Down with Barriers, Up with Iraq
It’s difficult to convey the level of violence that happened in South Baghdad during the period in 2007 when General Petraeus emailed to me those prophetic words. The Dragon Brigade in South Baghdad lost 100 soldiers who were killed in action (KIA) and more than 800 were wounded during their 14 months of fighting. And that was the least of it. Iraqi forces were taking heavier casualties and bodies of civilians littered the roads just about every day. Each day brought its car bombs, rockets, snipers, EFPs (very deadly bombs apparently from Iran), giant Humvee-shattering bombs, bodies found with hands bound behind their backs with bullet holes in their heads or throats slit, headless bodies, and bodiless heads. It was not uncommon to see dogs cleaning flesh off of freshly killed skulls. Mosques and churches were flattened. Market places were leveled. Neighborhoods were abandoned. One morning our soldiers were greeted by a human head, carefully placed in the middle of the road. Yet the Iraqis never quit, and neither did our people.
Last week, in this November of 2008, I was in a Humvee with a fine group of men, including: SGT Jason McInerney from Connecticut, who is on his second Iraq tour; Specialist Jason Cooper, a medic on his second Iraq tour hailing from “Central Texas”; and Specialist Mack Pinson from Lincoln Park, Michigan. Mack is on his first tour.
Sometimes folks get upset when these pages don’t mention the exact unit, but there is a reason for the shorthand: many readers are international or have little knowledge of the military, and many do not know the difference between the Army and the Marines, much less the various special operations forces. Since readers from dozens of countries visit this site each day — and I thank you for that! — I try to keep it straightforward. But out of respect for the soldiers, here goes the unit name: this mission was with Troop C, 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Multi-National Division Baghdad.
As we rolled out from dusty Forward Operating Base (FOB) Falcon, I asked how many casualties the unit had taken since they had arrived, from Fort Hood (Texas), in March 2008. The soldiers told me that one Humvee had taken an EFP strike, but that a Private Rafael Martinez had received only a ruptured eardrum.
It represents vast progress to observe that the current rotation in 2008 has lost only two soldiers to an EFP strike. As sad as those losses are, the extreme distinction over the 100 lost in the Dragon Brigade from the previous year is immense and exultant. The area has fallen nearly completely silent. The war has ended. The canary in the mineshaft survived. It is starting to chirp and it is just a matter of time before it begins to sing.
One battalion in the Dragon Brigade was the 2-12 Infantry, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Michael. His right hand man, Command Sergeant Major Charles Sasser, was open to and confident with the press and provided more than just combat expertise. I went on missions with his men, who spent important time educating me about their area when they could have been sleeping. LTC Michael is a native of Guyana in South America. The Guyanese are famously soft-spoken. In fact, Major Kirk Luedeke said of LTC Michael, “Soft spoken guy, but an extremely bright and tenacious fighter.” It was true. The commander seemed gentle and grandfatherly, but he commanded his units with great expertise in what must have been one of the most complicated areas in Iraq. LTC Michael’s battalion took 18 KIAs and more than 150 wounded, mostly during the surge. (2-12 was one of the battalions in the Dragon Brigade.) The 2-12′s old area has fallen quiet now. The soldiers accomplished their mission, though I doubt anyone will ever know how hard they worked.
For the record, out of respect it’s important to mention the battalions who fought the last tour and tamed South Baghdad. I asked Major Kirk Luedeke, who was there, working as the public affairs officer in this troubled area. Major Luedeke wrote:
Our organic maneuver units were: 1-28 IN (LTC Pat Frank), 1-4 CAV (LTC Jim Crider). Our 2-16 IN and 2-32 FA were in East Baghdad and Mansour with other BCTs. Attached to us were: 1-18 IN (LTC George Glaze), 2-12 IN (LTC Stephen Michael), 4-64 AR (LTC Johnnie Johnson — they replaced 1-18 IN in Nov), 2-4 IN (LTC Tim Watson who replaced 2-12 IN on Christmas eve), and a Stryker Cav Squadron 2-2 SCR (LTC Myron Reineke). We also had the following Stryker battalions attached to us during clearing ops in W. Rashid and Dora: 1-23 IN, 2-3 IN (from the 3/2 SBCT), and 2-23 IN (from 4/2 SBCT).
Later in the day, I rode around South Baghdad and saw Martinez, the soldier whose eardrum was ruptured in a bomb strike. Martinez was smiling. I asked if he could hear me, as I chuckled, and Martinez just laughed and started cracking jokes. The other soldiers joked with him about the EFP strike. In short, morale remains high in this rotation, despite the fact that there is no fighting going on. (Realize that a workhorse is mostly happy when it’s allowed to do its job, and the same goes for a soldier.) They talked about another casualty in which a power cable snapped off from a large power structure and crashed down, whacking a soldier on the head. Luckily he was wearing a helmet. The soldiers said that it knocked him for a loop, but he returned to duty. Chalk one up for Murphy’s Law. Murphy’s Law is about the only constant in Iraq and Afghanistan — but even that seems to be operating at slighter levels now.
