The American Spectator : Iraq in the Rearview Mirror

Text Size

Iraq in the Rearview Mirror

By Jed Babbin from the December 2011 - January 2012 issue

So now that we’re out, what did we accomplish?

Historians may someday conclude that the most curious incident of Barack Obama’s presidency occurred in October 2011. When Obama announced that the last of our troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by year’s end, the news was almost lost amid the tsunami of economic news and metronomic campaign debates. There were no great outpourings of emotion, ringing speeches, or UN hyperbole. The moment was, like Sherlock Holmes’ observation of the dog in the night-time, curious because of the silence that surrounded it.

Why would the most controversial war since Vietnam end without as much controversy as when it began? The reason is that that America tuned out the Iraq war years ago. The horrific Sunni vs. Shia violence that overwhelmed Iraq after the Samarra mosque bombing in February 2006 was quelled by General Petraeus’s troop surge. When the violence subsided to Iraq’s new normal, so did the controversy. From late 2008, America has been interested in almost nothing but economic news. And, from 2009, we’ve had a president who kept the willing media focused on everything other than the war.

Too little political attention has been paid to the war in general and Iraq in particular. To the extent that Americans debated the war at all, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan—and the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki—were isolated events, worlds away from the economic crisis that diverted our attention from everything else.

We know, from the memoirs of George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, and George Tenet, the reasons for the decision to launch the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They’ve also tried to explain the choice of a post-war occupation and nation-building effort that commenced there and in Afghanistan. That wisdom (or lack of it) cannot be measured at this moment in time.

Too many books have already been written on whether we “won” or “lost” the war in Iraq. That question is unresolved because of President Bush’s failure—and that of his successor—to define correctly the war that began on 9/11. (There is a strong argument that it began long before 9/11, with bin Laden’s fatwa against America in 1996, or as far back as 1979 with the advent of the Iranian kakistocracy.) Neither Bush nor Obama had the wisdom to define it correctly as a war with the nations that sponsor terrorism and the hegemonic ideology of Islam that propels them. That war could not have been won within the borders of Iraq, though it may have been lost.

We know what it has cost us. At this writing, we’ve spent 4,287 American lives. Last summer, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of the war at that date was about $709 billion. (The Congressional Research Service set the cost higher at $748 billion.)

President Bush said (and wrote in his memoir) that our goal was a unified, democratic Iraq that could govern itself, sustain itself, defend itself, and serve as an ally in the “War on Terror.” As we shall see, it’s apparent that no part of this goal has been achieved, and that the progress made toward them is fleeting.

SO WHAT HAVE we accomplished in iraq? Are these accomplishments worth the sacrifices we—or, more accurately, our military—have made?

It appears that our principal accomplishment in Iraq is that we have given the Iraqi people their freedom. It is theirs to use as they see fit. Have we? And is it?

For decades before 2003, Iraq had been ruled by a Baathist dictator who had tortured and murdered his people, sometimes en masse, even with chemical weapons. Saddam was Sunni, and oppressed the Shia relentlessly. Some of their most prominent clerics allied themselves with Iran, overcoming the Arab-Persian enmity solely to seek succor from Saddam’s repression.

Iraqi Kurds were relatively rich, their northern homeland containing some of the nation’s biggest oil fields. But their border with Turkey was often aflame with cross-border military action by Kurdish terrorists known as the PKK and Turkey’s actions against them.

From these facts we should have understood that Iraq was not a nation. Its citizens had no unifying loyalty to an Iraqi state. They were not bound by a common purpose to a common good. Iraq and Afghanistan were nations in name only before we invaded them, and are not nations now. In neither state is there a strong nationalist spirit that overcomes tribal and religious rivalries.

We invaded Afghanistan quickly after 9/11, and chased the Taliban out of Kabul in short order. But it was a very shallow and inconclusive victory. President Bush, as his memoir says, believed we had a moral obligation to leave “something better” behind there than the primitive dictatorship we drove out. Unless we captured or killed bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar—both hard, elusive targets—a “victory” in Afghanistan to adequately avenge the 9/11 attacks had no tangible goal.

Over this loomed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Since the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam had consistently defied one UN Security Council resolution after another. His military forces challenged the “no-fly zone” (enforced by U.S. and British aircraft) often, resulting in increased tension and occasional firefights when our air forces—or those of the British—fired at Iraqi anti-aircraft missile sites in response to Iraqi action targeting or actually shooting at them.

Saddam played his role to the letter, defying the U.N., playing host to some of the most notorious terrorists such as Abu Nidal and—as we later discovered—al Qaeda’s Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The game he played—refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors to conceal from his loyalists that he lacked the weapons he was thought to have—was ultimately his undoing.

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (79) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

VonMisesJr| 12.19.11 @ 8:34AM

Excellent column, Mr. Babbin. While I am a neophite by comparison, I would only make the observation that in the colonial era, European countries splintered Continental Africa in the same way that America and Europe have splintered the Middle east. The lack of national and religious ties among governing entites has proved disasterous in African countires and will surely continue to do the same in the Middle East.

