Bush misconstrued, is best utilized in the future”.

    .
    Bad Wars. Bad Americans. Bad bad bad. And people wonder why nearly 60% of Americans are now so concerned about the direction this country is headed. Wonder indeed.
    .
    Who needs the old propagandist of the former Soviet Union. We have their chief propaganist right here in the good ‘ol US of A. His name is Joe Klein.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Who cares about Abu Ghraib? Not you, not Nancy or Harry or any other limp wristed liberal chicken sh!t! Give us a break with your fake compassion. You care even less about the brave men and women who died in Iraq, I would venture to say that the liberal clowns who whined and griped and interfered every step of the way during the conflict had a huge hand in many of their deaths. Political correctness killed many more of our troops than bullets and ieds. You sorry ass pansies have plenty of blood on your hands. You despised Bush long before there was even any talk of war, admit it. You wanted him to fail, you reveled in defeat, so go ruminate on that ya bunch of cowardly egg sucking dogs.
    .
    God Bless America, and God bless our troops every single day!

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    I said something nice about you a few weeks back Joe. I hereby wthdraw my comment. You are scum!

  • Friar Tuck

    Way to gloss over Pearl Harbor, there, assclown.
    .
    The Japanese attacked us, after which we declared war on them, after which Hitler declared war on us, to the thunderous applause of the Reichstag at the Kroll Opera House.

  • Friar Tuck

    Link to a very basic presentation of events. It’s got color pictures. Enjoy.
    .
    http://www.history.com/photos/pearl-harbor/photo13

  • draconifer

    Or “Time Magazine” can put a picture of a wounded
    Iraqi civillian and make the case for maintaining an occupation in Iraq like the publication did with Afghanistan.
    How is this different in their perspective?

    Back when optimists thought the Iraq war could be won
    “Time Magazine” regaled it’s readers with the atrocities
    of Saddam’s sons to sway the reluctant. It seems this magazine’s writers are really learning no quicker than it’s readers.

  • sotxbob

    Well written article – I just hope we get our troops out before the roof falls in. This war certainly brought out an unprecedented amount of lip service patriotism. Our military forces acquitted themselves honorably, considering the conditions of war. However, the rest of us got a free ride – no tax consequences, not even war bond sales as I read about during WWII. I sincerely believe small tax increase to help cover some of the trillion dollar plus war debt would have invested some citizens in the effort.

  • stuartzechman

    Nice use of the term “assclown,” FT.
    .
    I used it myself today, while tweeting my disgust at the cretin Tom Shales’ “review” of Amanpour:

    Their media is so stupid: Tom Shales, media critic for WaPo, says Christine Amanpour is a “globe-trotting Fancy-Pants.” http://bit.ly/93ZmC3

    and

    Shales, moron: “During the roundtable portion Amanpour didn’t stick with the show’s panelists but instead brought in a foreign journalist”

    and

    Tom Shales, imbecile: “Amanpour’s implied rationale was that the American economy affects American foreign policy. But what if it does?”

    and, finally

    Shales, assclown: “the roundtable –which, oddly enough, is no longer round, having been scrapped for one shaped like a lumpy old lima bean”

    http://twitter.com/stuart_zechman

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I’d like to
    a:

    Thank Joe for a particularly graceful post.

    b: Repost what I wrote this morning:

    For me, the number 1 lesson of Iraq remains, “A large number of people believing something to be true does not constitute evidence in its favor”
    .
    Any time anyone defends a propostion based on it’s popularity, we can point to Saddam’s WMD’s for instant refutation.

    and
    c:
    Note that if 2/3 rock thinks you’re scum, then you are clearly doing something right.

  • shepherdwong

    “Where exactly did you or any other liberal make that claim?”
    .
    Not that we needed any more proof but it’s possible that you just outted yourself as the most ignorant partisan this side of Sarah Palin. What are you, like eleven?

    The foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of what may lie before it. Such consideration is all the more important because of the Administration’s failure thus far to lay out an assessment of how it thinks the course of a war will run – even while it has given free run to persons both within and close to the administration to suggest that this will be an easy conquest. Neither has the Administration said much to clarify its idea of what is to follow regime change or of the degree of engagement it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place.
    .
    By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network – much as we manage to squander in one year’s time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine – of preemption…
    .
    Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam…
    .
    If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today…
    .
    Two decades ago, when the Soviet Union claimed the right to launch a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan, we properly encouraged and then supported the resistance movement which, a decade later, succeeded in defeating the Soviet Army’s efforts. Unfortunately, when the Russians left, we abandoned the Afghans and the lack of any coherent nation building program led directly to the conditions which fostered Al Qaeda terrorist bases and Osama Bin Laden’s plotting against the World Trade Center. Incredibly, after defeating the Taliban rather easily, and despite pledges from President Bush that we would never again abandon Afghanistan we have done precisely that. And now the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quickly moving back to take up residence there again…
    .
    What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America’s prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America’s prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began providing to the world 57 years ago…
    .
    – Al Gore

    http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
    .
    Also too:
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

  • shepherdwong

    See 5.4. Idiot.