Today’s mission — observing the progress of the peace — makes for boring journalism, but it made me very happy. I was smiling all day. This victory, like all real triumphs, is monumental and historic — though our military will not be allowed to express their feelings of pride and sense of well-earned glory.
When the war was on full-steam there was so much to report that it was impossible to keep track. And now that peace is breaking out, it’s equally impossible to keep track of all the progress. There’s still focus on the attacks, most of which are directed against Iraqis, not us. And so this “mission” was more like an armed errand to remove some concrete barriers between neighborhoods.
When it comes to creating the conditions for peace in Iraq, details matter. Of course the surge and change of tactics were central to the change that flipped the situation, and the Anbar Awakening was critical. But it is important to understand the role of smaller, tactical improvements. Though they were heavily criticized at the time by observers, the installation of thousands of barriers around Baghdad is one of the most unrecognized tools of success in the restoration of peace in Iraq. In 2006, bombs were killing thousands of people. Al-Qaeda, in particular, was trying to foment civil war and they were succeeding. When they murdered large numbers of Shia, for instance, other Shia would pour out of their neighborhood and murder large numbers of Sunnis in a flash of revenge. The barriers thwarted these flows of vengeance and baffled the violence.
Installing the miles of ugly concrete barriers was like patching up the internal bleeding of Baghdad — the heart of Iraq. The barriers did not “solve” the problem any more than a bandage cures a bullet wound, yet bandages saved lives. Removing these concrete barriers will be like removing the bandages to allow real healing to take place. We are only starting now, and it may take years before they are all gone.
There are many untold details contributing to the growing success on the ground — including the United States’ decision to put the “Sons of Iraq” (SOI) on our payroll until they could be handled by the Iraqi government, which just this month began to pay the SOIs. This program, criticized for creating “militias,” gave former enemies a sense of purpose and allowed them to assist in the progress. Where are those who screamed about “America’s militias” now that Iraq has hired those same people and is absorbing many into the police and army?
Chalk another one up for the military leaders for standing their ground. When the barriers went up, it was a sign that we were trying to get a grip on the civil war, and it was “exciting news” to some in the “further evidence of failure” camp. But when I stood and watched some of the barriers being taken down, the only camera there was mine.
Along the way on the morning of this November 13 mission, an eagle-eyed soldier in a different Humvee spotted a suspected IED, a cinder block placed atop a T-barrier. The EOD bomb experts were dispatched. Traditionally it would take hours for the bomb squad to show up, but they don’t have as much to do these days, and so the 752nd EOD company from Fort Hood arrived in about 45 minutes. While we waited for EOD, the two veterans in the Humvee were candid the way veterans tend to be. Both of them admitted to not caring about Iraqis on their first combat tour, because all they saw were attacks. But now they don’t have to fight with Iraqis and have gotten to know many by name. The soldiers realize that the Iraqis are a lot like we are, and they wish the Iraqis the best.
After EOD arrived, I talked with one of the MP escorts, SGT Jeremiah Norton, who today is serving a second Iraq tour. SGT Norton said that as late as March 2008, they were getting 10 to 15 EOD calls per day in the area, and many or most were real bombs. But now, EOD personnel sometimes don’t get a single call all day, and most calls end up having no bombs at all. Every sign I see, every little spot report like this, indicates the same thing: the war is over.
The words from General Petraeus about Southwest Baghdad will always stick with me: “It will be the canary in the mineshaft; if they can pull it off, this will be doable.”
The general was right … and the canary to sing for another day.
The Iraqi people should enjoy their relative peaceful existence while they can. The self-hating American Barack Obama is now president-elect—and he will try to destroy our allies. This is his existential default position. In Obama’s heart of hearts, the United States is a vile and despicable nation undeserving of military victories of any sort. And only bad people supposedly like us. Never forget that Obama sat in a church pew for roughly twenty years and listened to his racist pastor vilify America on a consistent basis. This cold fact should not be ignored. It tells you all a lot about Obama.
It’s time to declare this war over and draw down the troops. Not because we were forced out of Iraq, but because we have achieved the objectives of a stabilized Iraq.
The Iraqis have been battle hardened and are ready to step up.
“It’s time to declare this war over and draw down the troops.”
And this is what we indeed did after the conflicts in Germany, Japan and Korea. However, we still kept troops in these regions to act as a stabilizing force. The Iraqis also need America to somewhat referee the various factions within their country.
1. David Thomson,
I doubt Obama will squander the gains our military has made in Iraq. I know getting out of Iraq, and invading Pakistan was central to his campaign theme, but now its time for him to grow up and act like a president. I think he will.
David Thomson:
The Iraqi people should enjoy their relative peaceful existence while they can. The self-hating American Barack Obama is now president-elect—and he will try to destroy our allies. This is his existential default position. In Obama’s heart of hearts, the United States is a vile and despicable nation undeserving of military victories of any sort.
Funny, that is not how 53% of the American people who voted see the President-Elect. Nor, it should be added, the vast bulk of Americans who voted for his opponent, McCain.