Our Founding Fathers warned that while free trade was important and necessary, foreign entanglements were disruptive and dangerous.

Jack in Wi.| 12.19.11 @ 8:59AM

What a pile of Neocon nonsense. Iraq was the worst foreign policy disaster since the fall of Communism. A short time after the beginning of the invasion Bush announced Mission Accompliosed. Well that was some accomplishment. We are leaving like dogs with their tails dragging, between their legs. After 9 years we have lost 5 thousand dead, 50,000 wounded, and trillions spent. Millions of Iraqi's are dead, wounded, displaced, and the ancient Christian community has been decimated. We have done all this so that the Shia friends of Iran can now rule Iraq.

All this was easily seen by any sane observer. Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Bob Novak, Congressman John Duncan, General Norm Schwartzkoph, and General Brent Skowcroft all saw and said it would be a big mistake.

Iraq was the balance in the neighborhood between the radical Sunni's of Saudi Arabia and the Shia Mullahs of Iran. Hussain was a secular Muslim who protected the Christian minority, let women live a modern life, and let everyone have a drink and own a gun. Sure he was a brutal guy,but he used to be our brutal guy. We should have let him take his CIA pension and let him retire to Russsia.

The most laughable thing about this essay is Mr. Babin talking about all the damage Al Quaida was doing there. When Hussain was in power there was no Al Quaida. Hussain was hated by radical Muslims like Bin Laden. Bin Laden won a big victory when he sucked us into a war with Iraq. Nobody wants to talk about Iraq because we lost the war. We have left hated by most of the population. This hatred will last for 100 years.

Paul Kotik| 12.19.11 @ 9:30AM

Jack, you forgot to mention how it's all because of Israel and the pesky Jews.

I hope I don't have to speak to you again about this kind of shoddy work. It's beginning to look as though the side-effects of your frequent time travel include fatigue and forgetfulness. We are all concerned.

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.19.11 @ 10:00AM

It's okay. When Ron Paul gets in, he'll Kill all the Jews, and Jack can go back to pissing on the N*gg*rs and the Sp*cs, and the Gu*nnies and the Ch*nks.

Isn't that right, *sshole?

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 10:33AM

That's A Lie.

You're A Liar, Pennell.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.19.11 @ 11:23AM

I've got NEWS for ya, pal. YOU are not the Tea Party. You are a Sick Pup, who probably lives alone in a basement apartment, somewhere, getting yourself off to the Ads in Glamour Magazine, or the Kids' Clothing Section of the MACY'S Flyer.

You need help.

Go get yourself some help.

And take Jack with you.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 3:21PM

Once Again, Like I Said Punk ,That's A Lie

You're A Liar Pennell.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
The Tea

VonMisesJr| 12.19.11 @ 1:55PM

Paul,
I'm confused. I think I said we should refrain from foreign entanglements and this Jack guy calls me a neocon? Then Pennell blows a gasket? You seem to be the only one making any sense.
VMJr.

Jack in Wi.| 12.19.11 @ 2:57PM

I didn't call you a neocon. I was talking about the essay above.

William R| 12.19.11 @ 5:10PM

Well now that you bring it up

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical "

http://www.haaretz.com/news/fe.....en-1.14110

C Smith| 12.19.11 @ 10:24AM

The obvious question: what is going to fill the vacuum?

"When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation" (Mathew 12:43-45).

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.19.11 @ 10:33AM

What always fills a vacuum. Dirt and garbage. All that kind of sh*t.

George S| 12.19.11 @ 11:07AM

You forgot to mention that 9-11 was our fault and that we used that as an excuse to go to Iraq to get their oil. That's why we subcontracted the Jews to attack us. But I'd like to clear up one myth: it wasn't Dick Cheney who planted the explosives in the South Tower, it was... eek a Neocon hit squad. Gotta go!

JFGalt| 12.19.11 @ 1:03PM

People seem to equate disagreeing with the Iraqi invasion as being un-American and a scourge on our troops when the exact opposite is true unless you are a neocon muddlehead. It somes to the fact that the only reason that we went into Iraq was because George W. Bush wanted to punish Saddam for supposedly trying to assassinate him. Period. I could see that during the campaigning and I'm no rocket scientist - why couldn't all the smart people out there see that? All he was looking for was an excuse and 9/11 provided it. Our mission was Afghanistan which was the clear enemy as it was a haven for terrorists. We didn't finish the job before we were in Iraq. This was plainly stupid. Iraq was simply not our problem. You can come up with all sorts of etherial reasons of mysterious comings and goings but that takes place all over the world. Most of these terrorists transit through Europe. Are we invading Germany because a terrorist changed planes in Berlin or worse met with someone at a bar to discuss something? It was good enough for Iraq then why not Germany too? Mr. Babin was up to his neck in this mess and now he's trying to mollify his conscience for his involvement in the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and the deaths of thousands of our superb troops. When he could have been a voice of reason he instead chose the martial cry to war. Sorry, but Iraq was a stupid war which never should have been fought. We should have focused on Afghanistan. OBAMA! took 3 years to do what he should have done in 1. Once the US saw that the oil was going to China and not the US in graditude for their freedom then he decided to pull the plug. What a mess and what a farce. And what a bunch of strutting fools to join Mr. Babin in his Mission Accomplished.