  • shepherdwong

    “Saddam’s capacity to manufacture WMD and his failure to allow inspections (thank you Bill Clinton) were just a few of many reasons he needed to be taken out…”
    .
    Save the revisionist history for people who don’t know the real thing (hint: try any “conservative” blog). I supported George Bush exactly from the morning of 9/11/2001 until the day he evicted UN weapons inspectors, who had free run of the country, to enforce UN WMD resolutions. That was the day I knew without any doubt he was a lying sack of sh!t who was always bent on invading Iraq.

  • pintortwo

    FYI per “the end of major combat operations in Iraq”
    .
    The August deadline might be seen back home as a milestone in the fulfillment of President Obama’s promise to end the war in Iraq, but here it is more complex…
    .
    The withdrawal, which will reduce the number of American troops to 50,000 — from 112,000 earlier this year and close to 165,000 at the height of the surge — is a feat of logistics that has been called the biggest movement of matériel since World War II. It is also an exercise in semantics.
    .
    What soldiers today would call combat operations — hunting insurgents, joint raids between Iraqi security forces and United States Special Forces to kill or arrest militants — will be called “stability operations.” Post-reduction, the United States military says the focus will be on advising and training Iraqi soldiers, providing security for civilian reconstruction teams and joint counterterrorism missions.
    .
    “In practical terms, nothing will change,” said Maj. Gen. Stephen R. Lanza, the top American military spokesman in Iraq.

    .
    - link
    .

  • swissArmyBrainBETA

    well to celebrate my birthday in a new area where I don’t yet have many friends, i spent hours at the library trying to find a good conservative magazine to subscribe to (no success yet) and reading the most interesting looking chapter from Greenwald’s book on Manichean Bush. then I finished Moral Clarity by Susan Nieman with the accounts of her moral heroes’ who risked their civilian lives trying, with very limited success, to build up parts of Afghan society (Sarah Chayes) and to keep Israeli settlers from illegally forcing natives off of their land (David Shulman). it was mentally draining sort of day. on the plus side I had a salmon dinner with family and a beautiful 2 hour motorcycle exploration ride
    .
    but now its on to the most somber of swampland posts. I was in 10th grade when this started and I understood little. its now difficult for me to sort out different people’s often self-serving accounts of history, but I’m much less skeptical of those who admit they were wrong. I’ve never bought all the claims the the WMDs were purely lies. I think Bush himself was convinced as were many others. Oil is even less convincing since the war was outrageously expensive and US companies didn’t get any of the initial drilling contracts anyway. Bad intel seems most likely – complicated by Iraqi posturing and intentional ambiguity about their weapons program to scare Iran. w/o ties to al-qeda it still wouldn’t have warranted invasion, much less invasion w/o exit plans. whatever the initial motives, I can’t argue that it was anything other than a disaster. a gov resembling democracy there is worth a hell of a lot after their last murderous dictator but not as much as it will have cost us in blood, $, and influence.
    .
    as for concluding that we should never go to war unless attacked: i think that’s quite the leap. there are no rules to this sh!t. God never ‘designated’ america for anything. its got to be a thorough cost-benefit analysis every time. here the benefits were exaggerated (by intel over-estimating the threat, and by overly romantic notions of freedom) and the costs were grossly under-estimated. and yes i think there were probably insidious political influences throwing a monkey-wrench into the equation as well (perhaps the israel lobby and the defense industry). we definitely need to avoid putting cowboys who can’t do these equations in charge, but is having dominant military strength good only to deter direct attacks??? what if we had a non-aggression comittment in WWII? japan wouldn’t have attacked us. what would the world be like? we are good at fighting and there are a lot of things begging to be fought. we are bad at occupation and installing new governments. if north korea invaded the south tomorrow would you be content to issue statements? our own soldiers and $ aren’t the only things to weigh of course, and although we’ve lost influence and prestige by botching this war, we can lose it much faster by dropping all military threat.
    .
    I don’t pretend to know exactly what we are and are not capable of accomplishing militarily – I’m sure I know much less than you- but it does seem like your conclusion overcompensates for your previous error in judgment. still, an important, somber, reflection. thank you very much

  • eohec

    Junior Bush will forever be remembered as rooster, strutting around the barnyard, scratching in the dirt, puffing out his chest and crowing loudly – only the chickens are impressed.

