It’s been five years since Saddam Hussein was pulled from his rat hole:
Saddam Hussein, his sons, and his supporters terrorized the people of Iraq and subjected them to violence and maltreatment without reason or restraint. His record of rape, torture, murder, and oppression is well documented but marginalized and deflected by critics who claim that the violence of the war overshadows Hussein’s heinous crimes. This argument does not, and cannot stand. During Saddam Hussein’s reign, Iraqis had no sense that the terror would ever end. The individual citizen had neither the right nor the ability to oppose Saddam’s henchmen, who took what they wanted, killed and raped at will, and tortured (think hooks, blowtorches, and electricity) to intimidate or eliminate potential enemies. The purpose of this evil was solely to maintain Saddam’s power and strengthen his regime by dominating the will of the people. He was held up as something more than human, above all laws and criticism and accountable to no one. Operation Desert Storm did little to give Iraqis lasting hope that Saddam would be defeated, and when he ruthlessly crushed the Shia and Kurds after the war without response from the West, they recognized it as another validation of Saddam’s invincibility.
When U.S. soldiers pulled Saddam Hussein from that hole in Tikrit, the spell that had held Iraqis captive for decades was broken. Suddenly, there was a glimmer of hope for a population who had never had the right to dream of a better life. That hope is what differentiates every day before December 13, 2003, from every day since. It is the hope that things will get better, that the individual life can mean something. That the next generation can live a better life than the current one, and that through effort and will the people can make tomorrow better than today. This hope is fundamental to meaningful human existence, but is often taken for granted by Americans who have never endured a life where its expression is denied by a cruel dictator. Some suggest that Saddam’s dictatorship, though cruel and oppressive, was the only way to effectively control the tribes, maintain order, and govern the country. Day by day the Iraqi people are proving them wrong; this is the legacy of December 13.
Abandoning the Iraqis to this monster (after encouraging them to rise against him) in 1990 will be seen by history as a major policy blunder. When you kick a can down the road, it sometimes turns into a grenade.
The most important thing to remember right now is that the Iraqi government has told the US to get out unconditionally, and Bush has agreed to their terms. Remember when McCain said that we could stay in Iraq for 100 years if they wanted us to? They don’t want us to.
When Obama pulls out of Iraq, some will accuse him of betrayal and cowardice. But Bush has already written it on the wall before Obama takes office.
Jim Harris:
“Waaaahh, Whaaahhhh, Wahhhhhhhhh!!!”
It’s not as simple as that, Jim, though I know thinking it so tickles your BDS:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122917052669504345.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
No, the real concern is what people will say about Obama. Bush after all only has one month left, and as presidents go he’s practically the Invisible Man. In fact that’s part of the problem. He’s been so invisible that the pro-war faction will probably blame Obama for the Status of Forces Agreement.
General Odierno is a case in point. As the saying goes, if you’re a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. Odierno has been told to stop hammering nails at the house that is Iraq; he’s been told that the residents want him to go home. But he says, hey, they have lots of time to change their minds; and he says, hey, training and mentoring is a loophole. If a commander can’t accept an agreement that the Commander in Chief accepted, then he should be replaced.
… and if a comment poster can’t understand the basics of diplomacy, then they shouldn’t comment on what a general should or should not do.
Not probably, Jim.
ODS (boy it will be fun using that term for the next 4 years) will frame everything bad as Obama’s fault, and everything good as Bush’s legacy. If, on Jan 20, there’s a car bomb that kills 50 people in Iraq (as one recently did), it will be said that the insurgents were “emboldened” by the election of a democrat, and Obama “lost” the (entirely self-proclaimed) “victory” pronounced recently by the rightwing blogosphere.
On the other hand, if nothing happens it will be because of Bush’s steely resolve in the face of those panty-waist liberals.
See how it works?
If a comment poster can’t understand the basics of diplomacy, then they shouldn’t comment on what a general should or should not do.
Certainly one of the first lessons of diplomacy is that generals aren’t diplomats. If a general declares right after an agreement is reached that it could be renegotiated, that’s rogue diplomacy. Odierno talks as if the real Status of Forces Agreement is between the White House and the Pentagon, not between the US and Iraq.
Another of the first lessons of diplomacy is that you should read the actual agreement. “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” All means all. Despite what Odierno says, it does not mean, with the exception of training and mentoring.
Not probably, Jim.
You have a point there. Already some businessmen are claiming, without much credibility, that Obama made them close shop just by winning the election. It’s a Fort Sumter mentality, or a pretense of one. The thinking at Fort Sumter was, let’s not even wait to see what the new President does.