JFGalt| 12.19.11 @ 1:07PM

If you want a repeat then vote for Newt - he loves war and is salivating on the hope that he can conjure one up in order to test some of his theories from all the military novels he writes. Mark my words - he's another Bush with an axe to grind and if you're not reading that in what he says then you had better take the wadding out of your ears.

Derek Leaberry| 12.19.11 @ 8:39AM

The invasion of Iraq accomplished quite a bit. Two Democratic landslide elections which included the defeats of George Allen and Rick Santorum. Another accomplishment of Iraq was the election of the implausible and anti-American Barack Hussein Obama as president.

WJ| 12.19.11 @ 9:02AM

You make an excellent point. While noting the incredible cost in lives and tax dollars we often forget how poisonous the whole political atmosphere became for Republicans in the 2006 mid terms. That huge Democrat landslide was precipitated by the Iraq war (among other thing) and is why Rumfeld resigned the day after the election.

The ultimate price was the election of Obama. Disgust with Bush led to the American hater currently in the White House.

JR| 12.19.11 @ 5:58PM

The only problem I have with both wars is that we fight like pussies. Kick their fucking ass and make them fear us. Period. Stop trying to build nations or running away. Stomp their ass into the ground. Kill any and all who support them in that region fuck all this half ass war shit. Thats the lesson of Vietnam. No matter what people are going to protest against the war so stop trying to please them and kill em all and let God sort em out. fucking pussies.

pineapple| 12.19.11 @ 9:53PM

From a Vietnam War combat veteran, I say, amen brother!

Nam Doc| 12.19.11 @ 10:18PM

He's right. We have to fight to WIN, not worry we might offend someone. Didn't you learn ANYTHING from Vietnam?

Ret. Marine| 12.20.11 @ 7:42AM

Most of the Vet's of the Viet Nam era learned that the grubmint is not in the business to win anything other than a popularity contest, it was us the grunts doing the shooting and killing of THEIR enemies who have learned a great deal over the mishandling of that mess. We won every battle we took to them, the politicians lost the war, not the troops. Once again we are seeing a politician, obam's bin ly'n, who feels the need for the popularity contest title, for, of course, reelection. and it should make others ask this simple question, why is it the real men doing the fighting are always the excuses the politiicians use to misdirect the truth, they are the ones who over see the deaths and destruction of nations because of thier politics, viet nam is and was a prime example of the lies left after their political ambitions were gained. They defunded the security, they being the demonrat party, hence, the deaths, some 3.2 million South Asians because of their cowardness, enough said. Semper Fi.

TW in SC| 12.19.11 @ 10:59AM

The notion of nation-building as Mr Babbin points out, was a bad idea; Perhaps a fool's errand even.

The people in Iraq have always been more tribal and small-group oriented than nationalistic. Even the Iran/Iraq war was engaged primarily by those peoples who were deemed "worthy" of fighting it by the tribal leaders and not necessarily the political leaders, though it's hard to make the distinction.

But to try to install some semblance of western-style governance is a chalk to cheese exercise. Our own nation's failure to understand islam and the mental processes involved with that, combined with a complete and utter hatred of western ways, with some very minor exceptions, was also lost on our great government thinkers as they trundled on trying to create a democracy in a autocracy-minded region.

Sure, t'would have been quite a feather in the caps of the leaders in our government who brought about such a change but most work-a-day folks even knew back then that it would be impossible and the best that could be achieved is the current stalemate in angst amongst the players in Iraq.

As is also a fairly pedestrian thought, Iraq will dissemble quickly into instability and horrors of varying degree. Sunnis, Shiites, etc will once again be at each others' throats and all in the name of allah and family and tribal pride. Kind of like gangs in the urban areas of the US but without the humor and joviality.

You cannot build nations in places that desire anything but. To them equality is always "but we are great and everyone else must recognize that"...yeah...kind of like the black and/or mexican argument in the US today. They don't want equality as empirically defined. Equality to them means that they have the upper hand.

Such as it is with the tribes in Iraq. To be "equal" means to be on the top rung. As long as they keep thinking that way, there will be no peace there.

richard ryan| 12.19.11 @ 2:42PM

The muslim religion is not compatible with freedom. It is not compatible with individual rights. In 2003, that's all we needed to know.