  • shepherdwong

    Where exactly did you or any other liberal make that claim?”

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
    .
    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
    .
    I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
    .
    So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
    .
    You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
    .
    You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
    .
    You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
    .
    Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.
    .
    The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
    .
    –Barack Obama, Wednesday October 2, 2002

  • newfreedomblog

    Why didn’t you play out the entire Gore statement?
    .
    You missed this part…
    .

    “Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.
    .
    The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity.”

    .
    In its context at the time, Gore was merely stating he wanted to see more UN Sanctions before a war was proceeded with by Bush II.
    .

    “Saddam, who portrayed all this as a violation of Iraq’s territorial sovereignty, became less cooperative and more obstructive of UNSCOM activities as the years wore on, and refused access for several years beginning in August 1998. Ultimately Saddam condemned the US for enforcing the sanctions through the UN and demanded nothing less than unconditional lifting of all sanctions on its country, including the weapons sanctions. The US and UN refused to do so out of concern that Saddam’s regime would rebuild its once-powerful military and renew its WMD programs with the trade revenues. (But Douglas Feith reports that in 2001 “before the 9/11 attack, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell advocated diluting the multinational economic sanctions, in the hope that a weaker set of sanctions could win stronger and more sustained international support.”[60]) Renewed pressure in 2002 led to the entry of UNMOVIC, which received some degree of cooperation but failed to declare Iraq’s disarmament immediately prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for which it was withdrawn and became inactive in Iraq”.

    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
    .
    In other words Saddam played hardball just before the invasion of 2003. He left the Bush II Administration with very little alternatives. Anyone who is impartial or has any kind of brain what-so-ever knows where Saddam would have taken it from there had we not invaded and overthrown him at that time.
    .
    Plus in the wikipedia it says about all the children who were dying in more numbers than those children who died in the bombing of Hiroshima. Dead babies because of sanctions. But in loony liberal land, if you don’t see the baby aborted then it is simply ok. In loony liberal land if you don’t see the child starving to death, why stop the sanctions, and instead go to war?
    .
    To sit back now and play couch potato quarter-back after the play is over is not only disingenuous, but also lying. Well over 80% of Americans and that same number in the Congress supported and voted for the war to begin. Period.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Great article, Joe Kline. Yes, its good that Saddam was taken out. However, I have a problem with the way in which he was taken out of power. Even neo-conservatives must agree that Saddam was a stabilizing force in the Middle East. The Iraqi government, under Saddam, was sectarian. Shi’ites, Sunni’s and Catholics lived in mostly peaceful neighborhoods, respected one another for their beliefs. Today, is totally different. The Shi’ites and Sunni’s are going to be fighting for control of not only the government, but of national identity. And the Catholics, what few there were in Iraq prior to the US invasion, have mostly fled the country.

    I question the US’s right to destabilize an entire region of the globe for one man’s ego. Yes, the Iraq war was all about Cheney’s ego, he pulled Bush’s strings for 8 full years. Even before the election, Cheney was pulling Bush’s strings. Wasn’t Cheney who found fault with every single vice presidential candidate on Bush’s short list? I can just imagine the conversation when Ridge and the others were taken out of the running, by Cheney as chairman of Bush’s vice presidential vetting team. Bush: “So who is left, Dick?” Cheney: ” Well, there is me, of course.”

  • diecash1

    Oil is even less convincing since the war was outrageously expensive and US companies didn’t get any of the initial drilling contracts anyway.

    While you’re busy reading, you might want to look at Greg Palast’s book, Armed Madhouse. In it, he posits that the Iraq war was about oil; specifically it was to keep Iraqi oil off the market while driving oil prices ever higher. If you look back at what has happened, he’s right. Iraqi oil production was never close to what the Bush administration projected and it never came close to “paying for the war” as they claimed. Prices rose higher and higher, to about $150/bbl whereas $40/bbl used to be the ceiling prior to the Iraq war. From that perspective, I’d say it’s been a wildly successful strategy.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    but is having dominant military strength good only to deter direct attacks???
    .
    If you substitute “ability to blow things up” for
    “military strength” in your question, the answer becomes clearer. Our “strength” comes from the ability to direct air power. Our ability to control events on the ground OTOH is limited to that of all ordinary mortals. Failure to acknowlege this simple fact has led to almost all of the failures of our adventures to turn out as planned.