I posit that only a fringe of Right-Wing whack jobs such as yourself believe that drivel.
I believe Obama was wrong about Iraq, wrong about the Surge. I think he will continue to make his share of mistakes in office and fail to lead on matters he should have led on – while hopefully not performing as catastrophically and toxically as Bush did.
I don’t see soon to be President Obama as a malignant soul. I don’t see him as trying to destroy America – but working to help bring us back from how far we have fallen economically and internationally. I have doubts about his experience, some of his associates..if he will be as beholden to HIS special interest groups as Bush was to HIS, to the nation’s detriment.
My prayers are with Obama, that he does well, and that he continues to have luck and circumstances favor him.
***************
One thing I am certain of. President Elect or New President Barack Obama could well benefit from a sitdown of half an hour with Michael Yon on an independent assessment of our troops and how to better shape America’s wartime communications to it’s people and to the world.
Someone like Yon is very valuable, in field since 1998, familiar with not just Iraq and Afghanistan but other hotspots..and free of the PhD academic think tank crowd or the Pentagon Party Line.
“I know getting out of Iraq, and invading Pakistan was central to his campaign theme, but…”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You obviously hope that Barack Obama was lying while campaigning for the presidency. This may be the first election in American history where so many voters hope their candidate is a deceitful human being. What can I say? Poor Dick Nixon was never cut such slack. Nonetheless, I hope you are right.
It is time to bail out before the Iraqis play us like a welfare state. It would have been nice to keep a base and vex the Syrians and Iranians, but the democratic experiment won’t be proven to work until the Iraqi government can fend for itself. AQ can stay and make itself more unpopular.
“President Elect or New President Barack Obama could well benefit from a sitdown of half an hour with Michael Yon on an independent assessment of our troops and how to better shape America’s wartime communications to it’s people and to the world.”
I am in total agreement. When can we arrange this meeting? Do you have Rahm Emanuel’s cell number? And why only a half hour? I would feel a lot better if Michael Yon was provided a permanent seat at the table.
Of course what many usually forget is we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place. Too late now.
Pat J, thank goodness we have you and other ‘novices’ to remind us. Where would we be without you? BTW, Kennedy should’ve driven through Dallas with the top down. Lincoln should have had more protection at the Ford theater. Bush #1 should’ve given the finger to Congress and gone into Baghdad in ’91 and finished cleaning house.
Comments like yours are moot to the nth degree..
10. Paul_Unalaska:
——————
Give me an example on how the war in Iraq has made America safer.
How many more centuries will it take for leftists, radicals, and the people who apologize for them to understand that all marxists are by definition the same. Every time a new one comes along we are told, by them, that this time it will be different. It is never different. It always turns out to be a Chavez, a Castro, an Ortega, a Kirchner, a Morales, an Obama. This is not speculation or guessing. We have a hundred years of history in a hundred different countries as affirmation. The fact that millions of Americans voted for Obama is completely irrelevant to the fact that he is a radical leftist revolutionary who will do whatever he can get away with. Remember what he himself said, and I quote: This is a great country. Now let’s change it.
Sorry Barack. Let’s not.
we have to move out of Iraq, it is not sustainable to our country, and we have got about as far as we are going to get there. time for Iraqis to run their country, I’m sick of being a Nanny wet nurse state for the middle east.
Pat J:
Of course what many usually forget is we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place. Too late now.
You may be right. Sometimes after a “victory” such as the US Civil War, WWI both sides later assess the damages, the lost opportunity costs – and even the victor(s) wonder if it was worth it. (The Civil War killed 660,000, one in 22 Americans, wrecked 1/3rd of the country – while slavery ended everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere – except Haiti – by economic and human rights considerations. The last country, Brazil, had started ending it in 1868.)
With Iraq, we have to weigh not just the initial decision, but how it played out…There are factors for and against it being a net positive for America..It’s complicated. Something that Right-Wingers and Lefties who think in simple slogans detest hearing. But it is complicated and it may be years, even decades before we see if Iraq was “worth it”.
1. The opportunity cost. 33,000 casualties and 800 billion lost. What if Bush, at 90% popularity after taking Afghanistan, had used his political capital to avoid Iraq, finish in Afghanistan, and spend instead on national energy independence and regaining our ability to compete with China instead?? WMD Inspections were ongoing, Saddam was contained, most of the world wanted to wait and let that phase play out.
2. What if we had invaded, whipped ass, killed Saddam – then left? Without the catastrophic Bremer decisions on the Iraq military and civil service? Without the neocon-Sharansky-Bush illusion of a flourishing “democracy” that tied our hands for 3 years?
3. Remember that just as our own catastrophic decisions were made, Al Qaeda made one of even greater catastrophic consequences for their side. Making Iraq the “Central Front” and inflicting mass terror on Iraqis, fellow Muslims. This has ended in a great strategic defeat for AQ – destroying it’s brand, crippling radical Islamist causes in other countries. They admit this. In a sense they f*cked up worse than Bush&Co did. Only those Americans caught up in the “Law enforcement, lawyers should address matters”, including Obama, still persist in saying “The Real Threat” is 6 survovors of the 9/11 Attack holed up in Pakistani village mud huts. Everyone else recognizes that the global Islamist movement, not a particular attack made by one of 30 Muslim terror groups getting strength and people from the radical Islamist movement…is the true threat facing the West, parts of Asia, and the Muslim nations..