Anthony| 12.19.11 @ 8:40AM

Because of the refusal of the American left and particularily the D party to get behind the effort to deal with 21st century radical Islam, Bush had to soft pedal one of the major goals of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vitriol of the world and American left would never allow our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to be seen for the major success they could have been, ie the removal of dangerous regimes alligned with radical Islam with the ability to obtain and use WMD.
Had the D party participated in this effort post 9/11, the scenes of our leaving Iraq this past week would have been markedly different. We were never allowed to fully accomplish our goals because of the constant harping by the world and American left, that forced us to fight these wars with restraint.
Now we leave Iraq in silence and without fanfare. Even the Iraqi leaders didn't show up, because of their disgusting ingratitude, as well as the fact that they know Iran and the radicals are soon to come.
Our brave men and woman gave these countries a chance to live in freedom; but more importantly, they gave America a respite from the onslaught of radical Islam that is still coming for the West.
A respite Obozo will and has squandered.

bill| 12.19.11 @ 8:49AM

America brought freedom and democracy in Iraq, as we did in Japan after the WWII. World is better off without Saddam Hussein, who vowed to kill Jews and facilitated those suicide bombers in Palestine. Besides Isreal, Iraq remained the second country, which has democracy and is our partner on "war on terror." Kudos to George Bush, who envisioned Iraq as an ally on our mission of peace and democracy. Iraqis never should forget what America had sacrificed for them. Iraqis must embrace freedom and democracy based on a secular nation, allowing all Christians and Jews practice their religion.

Au Contraire| 12.19.11 @ 9:30AM

How did Saddam Hussein come to power? Just curious.

TW in SC| 12.19.11 @ 11:03AM

Installed by the Reagan administration as a (supposedly) friendly entity to the US. Didn't take long to see the error there when Saddam turned on everyone and showed his true colors.

Yet another case to argue against US involvement in the middle east though a nation can no longer be isolationist. However, there has to be better and more effective ways to "work the system" although I further submit that when democrats band together to undermine efforts to the good, it just turns out bad.

bill| 12.19.11 @ 11:22AM

That's a lie.

Saddam Hussein was installed by the Carter administration, supposed to be a modern progressive leader in the middle east. After the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was radicalized and became anti-Semitic and pro-Jihad. He vowed to destroy state of Israel, and funneled millions of petro-dollar to Hamas and Fatah, stirring violence in Israel. Saddam was inch away from giving terrorists the WMD, according to the IAEC, and that's why he is gone, and the world is much safer.
Saddam was a dictator and killed his own country people, the Tikrit massacre.
Saddam was a shadow of Khomani, who orchastrated the American embassey siege in 1979, and the "incompetent" Carter administration did nothing, and Ronald Reagan rescued them.

TW in SC| 12.19.11 @ 11:36AM

I stand corrected. He came to power in July of '79.

Carter was president. I sincerely apologize for getting that so very wrong.

Gary B| 12.19.11 @ 8:56AM

It accomplished a massive transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to private interests. That is the name of the game in DC.

TW in SC| 12.19.11 @ 11:04AM

How so. Please explain with more specifics as to where the money allegedly went. Thanks

Gary B| 12.19.11 @ 11:15AM

It was transferred from taxpayers to the defense industry and all its contractors.

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.19.11 @ 9:10AM

What did we accomplish? "A Republic (sort of) Madame, if you can keep it." Iraq is probably the Most Stable Camel Riding, Goat Eating, Daughter Killing, Country in the Middle East. For now.

We've learned that Arab people DO yearn for Freedom and Democracy, and we've learned that the Democrat Party IS Weak On Defense, WILL Turn and Run, when the going gets tough, and have no problem DENYING that they ever Voted for this War, even though they did it TWICE. The second time, on National Television.

We RE-LEARNED (as if we had to) that this President will do WHATEVER he feels is to his Political Advantage, be it Killing the Canadian Pipeline, or Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, whether they are Ready or Not, or Suing American States for ENFORCING the Immigration Laws, that He Refuses to Enforce. And we will Learn, again, what this Party really thinks of our Brave Men and Women, fighting for our Freedom, when their Votes go UNCOUNTED, for the umpteenth time, in the Blue States. (Trust me. They'll find a way)

We already know how they feel about the JEW. We know that they wish that they would just go somewhere and DIS. 5 Minutes listening to Callers on the Democrat Line, when Cspan is addressing Middle East Policy, is all you need to know, about that. Or, you can ask Jim Moran, of Virginia, what he thinks about them. Or, Mr. Ellison. Or, ANY Member of The Congressional Black Caucus.

We've learned, just recently, that Abu Hussain has no problem with "Wars of Choice", if he thinks that Radical Islam will pick up the pieces, when all is said and done. That's why he PUSHED Hosni Mubarak, and MOMBED Khaddafi, while doing NOTHING to help the people in IRAN and SYRIA. You see, to Barack, they don't need any help. They're perfect, just the way they are.

And, now he will leave Iraq and Afghanistan to the Wolves, that wait, just on the perimeter, for the Adult to wander from the Cubs.

Because he doesn't care. No matter what happens, he wins. He can run on it, in the Election, and he will be that much closer to Fulfilling the Prophecies that have made HAMAS believe that he is their DELIVERER.

What did we ACCOMPLISH?

It really doesn't matter, does it? Before they can be Replaced, the DEMOCRATS will have pissed away any Accomplishments that were made. It will all have been for naught.

It's called: A Self Fulfilling Prophesy. And, they're good at those.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.19.11 @ 10:02AM

Well, Timothy,
we gave the poor bastards a chance at a decent life. A slim chance no question.

Their biggest problem is their fatal embrace of Islam.
The Shias/Iran will sweep them up.

Barack Obama is the best thing that could have happened to America. Finally we can clearly see the fangs of the beast. One's first problem is to know one has a problem.