  • michaelfury

    “I was far more skeptical, and equivocal, in print–I never wrote in favor of the war and repeatedly raised the problems that would accompany it–but skepticism and equivocation were an insufficient reaction, too. In retrospect, the issue then was as clear cut as it is now. It demanded a clarity that I failed to summon.”

    You may have failed to summon “clarity”, Mr. Klein, but millions of “little” people around the world somehow managed to summon the clarity and courage to speak and demonstrate against that imminent war of aggression. And for some reason Time and the other corporate media did not find their protestations newsworthy. They were ignored, while “opinion makers” like yourself enabled and rationalized the coming slaughter.

    Hand-wringing will not get that spot out.

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/talking-head-like-a-hole/

  • michaelfury

    The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.

    - Milan Kundera

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/a-naming-of-parts/

  • tanboontee

    There is no need to appear apologetic. The unnecessary deaths of the troops and the innocent civilians cannot be redeemed by just declaring that mistakes had been made. That would not dry the tears of their loved ones.

    Meanwhile, suicidal bombings in Iraq get worse, and the mad Afghan war continues unabashedly.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    “If general isolation causes graphomania, mass graphomania itself reinforces and aggravates the feeling of general isolation. The invention of printing originally promoted mutual understanding. In the era of graphomania the writing … has the opposite effect: everyone surrounds himself with his own writings as with a wall of mirrors cutting off all voices from without.”

    - Milan Kundera

    http://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/milan-kundera-and-the-ostriches/

  • abdullah69

    And God bless America’s right to impose freedom on the peoples of the world wherever they think fit. Especially those peoples who live somewhere with oil reserves.

    (Sorry, Darfurians and Rwandans, you should have dug faster. If you had found the black gold, then the US military would have been there for you.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Neat post, SABB. And happy birthday!
    -
    I think it’s important to stress that people like me, who supported the invasion at the time, were wrong at the time.
    -
    First off, the lies that were to some degree evident at the time. This op-ed from Bob Graham, a conservative Democrat who voted against authorizing the invasion, explains how the intel that was presented to Congress and the public was slanted. A Senate panel later issued a bipartisan report that “details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department,” and concluded that the Bush administration “repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
    -
    More publicly, there were the exaggerated claims we were making about Saddam’s UAVs and the wildly implausible claims that Saddam’s aluminum tubes were for a nuclear program. Plus as shepherdwong pointed out, the UN weapon inspectors hadn’t found anything when they had to leave… because we started bombing. Scott Ritter was speaking out, too.
    -
    Second, the lack of strategic thought. Bob Graham later said that he had spoken with Tommy Franks, and had come to believe that “Iraq was a trade-off for Afghanistan” because as early as Feb. 2002, “they were reducing their capabilities in Afghanistan in order to ship personnel and equipment to get ready for war in Iraq.” To say nothing of the lack of an endgame– we were just going to turn this brutally oppressed country, with no functioning institution but the army, into Bonn on the Euphrates? And where will that leave us vs. Saddam’s rival, Iran? (As for collateral benefits, there’s a myth that the Iraq invasion led Libya to reorient its foreign policy; this isn’t true. That reorientation was under way before the Bush administration took office.)
    -
    A huge part of the problem is that the desire to appear serious trumped the desire to get the policy right. Why did I support it? Well, I’d been hanging around some kinda-right-leaning foreign policy folks at that time. And almost all the opinion writers I trusted back then, folks like Tom Friedman, Bill Keller, and the like, were supporting it. It really seemed the savvy, serious thing to do. I didn’t ask the questions I should have. I thought that preventing nuclear proliferation and spreading democracy merited supporting the invasion.
    -
    Les Gelb explained, “[m]y initial support for the war was symptomatic of unfortunate tendencies within the foreign policy community, namely the disposition and incentives to support wars to retain political and professional credibility.” And politicians were uninterested in reading the intelligence. Posturing, political palatability, were more important in the discourse than accuracy.
    -
    And that, to me, is where Joe Klein could provide some really great insight.
    -
    Why did you equivocate in print? Why did you acquiesce on TV?
    -
    I think the answer is that Joe Klein believes, as do I, that our political discourse prizes appearance over accuracy. It’s more important to be seen as savvy than to know anything about anything. And it was the savvy career move– I don’t think a single person in politics or the media has suffered any consequences as a result of their support for the invasion. (I don’t say that to be mean to Joe Klein; I supported it too, in large part because I felt it was the serious position to take).