Mr. Haris,
Generals ARE in fact diplomats. They may not have the credentials of a State Department professional, but they provide the US gov’t a similar capacity.
I’ve always seen BDS in radically different terms then most of the
“Conservatives ” have. Conservatives, quasi-republicans and
other such neo-conservatives have Defined BDS as an
unabiding hate for Bush the Younger with a tendency to believe every
“Bad” thing said about Bush the Younger.
I’ve always defined BDS as an inability to see Bush the Young
for the numerous shortcomings he obviously had. His rather lame
military career in the air guard was blown up into exceeding that
of John McCains service in the Fleet. Bush’s inability to
articulate clear sentences became “Just regular folks speak”.
Bush’s career of mediocrity and failure became “Late Blooming”.
Bush’s alcohol abuse became a non-issue.
Really the GOP became the largest party of enablers for
a truly flawed individual and is paying the price in
loss of political power now.
So BDS in itself may explain a great deal of the disconnect
between the GOP and the rest of american society.
Jim, your need to drag a thread off topic continues to puzzle me. What’s wrong with saying “Yup, as far as the Iraqi people are concerned, an Iraq without Saddam sure is better than Iraq with Saddam. At least this war can be fought and possibly won, and that the government is on the side of non-torture and rape. This Iraq has one thing in much greater quantity than the old Iraq: Hope for a better future.”
That’s all this thread is about. The Status of Forces agreement really isn’t related. Not even tangentially. Us pulling out of Iraq is either good or bad, depending on the circumstances when we go.
Generals ARE in fact diplomats.
I’ll admit that someone could sometimes act as a diplomat in his professional capacity as a general. But these are very different duties. If you’d like to think that diplomacy is just a tool of the military, that’s backwards. The military is (at best) a tool of diplomacy.
In particular, General Raymond Odierno has never had any diplomatic brief to negotiate or renegotiate the Status of Forces of Agreement between the United States and Iraq. In questioning this agreement, he is exceeding his proper authority. (But he may well have improper authority to backslide.)
What’s wrong with saying “Yup, as far as the Iraqi people are concerned, an Iraq without Saddam sure is better than Iraq with Saddam. At least this war can be fought and possibly won, and that the government is on the side of non-torture and rape. This Iraq has one thing in much greater quantity than the old Iraq: Hope for a better future.”
What’s wrong with it is that what Iraqis really hope for is for us to go away. That is their official hope for a better future as expressed in the Status of Forces Agreement. They aren’t thinking about Saddam Hussein nearly as much as you are; and not in the same way either. The agreement does not have a shred of the gratitude that is in your sentimental summary. It isn’t really off-topic at all, merely off-narrative.
Those of us on the conservative side of this issue have never opposed withdraw from Iraq victorious, such as we are now preparing to do. What we have consistently opposed is giving up and withdrawing in defeat, such as Obama and company were supporting a year or so ago.
PeterH: If you folks on the conservative side absolutely have to call it “victory” in order to agree to leave Iraq, then maybe the rest of America and the rest of the world should humor you. Whatever.
Jim, it is a victory, by any reasonable metric whatsoever, and it’s all to George W. Bush’s credit. Harsh fact o’ life, dude. Deal.
But…if you Stuck In Vietnam types must call it a “defeat,” or a victory for candelight vigilism against the dastardly dark forces of those Neanderthals who believe some problems can be solved with force, you just go right ahead. Those of us who prize reality over beautiful narrative don’t mind a bit.
Jim, it is a victory, by any reasonable metric whatsoever
Here is how the State Department described it in October: “The risk of terrorism directed against U.S. citizens in Iraq remains extremely high. The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, which remains very dangerous. Remnants of the former Baath regime, transnational terrorists, criminal elements and numerous insurgent groups remain active throughout Iraq.”
This is a much stronger warning than what the State Department web site (travel dot state dot gov) says for either Iran or for Syria. Some victory.
Jim, your need to drag a thread off topic continues to puzzle me.
What’s the puzzle? Jim Harris is a troll.
Iraq…it’s like Nebraska, you’re either born there or sent there, no one goes there on purpoes!
Jim & Jack Pro Bono Obfuscation and Apologism Services International?
Never mind Jim defining victory down. He is just a surge denialist trying to steal any credit President Bush is due.
Rand, having seen this by Jim Harris, I require a clarification on the rules of decorum: is it permissible for a visitor to tell a troll to fuck off, in so many words?
He is just a surge denialist trying to steal any credit President Bush is due.
For sure, Bush deserves credit for agreeing to withdraw. And the surge too — or at least paying insurgents not to shoot us — has stabilized the plane for long enough that we can eject. It does have that merit.
