Presenting his nominee for secretary of defense yesterday, President Obama began with a self-congratulatory assessment of his own national security record, asserting he had protected American security “by ending the war in Iraq, and beginning a transition in Afghanistan.”
As Bret Stephens notes in the Wall Street Journal, it was President Bush whose surge in Iraq (against the advice of Senators Obama, Kerry and Hagel) ended that war, and whose status of forces agreement with Iraq could have led to a long-term U.S. security relationship, had President Obama not fumbled it. In Afghanistan, Obama approved a 3/4 surge, announcing it with a speech setting a time limit and asserting the country he really wanted to build was his own. He will “transition” next year without a victory. In that regard, it may be useful to recall President Bush’s December 1, 2008 interview with Charlie Gibson:
GIBSON: Was there a time [during your presidency] when you thought, if I do this I will be compromising my principles –
BUSH: Yes.
GIBSON: — some decision where you really thought that that was at issue?
BUSH: Yes.
GIBSON: What?
BUSH: The pullout of Iraq. It would have compromised the principle that when you put kids into harm’s way, you go in to win. And it was a tough call, particularly, since a lot of people were advising for me to get out of Iraq, or pull back in Iraq, or — and rather than listen to — I mean, I listened to a lot of voices, but ultimately, I listened to this voice: I’m not going to let your son die in vain; I believe we can win; I’m going to do what it takes to win in Iraq.
As Iran watches the Obama-Kerry-Hagel triumvirate assume control of American foreign policy, the signal is unmistakable. You don’t nominate a person to head the American military who says he is still haunted by Vietnam, said the effort in Afghanistan was “not sustainable at all,” opposed the effort to win the Iraq War, wants to negotiate with Iran’s ally in Gaza, and is proud of his ability to resist the “Jewish Lobby,” without realizing the signal it sends–particularly when you couple it with a nomination for secretary of state of someone similarly haunted (and known more recently for his continual attempts to engage Bashar al-Assad). It is as clear as a presidential pat on the knee.
"…it was President Bush whose surge in Iraq (against the advice of Senators Obama, Kerry and Hagel) ended that war…." n nAfter invading Iraq without any plan on how to occupy and pacify. Right from the beginning, critics said the force was inadequate to the job. Rumsfeld's reply that "you go to war with the army to have" belied the fact that a greater force could have and should have been employed in the first place. The question of the war's legality is another matter.
Critics said a lot of things about the war in Iraq that didn't come true. The fact that some of the opposition was spot on was, frankly, inevitable. The bigger question is whether or not the war was smart policy, and reasonable people can disagree about that. Apparently you are afraid to engage in that discussion, so you hide behind the vague notion of legality. nWhat is frustrating about your comments and the opposition in general to the war in Iraq is that it is juvenile. You act as if the Bush administration's failure to foresee all of the problems following the invasion was itself somehow unexpected. But that is the nature of war. Great war leaders don't foresee every problem – they adapt to them. Bush never said the war would be easy – in fact, he assured Americans that the War on Terror would be long and difficult, and would be fought on many fronts (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, etc.) He also noted that we would often be unaware of our successes, sometimes for years. The killing of bin Laden is an example of that. How many unseen victories did we have before the big prize? nNo country fights the war it was expecting to fight. Abe Lincoln made tons of mistakes; so did FDR. Yet they persevered, and won. As did Bush. nOnly in the simplistic world of the left do the inevitable errors take precedence over the final result – in this case a final result that Obama has squandered.
They must have some red lines somewhere. I hope it is not the beaches on the Pacific ocean. nAll these Muslim countries have catastrophic economies and internal problems. They can't afford any war. Iran economy is down-spinning. Yes their ideology is their most important goal because they do not know better besides their fanaticism. nThis administration believes that few people in the Middle East still have a few sane and intact brain cells. Do they?