  • pogoshrugged

    Anyone else remember McCain with his ‘Blood and Treasure’ ? Can you imagine if he and the half-term govner’ had not lost?

    I think dead Americans and trillions of dollars of wasted money were what he was refering to, but surely actually saying that out loud marks me as a ‘fuzzy headed’ liberal to some.

    Oh, and y’all are welcome to come on down to BAMC in San Antonio and visit and eat with the severely wounded soldiers being treated here. (I have.)

    We now have the world’s premier burn ward located here. Witnessing what any one of these men have endured is enough to make any thinking man wonder just what was worth that price.

  • vandykendr

    How much time must pass before we stop blaming Bush I wonder? Why don’t we blame Carter…? This article does nothing but prove to me that anyone can be famous in this great country, Joe Klein you are as much of a Journalist as Snookie from Jersey Shore is an actress. Which is why you and her share the front homepage i guess. Time’s homage to people with something ignorant to say.

    Also, I am so glad that Obama keeps getting credit for things that he plans to do, even though his track record for follow through is somewhat lacking. He should get another peace prize.

  • http://aaddad.wordpress.com aaddad
  • eaglepov

    My first reaction was to be grateful you weren’t in charge when Hitler was around, as you probably would have argued cogently for noninvolvement. Maybe you were among those arguing against stepping in and stopping the mindless and large-scale genocide occuring in the Balkans in the early 90s. I concede the point that the execution of the war in Iraq could–and should–have been way better. . .seems like it was over faster than we had the answer ‘what do we do with the car once we catch it?’. But to seriously take the position we had no business deposing that creep and his maniacal, blood-thirsty associates is wrong to the max. I don’t like the general idea of being the world’s policeman, but I’ve had it with diplomacy and the over-intellectualized rationale for it when innocents are butchered in quantity and on a daily basis. If we can stop it, we owe to the innocents–and our own sense of decency–to do so.

  • 3xfire3

    eaglepov,
    .
    Very well stated.
    .
    Way too many people on the Left would rather Demonize Bush, our Military and our Country.
    .
    They believe all the lies that people on the Left have written about Bush, our solders and have no compassion for the millions of people who have been brutally tortured and killed by Sadam and the Taliban.
    .
    War is hell but sometimes necessary. Civilians do die in war but compared to the number killed by Sadam and the Taliban the number is small.
    .
    Anti War, Anti Bush, Anti American Leftist want to concentrate on a small number that have died at the hands of American solders. This only shows how little they care about the millions that were tortured and killed by the brutal dictators.
    .
    America is not perfect but it’s a hell of a lot better than 99% of the countries around the world.

  • http://tragedydeferred.wordpress.com logicforbipeds

    “The replacement notion that it was our right and responsibility to rid Iraq of a terrible dictator…”

    I always loved this argument. So I guess for our next wars, we’ll be taking on Myanmar/Burma, Laos, Thailand, several of the -stans, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea…

  • swingstater

    You know, I can’t stand people who wax poetic about the Iraq war as if to legitimize it as a political action. It certainly was not that. Here’s the bottom line. Iraq has oil. In 1972 Saddam nationalized the oil industry and kicked out oil companies like BP from getting their oil.

    During the Bush administration the oil companies made record profits and freedom from regulation (and as we have all found out in the Gulf states) and had unprecedented influence over our government.

    The Bush administration attacked Iraq under the thinnest of flimsy assertions that Iraq had access to uranium (which was debunked as false). Both Bush and Rumsfeld stated Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. No WMDs were ever found.

    Flash forward to the waste of 3 trillion taxpayer dollars, many of which going to Cheney’s former company Halliburton (that doesn’t pay taxes as they moved their headquarters to Dubai, BTW), And in 2009, a BP-led coalition of oil companies now has a contract to steal Iraq’s oil again.

    Now, that the oil companies’ mission has been satisfied, we are leaving.

    So, sorry about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died and soldiers whose patriotism was used to fight a war for oil.

    We are trying to do our part to end the oil companies’ hold on us and boycotting BP, as well as, consuming as little gas as possible.

  • 3xfire3

    You are totally wrong.
    .
    Read 29.1
    .
    You are entitled to your political views, perceptions and opinions but don’t try to pass them off as facts.
    .
    They are not.