4. We certainly overspent, and many would say we took excessive casualties to get it – but we reaped huge gains in counter-terror intel, taught the military (again) that war is more than golly gee wiz high tech toys and pushbuttons. Iraq also was part of the Arab’s learning curve. We got them serious about the threat against, not just us infidels, but Arabs themselves they were foolishly nourishing. From Saudi Arabia to Algeria, Iraq yielded positive results. Libya spilled the beans on the AQ Khan nuke network. Syria is talking a settlement. Outside Arab lands, Indonesia made a decision to reject terror.
We were fortunate, believe it or not, that this learning was allowed to take place slowly because the war was low-intensity. For all the blubbering about 4,000 Dead! 4,000 dead!…parties in WWI that made the sort of bad decisions Bush dead had 2-3 million dead before they fixed their initial f*ckups. In WWII, America took about 50,000 dead before we learned, fixed – and had a military as good as the Wehrmacht or IJA. And we fared better than Stalin, who lost 13 million Soviets before the Red Army transformed into a match for the Germans.
5. While we have been in Iraq, we have effectively, lost the ability to affect events elsewhere, even focus in them. We lost ability to do things we knew we had to do in Afghanistan, kicking them down the road in hopes things wouldn’t get worse..But they did. Far worse. For all the Neocon and Israeli Zionist saber-rattling over Iran, basically, the Iranians knew they were fairly safe from the US, or the US allowing them to be attacked over Iraqi airspace by the loathed (by Iraqis) Israelis. Iraq cost us the attention we might have cast on Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia starting their radical revolutions and affecting our vital interests. Add that since other nations knew we were bogged down – we lost clout over events in the Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma..That wil also be part of any historical review of the Iraq War. How it affected global events.
Iraq may have made us safer. But then again, other decisions to do things other than start a war on Iraq might have made us safer still. We may find that intel we gained allowed us to save a few thousand Westerners from terror attack – but against the money we squandered, light casualties, and opportunities lost…we have to honestly look years down the road and see what we think of the now cast in cement opinions of the political Left and the Right.
C-fudd,
You normally write bilge but here you’ve outdone yourself. You make me wish they had an “ignore” feature on this blog.
Without Bush the victory Yon is writing about doesn’t happen. Bush sacrificed his Presidency to achieve it. Your boy Bama WOULD HAVE, AND WANTED TO, lose in Iraq. His party aided and abetted the enemy in time of war. You don’t see him as a “malignant soul?” You wouldn’t. I, however, see both you and him as one, and for damned good reason–your own words convict you.
We are still some years from the final drawdown, but the indicators since 2006 have been good. War is the worst thing in history, save for an unjust peace and tyrants seeking to evade their responsibilities and corrupt our sensibilities – that is far worse than war as we lose ourselves if those things continue. The tyrant is gone and dead, and the killers are now stalked and hunted by a society that now learns to protect itself. We grieve for our dead and the death of innocents caused by those that wish to destroy society – but that time of the killers walking freely is now over. It were best if war not be fought, but we are fools if we think that peace can exist with an unbloodied civil sword to gain it. The test is putting the sword away and taking out the tools to build with those who we formerly counted as enemies.
That is the making of peace after war.
My greatest of admiration goes to our fellow citizens who have fought in these conflicts: they have demonstrated a stalwart capability no matter how awful our civil environment has grown. These citizen soldiers have shown the deepest heart of what it takes to make a Nation by extending to those who have fallen in defeat the hand of friendship so we can once and for all have a people with whom we can set aside war and keep to mere civil disagreements. That is good.
Peace is not given, it is built and maintained. And if those wanting support now demonstrate that they are willing to do *that* after a conflict they disagreed with is *over*. If you did not like this Nation finally bringing a tyrant who would keep to no agreement with us, as a Nation, to an end… then the question is will you now build a good peace with those he had subjugated now that the conflict is over? For that, too, is necessary in war. And those who blanche at blood spilled must now gather some courage and make sure we create understanding with those who we have helped to stand on their own. If you can’t do that, then all such stances are mere bluster to seek continued turmoil without end and complain forevermore…. and see blood spilled forevermore because you cannot fight and will not build.
You didn’t like the war? Fine.
Can you gain the courage to build a peace? For that is very, very hard to do. I will support you in that with our citizen soldiers for it is good and right. Just don’t complain about it… as our soldiers did not in their duty, do not complain in yours. This is the part of ending war that is important. Make peace. The proof is in the doing, the time to complain draws to a close. If you think the cost of peace is high, remember the cost of war.
I am impressed by Cederford’s cogent analysis posted here. Thanks.
Like him I realise that Iraq will have to be left to History to determine the ‘net’ effect, but I am more hopeful now than at possibly any other time.