Now we know.

The only question is how far we have to go to de-fang the beast.
www.oathkeepers.org

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.19.11 @ 10:38AM

The BEAST?

"And I saw the BEAST rise from the Sea. And he was given a MOUTH, to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And, he was allowed to exercise authority for forty two months." Revelation 13-5.

I'm assuming this is The BEAST you're referring to. Cause that's what he is. If you don't believe ME? Go ask HAMAS. Go to their web site, and see who they believe he is. He's ABU HUSSAIN. Son of the Father.

Margie| 12.19.11 @ 2:29PM

Tim,

You never got back to me about the BEAST being the Anti-Christ.
The Bible says he has the number of a man, 666.
If that's not him, then who is?

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.19.11 @ 6:10PM

Why, the man who helped the Nazis, in their effort to exterminate his fellow Jews, of course.
George Soros.

You're welcome.

Margie| 12.19.11 @ 6:44PM

Not what I was asking.
Remember you said the Beast in Rev. isn't the same thing or person as the Anti-Christ?

You said to me, "Capiche?"Like, get it?

I replied that God says in the same book of Rev. that the BEAST has the number of a man, 666.

My question to you, since you claimed that the BEAST is NOT the same thing as the Anti-Christ, then what is he?

If you claim such a thing, I would like to know how you know it, based on Scripture.

Or, if you don't really know, then say it.
I was honestly asking you.
Thanks.

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.20.11 @ 3:48PM

I already SAID IT.

SOROS!

The JEW that helped the NAZIS in their Extermination of the JEWS.

This isn't the 1st time I've told you this.

PAY ATTENTION!

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.20.11 @ 3:51PM

666 can mean anything. Some say it has to do with the BAR CODE on everything we purchase. Nobody knows.

Use your imagination. Obama is DEFINATELY the BEAST. Take it from there.

Nick| 12.20.11 @ 2:28AM

Margie,

There are actually two beasts, in Saint John's Divine Revelation. So, you have to distinguish which one you are talking about, if you know.

The first beast, which rises out of the sea, is referring to Rome. The seven heads represent the seven Herodian kings, who received their power from Rome. The ten horns represent the ten Caesars. The same way Daniel used beasts and horns, in his book.

The second beast arose from the land, and refers to the Promised Land, i.e., the Land of Israel. This probably represents the high-priest and the priestly class, and, their total apostasy and profaning of the Temple.

Six-Hundred-Sixty-Six is a reference to 1 Kings 10:14, where King Solomon severely taxed the Israelites to the sum of 666 talents of gold. Solomon was known to be the wisest man in the world, but, he disobeyed God, and did what God specifically forbade a king to do, store up immense sums of gold and silver (cf. Deut. 17:16-17).

666 could also refer to the sum of the letters of Caesar Nero's name, in Hebrew. These are the only two times 666 is used all of the Scriptures, by the way.

So, to answer your question, the beast, or, more precisely beasts, are not the same as the anti-Christ. Anti-Christs are anyone who openly war against God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Every age has had them, ever since Christ's Ascension.

There is no such thing as the anti-Christ, i.e., only one. For example, anti-Madonna and Sinead O'Conner could be considered anti-Christs, in our age.
God Bless!

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.20.11 @ 3:52PM

The SEA is not referring to Rome. It is referring to the world of POLITICS.

Nick| 12.20.11 @ 4:30PM

Mr. Pennell,

I believe that is from the book of The Omen, not from the Scriptures. Ha-ha!

Although, the beasts from the sea, in the Old Testament, were Leviathan and Rehab. The sea represented the Gentile kingdoms. The land was the Promised Land, in Jewish tradition.

In Rev. 13, the sea represents the world power at that point in time, i.e., Rome. So, I guess one could say that this was world of politics, since Rome ruled most of the known world.

The events described in the book of Revelation had their immediate fulfillment in the destruction of the Temple, in A.D. 70.
Merry Christmas!

Chuck in N. VA| 12.19.11 @ 9:13AM

Our inability to succeed comes from our unwillingness to form coalitions with those who share our goals of a free Iran and a free Syria. They are potentially our proxies. If Iran and Syria were forced to fight their own people to maintain their dictatorships (as is finally happening in Syria) they'd be less able to fight against the interests of free and independent countries elsewhere. Today, Iran is not stopped or made to pay a high price for waging war with its proxies in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. At the same time the vast majority of Iranians want nothing to do with that mad-mullah foreign policy. We've treated Iran's mad mullahs the same way we used to treat the Soviets when they sponsored terrorists all over the world. Turn the tables on Iran and Syria and let their people rise up and take their countries out of the hands of despised despots.

Au Contraire| 12.19.11 @ 9:34AM

"We've treated Iran's mad mullahs the same way we used to treat the Soviets when they sponsored terrorists all over the world."

You mean by supporting groups like the Mujihadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan? It's all just clever geopolitical tinkering--until the monster turns against us.

