Larry Elder
President Barack Obama, on Dec. 12, 2011,
called Iraq "self-reliant and democratic." He
praised that country, calling it a "new Iraq
that's determining its own destiny -- a
country in which people from different
religious sects and ethnicities can resolve
their differences peacefully through the
democratic process." Obama said, "I have no
doubt that Iraq can succeed."
He campaigned to end the war in Iraq. He
did -- at least he ended America's military
involvement in the war. He pulled out all the
troops, without leaving a residual force
behind as we did, for example, in South
Korea, where we have stationed troops for
over 50 years.
Iraq fell off the front pages. By 2008, even
Sen. Obama, a harsh critic of the war and of
the "surge" that turned it around, said: "I
think that, I did not anticipate, and I think
that this is a fair characterization, the
convergence of not only the surge but the
Sunni awakening in which a whole host of
Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had
had enough with al-Qaida, in the Shia
community the militias standing down to
some degrees. So what you had is a
combination of political factors inside of Iraq
that then came right at the same time as
terrific work by our troops. Had those
political factors not occurred, I think that my
assessment would have been correct."
The lack of media interest reflected, in part,
their contempt for the war -- why we fought
it, why we were there. But another factor is
this: Iraq, as of 2011, was surprisingly calm --
the opposite of what the George W. Bush-
hating media predicted. Even those who
opposed the Iraq War were surprised at the
level of relative peace and security, after a
decade of expending blood and treasure. The
relative calm in Iraq in 2010 and 2011
explains why Obama and Vice President Joe
Biden decided to snatch some credit, with
Biden calling Iraq "one of the great
achievements of this administration."
Today YouTube shows videos of "infidel"
Iraqis being beheaded and mowed down with
automatic weapons. What went so horribly
wrong?
Into 2007, then-President Bush talked about
the importance of negotiating a long-term
status of forces agreement that would allow
U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to help with
security. He warned that if the U.S. didn't
stay the course in Iraq, the country could
become a terror state or a recruiting ground
for terrorists.
How much importance did candidate Obama
place on obtaining a status of forces
agreement? After his election, the "Office of
the President-Elect" website said: "Obama
and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of
Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our
troops have the legal protections and
immunities they need. Any SOFA should be
subject to Congressional review to ensure it
has bipartisan support here at home." In the
weeks following Obama's election, the Iraqis
passed, and Bush signed, a SOFA agreement
that would have American troops out of Iraq
by December 2011.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
blamed the Iraqis for refusing to negotiate a
new, acceptable status of forces agreement
that would have allowed U.S. forces to stay in
Iraq past 2011. Former U.N. ambassador John
Bolton, however, says the Obama
administration wanted to walk away from
Iraq -- but didn't want it to look obvious. So
they blamed it on supposedly "failed" SOFA
negotiations.
Remember, Obama saw no national security
interest in Iraq, even though Saddam Hussein
was presumed to have stockpiles of weapons
of mass destruction; was shooting at the
British and American plane patrolling the
southern and northern "no-fly" zones; was
sending $25,000 to homicide bomber families
in Israel; was stealing from the oil-for-food
program; had used chemical weapons on his
own neighbors and his own people; and had
attempted to assassinate President George
H.W. Bush. Still, Obama saw no national
security interest in Iraq. Why would he now?
Obama now says he is "looking at all the
options ... I don't rule out anything" -- short
of combat. If, short of combat, we could have
achieved our objectives in Iraq, we would not
have sent in combat troops in the first place.
The Obama administration was caught flat-
footed at the brutality and lethality of ISIS,
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a group of
Islamic Sunni "extremists" said to be well-
trained, well-equipped, well-financed and
even more brutal than al-Qaida. And now the
administration is thinking of working with
Iran to help the mostly Shiite Iraqi
government survive? This is, of course, the
same Iran that helped kill and maim
Americans soldiers with roadside bombs in
Iraq? This is, of course, the same Iran that
our intelligence community says is marching
toward building a nuclear weapon?
Critics assailed Obama's recent West Point
speech, pre-billed as a legacy-defining
foreign policy doctrine. Some call the speech
unclear, lacking in focus or conviction. But,
no, there is , in fact, an Obama doctrine. It
can be explained this way: "The 'war on
terror' is over because I said so -- now go tell
the enemy."
No comments:
Post a Comment