Even if Iraq just turns into the Best Arab State, that in itself is something to value. And frankly I think that is the least that one could reasonably expect in both the short and long terms.
Do the costs outweigh the gains ?
I like Cedarford, can’t say but the equation is far better balanced now than it was just even 1 year ago. And if they can spend a TRILLION DOLLARS to clean up after a collection of criminals on Wall Street(who should ALL be in jail for about 20 years, just to start), then the money spent on Iraq is indeed pretty small potatoes.
Pat J,
You’re bouncing from your semantic comment to your most recent (comment #11). Though I’ll bite..
I know in post 9/11 world, the U.S. hasn’t had as much as a car bomb from a terrorist network.
Here’s but a few examples of incidents (I’m not including al Qaeda linked bombings in Pakistan, Russia, Yemen, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Morocoo, Chechnya, Istanbul, Kirdistan etc.,) which occurred in other countries by al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda symapthizers. Incidentally, all are in or near the Middle East.
March 11, 2004 – Madrid, Spain bombings carried out by group of Moroccan, Syrian, and Algerian Muslims inspired by al-Qaeda
July 7, 2005 – London, England bombings carried out by British Islamist extremists
November 9, 2005 – Amman, Jordan bombings carried out by Abu Musab Zarqawi’s, “al-Queda in Iraq.”
Just google: terrorist attacks post 9/11 and I’m sure you can find hundreds of more incidents. Though you’ll find the attacks are becoming more and more desperate. Such as luring women, children to do their deeds (which it too is becoming more widespread) for their training grounds are dismantling or perpetrators are being killed.
Lastly, most news reports state al-Qaeda, 7 years later is in disarray (duelly noted in Mr. Yon’s article). Do you not believe that to be the work of the ALLIED soldiers in Iraq, respectively?
al-Qaeda and their symapthizers are on the run (not to mention weakening other terrorist groups. Such as the Baath Party, Jihad, al-Qanin, etc.,)! For our being in Iraq these last 5 years, finding and killing al-Qaeda members, can you imagine the destruction which WOULD have ensued if we hadn’t?
For the record, I meant less widespread to comment #18. Thx
Q: For all you skeptics of Bush: What happens in the ME if we don’t go into Iraq?
A: Saddam keeps his WMD’s, grows old and turns them over to his pathological progeny. The country accelerates down the path of failed statehood causing many more deaths to innocents and further destabilizing the ME for generations.
Q:What happens in Afghanistan if we don’t go there & overthrow the Mullahs?
A:The Taliban grow stronger, as evil always does when left unchecked, and destabilize all SW Asia, including nuclear armed Pakistan, the energy producing ‘stans and perhaps other former soviet satellites – possibly even emerging India, by 2009.
Thank you for your response Paul. And, cedarford, excellent analysis as well. Very refreshing to hear intelligent discussion instead of the usual RW idiot banter on this site.
The bottom line is it may take a generation to determine what sort of failure or success there was in Iraq.
Pat J,
No worries. My stance regarding the war is to accomplish what we’d initially intended. The cut n’ run tactic is something we’ve done for 50 + years. No more elbow room or resurging for these parasites. If not for us, then for the brave men and women who’ve helped countless lives in their duty. With that, I was recently given this address. It’d be nice to drop the guys and girls a note for the holidays. Take care
A Recovering American Soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.
20307-5001
BTW, off topic. Don’t you think, ‘Foundations for Defense of Dmocracies’ Megan Ortagus looks eerily similiar to Jenny Agutter (you know, the woman from, ‘Logan’s Run’ & ‘An American Werewolf in Paris’ fame)?
With Bush turning tail accepting the deal the IRANIANS LIKE, you pajamas little boys declare victory.
Gotta love it, tikes.
Thank you for telling us about Iraq. We can no longer rely on the media, the media is DEAD. RIP.
The bottom line is it may take a generation to determine what sort of failure or success there was in Iraq.
Not even.
The war was a massive net gain for the U.S.
1. We now have the first Arab democracy and the first Arab free press, which show the rest of the region what’s possible if you’re willing to fight and change your hidebound way of doing things.
2. The Shi’ites now govern a country, which gives hope to the oppressed Shi’ites all over the region and therefore alleviates simmering sectarian tensions.
3. Al Qaeda is totally discredited.
4. We’ve created a de facto Sunni Arab alliance against Iran.
5. The U.S. is much more involved and influential now than it was under Clinton.
6. The U.S. and its military have utterly destroyed our image in the middle east as paper tigers that can’t take casualties.
7. The U.S. military is now the most combat-hardened force on the planet, able to fight both conventional wars and asymmetrical wars. This experience will sustain us for decades.
8. In its dealings with Iraq (SOFA, etc.) the U.S. has shown the Muslim world that we’re not colonists or imperialists, and that we can deal fairly with Muslim governments.
9. We’ve shown the world’s armed forces and terrorists that we can defeat a massive, well-trained, well-armed, and well-financed insurgency in record time.
