As a person who after some reluctance and much debate supported the invasion of Iraq for what I thought were tentative yet still logical reasons, I have regardless been willing, really since Rummy was foolishly running around dismissing ‘dead-enders’, to condemn the Bush administration for utterly screwing up a war that made some provisional sense to me by failing to plan or plan intelligently for what to do once the shooting stopped. Eventually I came to explain this screw up by believing Cheney and Rumsfeld had way too much control over the decision making process, which may have been Rice’s fault, and that led to a bad case of tunnel vision viz the post hostilities environment - and that this dangerous dynamic was emboldened by the relative ease with which the Taliban was routed in Afghanistan which engendered much wishful thinking which then encouraged someone in the administration [Rove?] to put way too much emphasis on the political windfall the toppling of Saddam would bring at the dire expense of ruinously shortchanging a coldly realistic analysis of what the ‘occupation’ would and should look like. This serious breakdown in thoughtful planning and analysis possibly could have been amended, compensated for had we not disbanded the Iraqi military - but once we made that fateful and foolish move, with the too small for post op security force that we had, it was essentially game over until the surge sort of repaired things.
So that’s the very short version of my thought’s on Bush and Iraq - which I bring up for, well, obvious reasons - but also to counter this idea that Obama, by opposing the Iraq war, got it right and Bush the warmongering idiot got it wrong. Let’s put aside that in cutting out of Iraq as if all problems were solved there and Islamist extremism was dead Obama displayed at least as much delusion viz Muslim politics and polities as Bush did - let’s put that aside and simply get this straight: Dear Leader opposed the Iraq war because, one, as a state legislator he represented a very left wing district that would have expected him to oppose the war; two, for the uber liberal elite and academic left, whose continuing adoration he needed to stoke to fuel his political rise, hatred of the American military and all it does was and is their default position and therefore they too would have expected, required him to oppose the war; and three, he was ideologically predisposed [remember his good buddy reverend chickens home to roost Wright?] to agree with that uber left elite. He didn’t oppose the war because of some brilliant strategic insight or some keen understanding of military history that a bumpkin like Bush could never hope to grasp - he opposed it because it was a political necessity that happened to fit quite nicely with his ideological pretensions.
For me to even begin to give Obama some credit for opposing the war he’d have to answer questions which far as I know he has never essayed response to and no doubt the lackey press has never asked - namely:
- the sanctions regime that had existed against Saddam since the end of the first gulf war was falling apart - absent an invasion to topple him, as president would you have let those sanctions slide away or would you have pushed to renew the effort? If you let them slide could I then infer that you also considered the first gulf war illegitimate? Let’s remember that two of the complaints by Osama used to justify 9/11 were focused on those sanctions - to wit, that they were killing thousands of Iraqi children and necessitated the stationing of infidel American troops in holy Saudi Arabia, an affront to all Muslims according to OBL - so if you let the sanctions slide and pulled out of Saudi Arabia leaving Saddam in power, doesn't that amount to giving Osama exactly what he wanted?
For me to even begin to give Obama some credit for opposing the war he’d have to answer questions which far as I know he has never essayed response to and no doubt the lackey press has never asked - namely:
- the sanctions regime that had existed against Saddam since the end of the first gulf war was falling apart - absent an invasion to topple him, as president would you have let those sanctions slide away or would you have pushed to renew the effort? If you let them slide could I then infer that you also considered the first gulf war illegitimate? Let’s remember that two of the complaints by Osama used to justify 9/11 were focused on those sanctions - to wit, that they were killing thousands of Iraqi children and necessitated the stationing of infidel American troops in holy Saudi Arabia, an affront to all Muslims according to OBL - so if you let the sanctions slide and pulled out of Saudi Arabia leaving Saddam in power, doesn't that amount to giving Osama exactly what he wanted?
- since all intelligence organizations believed, we now know mistakenly, that Saddam had an ongoing WMD program - and since Iran and Libya had nuclear programs which the former suspended and the latter disbanded after Bush invaded Iraq - in a post 9/11 world where Islamic terrorists had demonstrated a complete willingness to do whatever was necessary to bring down America, absent an Iraq invasion, as president how would you have dealt with those threats? Sanctions again?
- since we know from your primary against Hillary in 2008 that you viewed the Afghanistan war as legitimate, 'good' I believe you called it - does that mean you supported nation building there? And if there, why not Iraq since in retrospect one of the best arguments that one could have made against the Iraq war was that democracy promotion in the Muslim world is very much a fool’s errand? Certainly, Iraq was far more fertile ground viz cultural evolution than Afghanistan so I’d be confused if you supported nation building in the one and not the other - or was it your position that what made war in Afghanistan legitimate was simply the presence of Al Qaeda and so once they were chased over the hills into Pakistan we could pack up and leave and everything would be fine?