Chuck in N. VA| 12.19.11 @ 10:00AM

Not all the Mujihadeen were supported by the US against the Soviets, and most of them and their offspring are not fighting us now. You seem willingly to let the Iranians kill their own people, Iraqis, Afghans, Lebanese, Syrians, Israelis, and Americans with impunity. I'd say give them their own medicine and see if they can continue to repress their nation with their crackpot, totalitarian theology.

Louis Jenkins| 12.19.11 @ 9:17AM

What did the Iraqi conflict accomplish? For one thing the Democrats called the troops terrorists, night stalkers, rapists, all manner of names. Regardless of whether or not you would agree with the war, we saw the nature of the liberals. They look to the evil side of humans, maybe because that is all that they see. Now, bring the troops home and get them prepared to make war on the homefront; get Gitmo warmed up for the coming crowds of US citizens. The face of war is changing, this time it will be on its own.

Clint| 12.19.11 @ 9:19AM

Interesting Short Video.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316304

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

al222| 12.19.11 @ 9:24AM

"The general told me that we knew several of the places where the EFP's were being made. When I asked him why we weren't going into Iran to destroy those mini-factories, he said that our forces weren't permitted to do so."

As long as that's the mindset, exactly like it was in Vietnam, putting American troops in harm's way is appalling.

Paul Kotik| 12.19.11 @ 9:37AM

You're right, it borders on some weird kind of post-modern human sacrifice. As if the civilian managers of the military imagine that if we take enough casualties, it will cause us to win.

That said, I think it does make some difference that nobody was in Iraq who didn't choose to be. We're in the habit of talking about military personnel as if they were hapless draftees. They're not. People enlist nowadays for a variety of reasons. Patriotism and sense of duty are among them, but are far from the only ones. The longer our civilian leadership treats them like conscripts and cannon fodder, the more they'll see their interests as diverging from those of the republic that employs them: a very, very fraught situation.

ole meanie| 12.19.11 @ 10:16AM

I would further observe that if we still had a miliitary draft, there would be a greater public concern about how we use the military now. But now we have a highly motivated professional military caste.

While the patriotism and sense of duty of this caste is unquestionable, these values are directed toward the nation-state they think of as "America" and not necessarily toward the citizens of the United States. The public may eventually discover that this caste is quite capable of turning its guns on the citizens of the United States.

SGT Baker (native Coloradoan)| 12.22.11 @ 4:52AM

Never.
I serve the PEOPLE of the United States.
We Swear to defend the Constitution from all enemies.
These are all words that we swear to and are drilled into the newest recruit to the retiring vetern of 30 years of service.

JimP| 12.19.11 @ 1:49PM

And even more appaling, IMHO, is that no one apparently learned to look at a map and see that Iran and Syria would do exactly what they ended up doing and take that into account when they planned to nation build in Iraq. It turned out in many ways to be exactly like Vietnam.

emilio lizardo, PhD| 12.19.11 @ 9:31AM

It doesnt matter if it was worth it or not, it is what it is. A stably unstable westernized arab state ruled by a cruel but neutralized dictator -who had no WMD- is now an unstably unstable state that borders an emboldened and stronger Iran and conflagrations across all of North Africa. Mankind is better off without Saddam, but there should be no delusions about the fact that the venture into Iraq was and is an abject failure

Paul Kotik| 12.19.11 @ 9:41AM

Quite so. We forgot to CONQUER the country. We should have conquered it, put a masssive military footprint on the ground, and built up a force there and in Afghanistan with which to execute the final phased of this war: the defeat of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It was Europe in 1934, when we could have nipped the Nazis in the bud with small expense. We opted for a later, and vastly worse world war. And we have this time, too.

Au Contraire| 12.19.11 @ 9:56AM

Yeah, maybe the third dictator we install there will be the charm.

Chuck in N. VA| 12.19.11 @ 10:04AM

You're a broken record. Everything wrong is our fault. And your answer is to behave like a helpless nation and let those who aspire to freedom down and those who want to suppress have their way. You must be a devout Democrat. I'm done with you. Your goals are clear.

Au Contraire| 12.19.11 @ 10:58AM

So are yours--nation-building in countries whose history and culture you have a dangerously cursory knowledge. I'm more concerned with my own freedom, which is being trampled here at home. I trust others to fight for their own freedom and don't wish for my country to install governments elsewhere. For regardless of how well-meaning such efforts might be in the moment, history has proven that the outcome is rarely what our self-righteous policy makers expect.

Purple Lips| 12.19.11 @ 2:57PM

You left out that 19 young terrorists took down the Twin Towers and came within a hair of totally destroying the Pentagon.The damage these 19 men did was far greater than what Japan did in 1941. Get off your broken record of WMDs and the diplomatic stability of Near Eastern Dictators. Sept 11 2001 put that thinking to bed forever (that is, unless you're the Anointed One). Iraq was anything but stable, and was anything but Westernized. Get new talking points.

PS, I bet after Assad falls someone will discover some 500lbs of yellow cake uranium in Syria.

ole meanie| 12.19.11 @ 9:48AM

Our sages and seers were aware that removal of Saddam would remove the counterweight to Iran; this was discussed in foreign policy journals before the invasion in 2003. So, now we will reap what we have sowed.