10. We’ve created interoperability with most of the armed forces of the democratic nations.
These are all just off the top of my head.
Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. The Iraq war is incalculably positive for the U.S.
All over the middle east, young men are now wearing their hair in the style they’ve seen on the men of the U.S. Marine Corps. The Iraqis want American equipment now. Their soldiers say that the AK-47 is the weapon of losers, while the M-16 is the weapon of winners.
This was a costly, hard-won victory, but it was worth every bit of sacrifice in blood and treasure. No question.
Gary Sinise rocks on CSI.
Cedarford — For years, I have been in awe at the bulletproof consistency of your BDS Bigotry…. Not to mention your ability to live through history and miss all of it.
Fortunately, you have ME to explain things to you. Listen and learn, grasshopper….
George Bush’s America has freed 50 million people from two of the most murderous governments on earth. It has given those people two U.N.-approved, constitutional Democracies — instead of pro-American dictatorships. And it is protecting them — at high cost and little direct benefit to itself — from even worse butchers until their own new governments can grow up enough to do it alone.
when this process is complete, George Bush will be one of the greatest liberators in human history — and America will be one for the 7th or 8th time in its history. There will be two new democracies beginning the process of joining the modern world as Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, and the Philippines did 60 years ago; and as Eastern Europe did 20 years ago. With American help (if they get it), they will be leading two new regions of the world — the Middle East and Central Asia — in the same direction.
As a bonus, America has developed a military that can beat all three flavors of Islamo-fascism (secular, Sunni, & Shia) even in the heart of the ancient Caliphate.
No other country — and NONE of George Bush’s critics — would have done any of this better, as well, or AT ALL.
the best P.R. is word of mouth, they have seen are young men at work and know them by their deeds.
our
” but working to help bring us back from how far we have fallen economically and internationally.” cedarford
You liberal dweeb. How far we have fallen? Are you nuts? We have successfully liberated Iraq and pacified the country. They now have a chance to live peaceful, fulfilling lives. Your guy Obama was prepared to abandon Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. Not even genocide would have deterred him from that result.
With all the violence, much of it sectarian, winning hearts and minds in Iraq to heal and become Iraqis fortunately, has not been the challenge America faces with fellow Americans.
cedarford makes a couple of good points, but articulates some drivel, too.
Invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Saddam Hussein was a menace and a threat to the entire region. Like Iran, he had his heart set on nuclear weapons too – and he stood a very good chance of developing them. He’d come close before. I cannot recommend the book “The Bomb in my Garden” enough – it’s written by one of Saddam’s ex-nuclear scientists and tells in no uncertain terms just how close the butcher came to attaining nukes. Left in power, he would have obtained them eventually, I have no doubt about that.
I would even contend that nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam would be a far more dangerous situation than nukes in the hands of the Iranian government – Saddam was considerably more reckless and unperturbed by consequence than others in the region, as he had already displayed many times in the past. To leave the containment of such a threat in the hands of the incompetent and spineless U.N. would have been a terribly irresponsible thing for Bush to do.
As many as – or more – Iraqis died under Clinton, through sanctions, than did under Bush. Yet what did Clinton achieve in the way of neutralizing the threat of the Middle East? Nothing. Bush unseated two of the region’s most dangerous and oppressive regimes and installed democracy in both. I cannot stress enough that the only way we will ever see any kind of global stability is through the spread of liberal democracy and free trade. There is no other road to peace. It’s not that we have to invade every rogue country and unseat every totalitarian regime, because quite obviously we cannot. But planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East was a very prudent thing to do and will influence the entire region in the long run. It has also emboldened pro-democracy movements in other parts of the region. There can be no turning back, we have to make sure of that.
The notion of a “flourishing democracy” in Iraq is not an illusion – it is coming to pass. The news from that country is increasingly positive.
We are in the midst of dangerous times in which the intersection of Islamic jihad, secular radicalism and WMD’s looms upon us. Isolationists be damned. The war on terror is absolutely, positively in our own best interests. Events in Africa are not our priority and not in our rational self-interest at present. We do not have the resources to take both a defensive and a humanitarian role.
Bush will be given his credit in due course. He did not perform “catastrophically” and those who continue to insist that he did are no further advanced intellectually than a 12 year old kid who thinks his parents are “the worst in the world, ever.” It really is about time that those with Bush Derangement Syndrome thought seriously about seeking psychological help, because it’s an affliction which will continue to affect their sense of judgment long after the Bush administration.
I’m just floored by all of the intellect in the comment sections. I thnk all of the political geniuses need to go back to war making 101 (breaking stuff and blowing up stuff). Once the decision to unleash the hounds of war is made, it is insured that a logical mind cuts off the enemy so they can kill it. Iraq and Afghanistan were used to cut it off; now we wait to kill it…
Please, folks, read history. That means you, Pat J.
Pat J -
Remember the claim that we had to address the root causes in the wake of 9/11? Well, that’s exactly what the invasion of Iraq did.
The reason Bin Laden was pissed at us is we stationed our infidel troops on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia. The reason those troops were there was to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq. The reason we had to do that was that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous bastard who, if he controlled the oil of Saudi Arabia, would be uncontainable.