  • swingstater

    Why do we blame Bush and not Carter? Well, maybe because under Bush, the Minerals and Management service (who was supposed to regulate the oil industry) was found to have taken gifts, drug and the services of prostitutes from the oil lobby in exchange for relaxed regulations. That was according to a report by the Department of the Interior in 2008 while Bush was still in power–so it wasn’t a partisan accusation.

    We in the Gulf are paying for that as, in part, the lack of environmental studies and regulation were part of the failure of the Deepwater Horizon–a disaster that killed 11 people and caused 5 million or more barrels of oil to be discharged into our water. Added to that was another 2 million gallons of toxic industrial strength dispersant.

    And for this, BP wants a $10 billion tax credit–which they’ll probably get.

    How many more people need to die and how much more do we need to poison our nation before we take charge of the oil companies, BTW?

  • swingstater

    Are you saying that we should step in to save the innocents in Darfur? Under that rationale, why haven’t we? Is it because they are not white, not rich or do they not have anything we want–like oil?

  • 3for5spotshooter

    Wearily….

    No More Vietnams….

    The title of a small book written by Richard Nixon…

    The premise….

    The same as your belated conclusion….

    As much as things change in the United States…

    They of course stay the same…

  • swingstater

    No, 3xfire2, I’m not wrong.

    The Bush family made it’s money from oil, counts Saudi families among their close friends and oil companies like Exxon and Chevron even paid for Bush’s inauguration.

    Under Bush, the price of gas more than doubled and oil companies made record profits while being subject to little regulation.

    Saddam, did, in fact, remove all of the Western oil industries from Iraq when he nationalized the oil in 1972.

    And mass media did report last year that Western oil companies had drawn up contracts to extract and sell Iraq’s oil.

    Here is an excerpt from an article from Oct 17, 2009 from CBS news:

    The headline is entitled “BP-led Consortium Wins Iraq Oil Deal”

    “The Iraqi government has approved a deal with a consortium led by British giant BP PLC to develop a prized oil field in the south in a major step forward for the country’s oil industry.

    BP, which was booted from the country in 1972 when Saddam Hussein nationalized the oil industry, and its partner CNPC of China were the only winners in Iraq’s first international oil auction in over 30 years for development rights for the 17.8 billion barrel Rumaila field…”

    Now that thousands of people have been killed and the country is in shambles we are now leaving.

    Mission accomplished.

  • pintortwo

    to seriously take the position we had no business deposing that creep and his maniacal, blood-thirsty associates is wrong to the max. ..I’ve had it with diplomacy and the over-intellectualized rationale for it when innocents are butchered in quantity and on a daily basis. If we can stop it, we owe to the innocents–and our own sense of decency–to do so
    .
    Saddam was rendered almost toothless by Bush Sr and Clinton– remember that 1/3 of his country was a no-fly zone, for him. He was despicable and killed his own, but he was not butchering people when we invaded. You can make a reasonable argument that he needed to be taken out, but if that was the goal, if we wanted to protect innocents, why not send in troops to arrest Saddam, and then leave? (make him stand trial for war crimes.. or just kill him for all I care)
    .
    And what of the innocents that died or suffered as a direct result of the war? The UN says 4.5 million refugees were created and the Lancet estimated over 1 million Iraqis died.
    .
    However, what you neglect to mention is perhaps the most important factor. We were not asked to give our resources, ourselves and our children to protect Iraqi citizens. Our soldiers were not asked to sacrifice for Iraqis. We were told that we faced a grave threat. Our soldiers were told that they were protecting their nation. That was a lie. That can never be justified.

  • swingstater

    You know what’s really strange is how many parallels there are between how the US treated Iraq and Iran.
    .
    In the 1950s Iran had a prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeg–(you would think Mr. Klein would be familiar with that name as in 1951 he was named Time’s man of the year–no joke–look it up). Up until then, only one company, the “Anglo-Iranian Oil Company” had the exclusive rights to extract, refine, ship, and sell Iranian oil. That oil company is now known as BP.
    .
    However, the prime minister made the mistake of wanting to his country to benefit from their oil. So, in 1953, the US and Britain decided that they were going to install a friendly government in Iran–the Shah. A dictator that the Iranians hated and it resulted in the Iranian revolution in the ’70s.
    .
    Flash forward to the current time and who do we have in Iraq? A leader (albeit a nasty one) who kicks out the Western oil interests so that Iraq can benefit from the oil industry. And what happens? The US and Britain are the major powers that install a friendly government and BP is back again to collect the oil.
    .
    And, yes, that’s the truth and you can research for yourselves… I’m betting on the Iraqi government going the way of the Shah.