We did not "lose" in Iraq, nor did we "win". We simply wasted lives, money and time, applying a hammer to what was not a nail.

Those old enough to remember Vietnam had no trouble foreseeing this outcome in Iraq. The foolish are those who thought and continue to think that we can invade and kill people and thereby win their hearts and minds so long as we declare a noble intent.

ReadMor| 12.19.11 @ 10:02AM

"Yet few of those [Iraq invasion] defenders have demonstrated the moral courage - or is it simple decency - to consider who paid and what was lost in securing Saddam's removal. That tally includes well over four thousand U.S. dead along with several tens of thousands wounded and otherwise bearing the scars of war; vastly larger numbers of Iraqi civilians killed, maimed, and displaced; and at least a trillion dollars expended - probably several times that by the time the last bill comes due decades from now. Recalling that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda both turned out to be all but non-existent, a Churchillian verdict on the war might read thusly: Seldom in the course of human history have so many sacrificed so dearly to achieve so little." - Andrew Bacevich

http://globalpublicsquare.blog.....ar-is-u-s/

George S| 12.19.11 @ 11:26AM

You can argue for eternity the merits of the Iraq war (or lack thereof). But one thing is crystal clear: the Left and their enablers used the war as an excuse to bring down a sitting president without a bit of concern for out national interests. The excuse was the safety of the troops (a line right out of the Just War Theory) and that excuse was foisted on the public in an attempt to deny us the moral justification of the war. Sun Tzu said that absent the moral undertaking, war could be won without the support of the public.

Why the lack of outrage over Serbia, Haiti, Somalia, Egypt and Libya? Where was the venom and the protests against Obama for not immediately withdrawing from both conflicts? Why was Nixon excoriated over Vietnam more than LBJ and yet JFK got a pass? Why don't historians rake FDR over the coals for going into Tunisia? They didn't declare war on us nor had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

Is a war only moral depending on who runs it? I make a Bingo!! (to quote Col. Landa).

bill| 12.19.11 @ 11:39AM

Isolationism is the root of anarchism.

In the early 30s, when the Nazi Party was rising in Germany, FDR did nothing to stop Hitler, and even refused involvement when Churchill begged FDR's help.

When Hitler ran over France, Poland, and the east Europe, FDR differed his involvement. He was worry about his re-election bid than the welfare of America and the world.

Finally, Pearl Harbor woke up FDR, and he got engage in Europe as Hitler invaded Russia, the last resistance in Europe.

Had FDR listened to Churchill, and got engaged in Europe to thawart Hitler expedition, we would have been avoided Holocust and saved millions of people lives.

FDR was no Jim Carter, but he was incompetent, and that cost millions of innocent lives at the hand of Nazis.

Now, we have those Islamic Jihadist, spreading hate and anti-Semitism.

We must act now, and George Bush acted and won.

Who Knows?| 12.19.11 @ 11:42AM

“Stupid is, as stupid does”.

In the most uncivilized part of humanity, to wit the people animated by a from-birth brainwashing in unreconstructed Islam, we have the blatant expression of “Separation is, as separation does.” So, the always endless battles self-defined tribes, such as Kurds, Jews; Shia and Sunni Arabs, etc, must engage in, prove how futile lines in the sand, or ANY physical borders, are.

Here’s a simple example. I can look at my map on the wall, and there’s a straight line dividing Egypt from Libya. Where the hell did it come from? Unfolding space-time, or the results of previous human battles, with tribe against tribe, yield TEMPORARY agreements about who owns this or that LAND. What a lowly evolved bunch of crap!

Another MEGO example? The longer I live and pay any valuable attention to the morass in the Middle East, the harder it gets to keep up with the self-proclaimed names of groups of Islamists. My dick is bigger than yours---driven by the living creed, that to DIE for Allah is the highest goal of a Moslem, competition leads to many “splinter” groups formed by “charismatic” wannabe Islamist heroes.

Well, fight MEGO with KISS!

As below, so above---and, vice versa. Hence, I continue to have the hooked memory to “Egypt”---90 some percent of females in that “country” ALREADY have had their genitals mutilated. By whom, and under WHAT “law”? By MEN of the Moslem “faith”! So, how can one be surprised with the rioting men currently just being themselves, in that bound-by-Islam and bound-by-lines-in the-sand area of Earth?

Islam claims to be the uniquely available religion. Hey---the elixir of separation tastes so good! Being separatists, they do as separatists MUST do. Well, consider the following—

“Spiritual culture must be understood as an intense and sustained self-reflection, self-criticism. It is a ceaseless watchfulness of one’s DOINGS---speech, bodily and mental action. Passions overpower us because of our self-forgetfulness, we are not self-possessed. With mindfulness regained, the passions cease to have a hold on us. Just as the dialectic on the intellectual side is the reflective criticism of the inveterate tendency of the mind to speculate and spin theories, on the practical side it is the ever alert self-criticism of one’s activity.”

From “The Central Philosophy of Buddhism”, by T.R.V. Murti, 1955.