- as we now know, decimated in Afghanistan, Islamic extremism didn’t fade away but rather decentralized and reconstituted itself in various ways and in various new places - if you were president in let’s say 2006 and Saddam, still of course in power thanks to you and possibly also now free from sanctions, started to welcome in these roving extremists for whatever reason [he’d certainly supported terrorists in the past], what would you have done? And let’s remember, since we would not have invaded Iraq we therefore would still be under the impression he had a WMD program - so, given what your opposition to Bush’s invasion of Iraq implies, if such a thing had happened, would or wouldn't that have justified action against Saddam? If not, would that mean that you considered the fight against Islamic extremism over once Afghanistan had however temporally been purged of the pricks? [this admittedly in a sense not a fair question - but still legitimate since those who opposed the invasion tend to just assume Iraq with Saddam still in charge would have somehow remained a 'manageable' problem]
Off the top of my head, those are a few of the questions I’d need answered before giving anyone, Obama or otherwise, credit for having opposed the Bush invasion.
In the end the point is Obama’s foreign policy is not brilliantly inspired - rather, it amounts simply to doing the opposite of Bush, giving some pretty speeches and then acting as if everything will be fine because apparently the only thing he really seems to believe in is that less America is an inherently good thing - that’s not a foreign policy nor even remotely strategic - that's delusion and empty rhetoric posing as enlightenment.
- since we know from your primary against Hillary in 2008 that you viewed the Afghanistan war as legitimate, 'good' I believe you called it - does that mean you supported nation building there? And if there, why not Iraq since in retrospect one of the best arguments that one could have made against the Iraq war was that democracy promotion in the Muslim world is very much a fool’s errand? Certainly, Iraq was far more fertile ground viz cultural evolution than Afghanistan so I’d be confused if you supported nation building in the one and not the other - or was it your position that what made war in Afghanistan legitimate was simply the presence of Al Qaeda and so once they were chased over the hills into Pakistan we could pack up and leave and everything would be fine?
- as we now know, decimated in Afghanistan, Islamic extremism didn’t fade away but rather decentralized and reconstituted itself in various ways and in various new places - if you were president in let’s say 2006 and Saddam, still of course in power thanks to you and possibly also now free from sanctions, started to welcome in these roving extremists for whatever reason [he’d certainly supported terrorists in the past], what would you have done? And let’s remember, since we would not have invaded Iraq we therefore would still be under the impression he had a WMD program - so, given what your opposition to Bush’s invasion of Iraq implies, if such a thing had happened, would or wouldn't that have justified action against Saddam? If not, would that mean that you considered the fight against Islamic extremism over once Afghanistan had however temporally been purged of the pricks? [this admittedly in a sense not a fair question - but still legitimate since those who opposed the invasion tend to just assume Iraq with Saddam still in charge would have somehow remained a 'manageable' problem]
Off the top of my head, those are a few of the questions I’d need answered before giving anyone, Obama or otherwise, credit for having opposed the Bush invasion.
In the end the point is Obama’s foreign policy is not brilliantly inspired - rather, it amounts simply to doing the opposite of Bush, giving some pretty speeches and then acting as if everything will be fine because apparently the only thing he really seems to believe in is that less America is an inherently good thing - that’s not a foreign policy nor even remotely strategic - that's delusion and empty rhetoric posing as enlightenment.
[in actuality the only invasion opposing opinions I respect are those that argued that establishing democracy in Iraq would be difficult if not impossible, a failure to send enough troops and commit to an open ended occupation would almost certainly make it impossible, and the comeuppance of this failure would be a much more well position Iran which might complicate things in a worse way than just leaving Saddam in power would have and here's why... etc etc - that opinion I'd respect - that's not what Obama argued - and regardless, if that was your opinion then as I said you must also have believed that nation building in Afghanistan was a waste of time and therefore support for that war raises some difficult to answer questions. Those who try to say that the decision for or against invasion was obvious are fooling themselves or lying or are just superficial in their thinking - as I said in 2003 and still believe today: anyone who was more than 60/40 against or for toppling Saddam was either glossing over the problems of an occupation or glossing over the complications of leaving Iraq under a crumbling sanctions regime under Saddam's rule and not thinking through how 9/11 had changed the math for everything - the math may seem clearer now - though no less disturbing - but it wasn't clear then and those who act as if it was are spewing bullshit]