  • acameronw

    newfreedomblog:

    Honoring the troops.?What in the world do you know about honoring the troops? You’re the one who takes their honorable service to their country and uses it as a club to wield against people (you know, “liberals”) you happen to dislike. It’s neocons and false patriots who rushed them to war on a false pretext, with only some vague notion of remaking the politics of the region as justification. (I’m leaving out the shameful incompetence of the civilians in charge once the war got started.) It’s not weakness to view war as a last resort instead of a first option, and the best way to honor the troops is to only send them to fight with a damn good reason.

  • janelasdedeus

    It is way way way too soon to render a definitive opinion about the long term wisdom of going to war in Iraq, because geopolitics is a chess game played at glacial speed. However, there is absolutely no doubt that those who criticised the “surge” policy have already been proven totally wrong, and that a premature pullout would have thrown the entire region into bloody chaos.

  • newfreedomblog

    “Honoring the troops.?What in the world do you know about honoring the troops?”

    .
    I know from returning from Vietnam in 1973 how we were treated. How the then liberal establishment had vilified not only the war, but those war heros who returned. I am guessing you are way way too young to remember, or you would not even question my honoring of the troops coming home.
    .
    But, you go right ahead my friend. Agree with Joe Klein and the rest of his ilk. Pretend that Joe is so humble in his opinions and that 20 years from now Iraq and the people who live there will see this all as no “victory” in Iraq, nor will there be. There is something resembling stability, but that might not last, either. There is a semblance of democracy, but that may dissolve over time, or in the next few months, into a Shi’ite dictatorship–which, if not well-run, will yield to the near-inevitable military coup.
    .
    I just happen to be a little more optimistic, that the people of Iraq will realize how horrible their situation was under Saddam Hussien. They will in time be so grateful for their democracy, as they join the rest of the civilized world in peace rather than setting roadside bombs to blow each other up.
    .
    As I said earlier in the thread. Millions would have died under the hand of Saddam. His food for oil program was discovered and he clamped down even more on his people. Children were dying in massive numbers from starvation under the sanctions. Ask anyone who has ever lived under such conditions if they would chose to live that way or with freedom. You may not like what they will tell you. They may in fact tell you to go straight to hell for siding with Joe Klein and the rest of the far left extremists who continue to vilify this war even today.

  • pintortwo

    there is absolutely no doubt that those who criticised the “surge” policy have already been proven totally wrong, and that a premature pullout would have thrown the entire region into bloody chaos.
    .
    Please elaborate.
    .
    Do you mean the region including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey; or in Iraq only? How would have the region differed? Are you using violence as the only criteria for success, or do you include reconciliation among Iraqi sects?
    .
    Please account for the fact that the surge started in early ’07 and lasted through June ’09 and “According to figures released by the Iraqi government on Saturday, the death toll in bombings and other terrorist attacks for July 2010 was the highest since May 2008.” (link). Also that there is no government in Iraq currently- they can’t agree on parliament so they haven’t had one since March.
    .
    Would there be a significant change in the bloodyness or level of chaos in the region, had we not added 21K troops to Iraq? and contrast that with what would have happened if we followed the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group instead.

  • 3xfire3

    swingstater,
    .

    “No, 3xfire2, I’m not wrong.

    The Bush family made it’s money from oil, counts Saudi families among their close friends and oil companies like Exxon and Chevron even paid for Bush’s inauguration.”
    .
    You are still wrong. You have no real proof that your comments are true.
    .
    You are part of a group of Progressives that hate anyone who does not believe as they do. You may believe, want, hope, dream and truly think you information is accurate, but it is not.
    .
    You choose to believe terrible things about your fellow American citizens without real provable facts. You are part of a disgusting group of Americans who do not believe in our citizens and our country. You and your group of haters do not deserve to live in this great country. The USA has provided more freedom and opportunity for its citizens then any other country that has ever existed on this planet.
    .
    You are wrong and you will always be wrong. The vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with you and your progressive movement. It is foreign to this noble country.

  • bucqwheat

    The comments re JK’s column and the reactionary comments of the comments: puerile and tantamount to tits up on an arthritic steer.

  • dga202

    thanks for the article… I’m an American currently sitting in Anbar province, and a couple of comments on the post–”democracy” here can barely be called even a semblance at this point. Especially in the Sunni Triangle, the national government is considered on a spectrum from a joke to an enemy. In the Shiite areas you’ll get a different picture on that, of course–but the gains the government has made are in the red, not the black. What we have over here is the title of democracy without any of the substance of it, except for the mere fact that there was an election.