By eliminating Saddam Hussein (and staying long enough to forestall his simple replacement with a similarly dangerous successor), we have eliminated any need for United States forces to remain on Saudi soil. Thus lancing the festering boil that prompted the Khobar Towers attacks, the African embassy attacks, the USS Cole attack, and the 9/11 attack.
(Oh, and we also managed to scare the socks of Qaddafi, so Libya ended its WMD programs and sponsorship of terrorism.)
The alternatives were:
1) Maintain the status quo, which is what prompted that whole string of terrorist attacks. Libya remains in the WMD and terrorism game. The Russians, Chinese, Germans, and French resume their pre-9/11 efforts to end sanctions against Iraq.
2) Leave Saudi Arabia without removing Hussein. Hussein’s military, while no match for the U.S., easily sweeps into underpopulated Saudi Arabia. Controlling the Iraqi and Saudi oilfields, all sanctions regimes collapse under the weight of economic necessity. Hussein fires up a third nuclear program (the first being Osirak, the second being the one stopped by the Gulf War and sanctions) and buys a lot of new military hardware. Saddam Hussein becomes the dominant power in the Middle East, in a triple position of military power (nukes and guns), economic power (oil reserves), and social power (controlling the Holy Cities).
3) We invade, but leave Iraq after getting Hussein. Iraq winds up under the rule of a new violent dictator (results the same as scenario 2), under an Iranian puppet (results the same as scenario 2, except under the Iranians, which makes it an even bigger, tougher regional power), under a Syrian puppet (scenario 2 but tougher, again), or a failed state (lots of human suffering in Iraq, but actually no serious problems for the U.S.)
Net, we may have been better off with #1. But it’s hard to be sure of that, even with the hindsight of how much the war and reconstruction cost.
Joe – I would add to your excellent piece that prior to our parking 50,000 plus soldiers on Saddam’s border he had kicked the U.N. WMD inspectors out of Iraq. We forced him to let them back in. However, we couldn’t leave our men in the desert indefinitely. The choice was to leave with Saddam in place or force him out. I would also note that technically we were still at war with Iraq and he was firing on our planes and that Congress had, during the Clinton Administration, voted to oust him. That there turned out to be no WMD is beside the point. The only way to learn that was to invade.
I’d also like to point out to other commenters that we did not leave forces behind in Germany, Japan, etc. just to stabilize their democracies, but to combat the USSR. Our basing rights around the world allowed us to project our power. It helped bring the USSR to its knees. Basing rights in Iraq may do the same to Islamo-fascism.
Even given that Bush was not a economic conservative and is a social conservative and knowing what we know now, I’d still vote for him over Kerry. Obama makes me fear for my country.
On 22 November, I was one of thousands of bloggers who helped the folks at zombietime celebrate VI (Victory in Iraq) Day
Link:http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/viday-victory-in-iraq-day/
I summarized by saying this:
We now have to focus on finishing up the mission in Afghanistan. It will take a surge and an invasion into Pakistan, to cut the throats of what’s left of the Al Qaeda and Taliban who scurried across the border to re-group. But until B. Hussein Obama is out of office, that isn’t likely to happen.
Hopefully, after 2012, we can declare a VA Day
At least 2 more “positives” for the U.S. in taking down Saddam and staying the course to victory:
1. U.S. soldiers and marines have forged unbreakable bonds with many, many Iraqis by laying down their lives for them and suffering along with them. These bonds will pay dividends well into the future, particularly as sunni and shia children become adults and take the reins of power in Iraq and remember how U.S. soldiers and marines sacrificed for them. We talk about Israel being our closest ally in the Middle East but we can also increasingly count on Iraq –barring a precipitate pullout of U.S. troops– as a close and powerful ally as well. Iraq is perhaps the best positioned Arab country in the M.E. to grow into a dominant regional power with its huge oil reserves, relatively educated population, secular traditions and increasingly democratic government. This will be a very good ally to have, particularly if (when) Iran gets its nukes.
2. As Nibras Kazimi notes at The Other Talisman Gate, Iraq is uniquely positioned now to deal, if need be, with an increasingly fragile and vulnerable Saudi Arabia. As Iraq grows stronger militarily it will develop the ability to safeguard the oil reserves of S.A. and the gulf states. And, God forbid, if S.A. continues to weaken and falls to wahabbi extremists, it will be Iraq that will be best positioned to keep the oilfields out of terrorist hands and back into production.
Great points @ the last several posts.
One note of caution I would add to all this giddiness: The new Iragi Constitution recognizes Islam as the official State religion.
That is the fly in the ointment IMHO.
Matt Sanchez said:
“It’s time to declare this war over and draw down the troops. Not because we were forced out of Iraq, but because we have achieved the objectives of a stabilized Iraq.
The Iraqis have been battle hardened and are ready to step up.”
I am all for that, how about 63 years after we get out of Europe…….. Let the euroweenies should be battlehardened by now huh……
No huh, figures……….