GHW Bush’s massive blunder in 1) not deposing Hussein in 1991 and 2) encouraging Iraqi Shiites to revolt and then abandoning them is an important one that does not get the attention it deserves. Unhappily our foreign policy is now again under the control of people whose judgment on such matters is at least as bad as the senior Bush’s was.
GHW Bush’s massive blunder in 1) not deposing Hussein in 1991 and 2) encouraging Iraqi Shiites to revolt and then abandoning them is an important one that does not get the attention it deserves. Unhappily our foreign policy is now again under the control of people whose judgment on such matters is at least as bad as the senior Bush’s was.
It’s not a “blunder”, if you can’t make the “better” choice. Bush elder couldn’t decide to depose Saddam Hussein or help Iraqi Shiites revolt because of the restrictions of the coalition. To be honest, GHW Bush probably had the best foreign policy since Nixon. Too bad he’s getting badmouthed here because he couldn’t deliver more than he did.
It’s not a “blunder”, if you can’t make the “better” choice. Bush elder couldn’t decide to depose Saddam Hussein or help Iraqi Shiites revolt because of the restrictions of the coalition.
The fact remains that he encouraged a Shiite revolt, then stood by allowed them to be slaughtered.
I understand the constraints of the coalition, but if he had no intention of intervening, he was being extremely irresponsible in encouraging them to revolt.
It’s not a “blunder”, if you can’t make the “better” choice.
No kidding. People are not using any sense of proportion in this discussion. The Iraq War is 10 times the size of the Persian Gulf War and counting. Iraq has been more than half of our entire foreign policy for six years. That’s exactly what George H. W. Bush was trying to avoid.
To be honest, GHW Bush probably had the best foreign policy since Nixon.
I agree.
Too bad he’s getting badmouthed here because he couldn’t deliver more than he did.
Well, wild expectations are one of the main bad habits of the blogosphere. If a guy builds a sturdy house, then some blogger will call him a failure because he didn’t build a sky castle. If he tries to build a sky castle and leaves a mess on the ground, then some blogger will call him an even bigger failure while another one will call him a victim of media bias.
But, but, but, what if he tries to build a sky castle and succeeds?
The fact remains that he encouraged a Shiite revolt, then stood by allowed them to be slaughtered.
You have a point, Nemo. There has been too much loose talk from Washington in favor of revolutions and coups. It’s one thing to be satisfied if there is a revolution that improves the situation (as in Serbia, for instance). It’s quite another to wish out loud for one. It’s bad form and it’s also bad karma. Think what life would be like if the police wished out loud that vigilantes would shoot this or that criminal, instead of doing the hard work to arrest criminals.
Obama, for one, is well aware that our foreign policy shouldn’t and can’t be a Christmas wish list of liberation. Hopefully, and presumably, he will avoid that kind of talk.
Karl Hallowell:
It’s not a “blunder”, if you can’t make the “better” choice. Bush elder couldn’t decide to depose Saddam Hussein or help Iraqi Shiites revolt because of the restrictions of the coalition. To be honest, GHW Bush probably had the best foreign policy since Nixon. Too bad he’s getting badmouthed here because he couldn’t deliver more than he did.
As someone else pointed out, Bush encouraged Shiite revolt and then failed to support it. That was his mistake, not a function of the Coalition.
Further, he was not obligated to kiss the asses of the Saudis, Syrians, Italians and other weak Coalition participants. He put himself into that position by insisting on forming a large (and therefore weak and unwieldy) coalition before he would take military action against Hussein, and by putting Coalition cohesion ahead of strategic considerations (such as the necessity to prevent Hussein’s resurgence). In what kind of war does the victor stop fighting just before destroying his enemy?
Further, he was not obligated to kiss the asses of the Saudis, Syrians, Italians and other weak Coalition participants.
First of all, Bush 41 was respecting a very important diplomatic objective, namely that the rest of the coalition paid for the Persian Gulf War. This time around, again, a lot of supposed libertarian/conservative types have been indifferent to or even eager to spending enormous sums of American money on Iraq. $600 billion and counting isn’t chicken feed, you know.
Second, your phrase points to an attitude that has greatly damaged our foreign interests in the past eight years. Namely, that if we aren’t kicking someone’s ass, we must be kissing someone’s ass. Kiss ass, or kick ass, or ignore. This is not the way to make true friends; actually some of the un-diplomats in this Administration realize this and their whole intention is for America to go it alone. Fortunately it’s going to be much better one month and one week from today. In fact you can already see the signs of improvement: some of our allies are more eager to talk to the President elect than to the President.