    If you want to see democracy here, look to the communities, not the government. There have been good strides at the very local and fine-grained levels that will likely not be mirrored at the national level for years to come. AT the local level, there has been an increase in the kind of community organizing (in no small part against the national government, it must be said) that provides the substance of democracy–which is in fact a wonderful thing, but cannot, as Bush tried to do, be handed to someone. Especially through violence.

    Stability is beginning to evaporate already, Iraqis who have worked with the US for years are quietly pulling away as the threat goes up and the protection disappears. Violence has been on the rise steadily here since before the elections–and while “combat operations” are ending, “stability operations” (which look remarkably similar) will continue.

    No thanks are due to the soldiers for democracy here–that was never the intent. Thanks are due to the troops for doing a hard job in an incredibly violent environment; thanks are due for being professional soldiers and more often than not keeping their heads and hearts about them when it would have been far easier to match the brutality of the insurgents. We should be proud of them–but to institute democracy in Iraq was should never have been thought of as their purpose. Soldiers defend and soldiers destroy, and on occasion soldiers provide short-term necessities to people on the ground… but especially in the American system, they have (with good reason) been kept on the other side of a bright line from the political process.

    Although Obama is doing something necessary, pulling the troops out of here, the war is by no means over–as anyone here will tell you. We will continue a presence here for many years to come–it’ll be inevitable. We broke it, we bought it; we will need to continue, through diplomacy, security assistance and development aid, to help. But democracy and stability, if and when they come to Iraq, will be Iraqi born and bred, or not at all.

  • 54321z

    It was obvious at the time that the Iraq war was based on lies. But there were piles of money to be made if you knew the right people – if you were the right people. Let’s face it, sometimes rulers scare their own people and rob them blind. The top 1% did very well under Bush. The rest of us – not so much.

  • benpra

    Dear Mr. Klien,

    I appreciate your public mea culpa. I am sure it was neither easy nor fun. However, the overall tone of your piece was that of sadness. That is understandable and human. However, it is also gravely insufficient.

    Where is the outrage, Mr. Klien? Why aren’t citizens with even a modicum of sanity and understanding taking to the streets to demand that Bush, Cheney, and the rest of gang be help accountable for the ruin they have brought upon this country and Iraq? For the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and probably more than a million people severely hurt by the insane antics of powerful lairs? Where is the movement to prevent leader of this country from further bankrupting the treasury and starving the country of investments in health, education , infrastructure, environmental issues, technology research, libraries, schools and social services?

    Let’s be a bit clearer: Bush & Co are getting away with horrible deeds that have tipped this country and terrorism in the wrong direction.. And the Americans are letting it happen, just as they are letting the financial industry get away with trashing the economy in the name of their own pompous greed.

    There is simply no accountability for the unfathomable harm they have all done. America was at a pivotal point both economically, and as nation amongst others in an ever-increasingly connected world, Bush Jr. could not have picked a worse time to screw-up. America could not have picked a worse time to choose him as Leader of the Free World==not once, but twice.

    So, here is the legacy of the Iraq War:

    1. America’s government can lie, invade & destabilize a sovereign nation and misdirect and overspend it’s immense wealth in the name of criminally ignorant causes, and then face no consequences other than losing an election.

    2. America’s citizens are generally too ignorant and self-involved to do anything about #1.

  • deegeejay

    Only an unnecessary liberation if you are a proponent of genocide Joe. You are a despicable person.

  • markr1957

    Would that be the same kind of praise given to our brave troops returning from Vietnam? At least there was a request for our help before we barged in and attempted to force ‘freedom’ on the local population.
    As a disabled veteran I find armchair patriots to be the most disgusting of creatures, especially when they keep going long after the ‘reason’ for going to war was proved to be false in every respect.
    REAL patriots died and were wounded for a lie, and you think they want your fake patriotism, when they know that ‘freedom’ in Iraq will last only as long as our Army maintains a large presence there? Go stick your praise where the sun don’t shine!

  • swissArmyBrainBETA

    thanks elvis i hadn’t heard some of those points. very interesting

  • stewartiii

    NewsBusters: TIME Mag’s Klein Goes from Bush Delivering ‘Coolest Presidential Image’ to ‘Juvenile’ Stunt
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/08/14/time-mag-s-klein-goes-bush-delivering-coolest-presidential-image-juveni

blog comments powered by Disqus