The Leftist mindset behind the Anti-War ideology is the same that would have been loyalist in the American Revolution and vocally against the Civil War.
They were also vehemently against helping Europe against Hitler until Pearl Harbor, almost allowing the total sujugation of the entire Continent to Nazism.
After all our guys and let’s not forget the Iraqi soldiers and police have done in Iraq it would be morally unacceptable for President-elect Obama to withdraw our forces on any kind of time-line. Tens of thousands of Iraqi’s have risked their all to support us to reach the goal of a peaceful,prosperous country and the retribution they would face at the hands of AQI or JAM would be fierce. A free and democratic Iraq scares the *&%$#@^( out of Syria and Iran, thats why this is terribly important.
PS Gary Sinise = Patriot
cedarford, I think the main difference between our perspectives re Iraq is our starting assumptions. You say, in summary, that “WMD Inspections were ongoing, Saddam was contained, most of the world wanted to wait and let that phase play out,” but I saw the geopolitical situation much differently.
In 2002 we had the Taliban on the run. In loking at the larger war on terrorism, though, the major short-term existential threat to the US was in WMD and technology proliferation. By definition this meant Iran, Iraq and the A. Q. Kwan network (Pakistan, Syria, Libya, etc.). The only viable long-term solution to defeat terrorism and the ideology that drives it I can see is a Middle East that is not dominated by totalitarian leaders (secular, like Saddam, or religious, like the Mullahs). The real question was always how to influence regional events to that end while managing an acceptable WMD/technology proliferation risk.
As I said, in 2002 I could not imagine an end-state that included a Ba’athist Iraq. For a decade we had unsuccessfully attempted to influence regime change, and I see no evidence to suggest that an additional 10 years or more would have any difference. A committed and heavilly armed enemy in the region would always require a significant containment effort and serve as a spoiler on our flank in the event of any other operation. And there was always the WMD question.
While obviously looking at things differently than I, you seem honest enough to not try and trot out the silly “Bush lied” exageration that too often used to stop real discussion on the matter. The fact is, practically everyone believed Iraq possessed prohibited weapons and technology and that post-invasion inspections did find both (admittedly not in the quantity expected) in addition to copiuos documents detailing future plans to reconstitute programs once sanctions had been lifted. Personally, I have seen nothing to convince me that at the time Powell made his (in)famous presentation to the UN that the data he presented was not accurate. After all, if you know the narcs are coming you flush or hide your dope, and Saddam had several months to move/destroy whatever he wanted.
You say the inspections were ongoing, but they were of questionable quality, Iraq was steadfastly non-cooperative and the only time they gave nominal aquiescence was in the face of thousands of US troops poised across the border in KSA or Kuwait, not a sustainable situation simply to make inspections happen. You also say they were contained and that most of the world wanted to see how things played out. You fail to mention that much of the world, as defined by the UNSC, were being coopted and bribed by Saddam to lift sanctions, the very trigger he was waiting for to reconstitute many weapons programs. With China, Russia and France on his payroll and growing influence in UK politics (can you say George Galloway et. al.?) how long do you think it would have been before the US was the sole veto maintaining these sanctions? How do you think this would have played out in your world opinion model? I don’t believe containment was a feasible long-term solution to removing the Ba’athist government and Saddam’s power.
I believed armed conflict with Saddam was eventual and that we did well to choose its timing. The risks of uncertain WMD status, regional instability and perpetuating the “paper tiger” image that emboldened AQ and its allies balanced against the potential benefits of having a strong regional ally, removing a committed unpredictable enemy and presenting a multiple-front threat to Iran combined to make it the right action at the time.
@submandave:
Just to add to your assessment:
Not only were there valid reasons to believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs, we found them:
1) Declassified NGIC report:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
2) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
3) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
4) Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/02/international1018EDT0516.DTL
and: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html
5) Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
6) Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
Those weapons were previously unknown to U.N. inspectors.
Oh yeah, and his terrorist connections:
He gave thousands of dollars to families of suicide bombers and in addition, Iraqi intelligence met with al Qadea operatives and provided with training camps in Northern Iraq:
The Mother of All Connections
From the July 18, 2005 issue: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda.
by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn
07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41
Source:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=1
Saddam Hussein, as evidenced by the WMD found, his previous use, continued willingness to use them, and the documents discovered which connected him to terrorists, was a threat. The fact remains that the inspectors got absolutely nowhere with regard to full disclosure of Hussein’s WMD program.
I’m a veteran of both Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We should have finished the job in Iraq the first time.
Michael Yon,
Thanks again for your first-class reporting and for giving us an alternative to the insipid MSM.
Please consider a trip to Somalia and give us the lowdown there. I think it is an underrepoterd as well as critical part of the picture of the War against Terrorism.
Looks Like Obama lied, we have won the war in Iraq. Let the impeachment fun begin. That is the Demo party standard now> correct>?>?? All presidents and would be presidents must be able to summon up the future in a crystal ball. Looks like Obamas ball has failed him. He has to be insulted, harranged, lied about and run out of town and his ugly little Dog too…….