Now, of course, every religion has a core of True Understanding, known as the Perennial Philosophy---see Aldous Huxley’s book with that title---and for Islam, it is the Sufi sect that is self-critical---and as we know, it is considered to be blasphemy by mainstream regnant Islamists.

What is, is. So, just as humans get the government they deserve, they get the religion they deserve. What is happening in Iraq and environs is NO ACCIDENT! Choices are continually being made, and the universe will not be---cannot be---mocked.

One last point, for NOW---the poor dumb “bastards” who’ve chosen to be born as Moslems, provide entertainment and EDUCATION for us all, by exhibiting both their separation from non-Moslems AND their tiny separation from animal behavior, when they are shown throwing rocks. Throwing ROCKS! Picture the first scenes from the movie, “2001, A Space Odyssey”, with apes doing the same thing.

Well, not only does the most separated Islamists want to take us back to the Dark Ages, but maybe back to an animal like existence.

Yes---self criticism is Absolutely required, and baby cakes, there’s not much of THAT going on within humanity, eh?

Enjoy the Human Comedy---what a separate PEACE spectacle!

cicero| 12.19.11 @ 12:01PM

This one may not be so easy to argue from European/American history. The differnces between Judeo/Christian culture and Arab/Muslim culture scews the analysis. The only common thread may be "freedom"
Whether we were there long enough, or whether the ubiquity of communication will spell the difference reamins to be seen. However, there may be a huge difference between Iraq and Afganistan. The Iraqis are an educated, modern people, held back only by Islam. (We should have killed Muqtada al Sadr at the beginning. The Afghans remain the same as when the British decided to leave them alone.
Our dealings with Germany and Japan after WWII will not be very instructive. Those were insular nations (on the part og Japan), with a common history and a sense of nationhood. Tribalism is a world apart. Again, Iraq may have a chance if it can avoid a civil war. Afghanistan will be Afghanistan.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.19.11 @ 12:53PM

Looking at Iraq in the rearview, I believe that it the reasons were sound enough. We just, as another commentor stated, didn't CONQUER the country before rebuilding it. We flattened Germany & Japan before we occupied & re-built it. No attention was paid to the post invasion insurgency that sprung up from AQI & Mookie's Iranian funded boys.

There was the 500,ooo tons of yellowcake that everyone said wasn't there. What was he doing with it? Baking cakes? In Marcus Luttrell's book, "Lone Survivor," he metions his team finding the vans that were believed to contain some of the mobile centrifuges. They found them on the Syrian border. And, in Luttrell's words, "whatever had been in those vans had been removed, and in a hurry." Now we have intel coming out of Libya that some of the WMD componenets found there came from??? Yes, Iraq.

The Christians & the Kurds in Iraq will suffer the most as the country becomes a satellite of Iran. If any of you have seen the Bourdain episode from this past season, you'll know of the VAST improvement in that part of the country. It was the ONE place where our guys didn't have to wear body armour outside the wire.

All these gains & sacrifices are now all for naught, thanks to President MaoBama's need to stick to his political timeline. We've pulled out posthaste, & left a power vaccuum akin to that left in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out.

Thanks, Barrack, for making our nation's sacrifice all for nothing. We've pulled a Vietnam. Again. Thanks, regressives, peaceniks & isolationists. Well done.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.19.11 @ 12:54PM

To clarify, the Bourdain episode was in Kurdistan.

Sorry.

Margie| 12.19.11 @ 2:31PM

Yes, we've pulled a Vietnam. That is exactly what I feared would happen under Obama.

So !@#$%^* SAD!

Sorry Christians, I know I used "foul" language.

Tiddly| 12.19.11 @ 2:51PM

"In December 2005, while visiting Baghdad, I was briefed by a three-star Army general about the newly invented "explosively-formed penetrator," a sophisticated land mine that compressed and propelled an extremely dense metal "bullet" to penetrate U.S. Humvees and armored vehicles, killing many of our troops. The "EFP" was made exclusively in Iran. The general told me that we knew several of the places where the EFP's were being made. When I asked him why we weren't going into Iran to destroy those mini-factories, he said that our forces weren't permitted to do so."

Iran making those mines was an act of war, one that our government chose to ignore. The blood of the Americans killed by those bombs is on the hands of the American leaders who chose to ignore an act of war. Surgical strikes should have taken out every one of those "factories."

Say what you will of colonialism, when the British controlled the Middle East these Islamic savages were under some kind of control. Now, unrestrained, and with nuclear weapons, we are about to see just how savage they really are. Islam is a creation of Satan.

POST American| 12.19.11 @ 11:10PM

---MEANWHILE---

The moves are on to CON-sumate the
stealth, franchise slum 'a-MAL--GAME---ation'
of Globalist collapsed Mexico with POST America
---as NDAA, now on record, authorizes the
'disappearance' of American citizens
at home and worldwide. ALLL brought
forth on the very 222nd anniversary of the
Bill of Rights.

TAKE HEED ---the ONLY other nation in history
to have such a law on the books ---is NORTH KOREA.

Dan Mathewson| 12.20.11 @ 4:04PM

blah-blah-blah

Sam H| 12.19.11 @ 11:50PM

Mr. Babbin,

It seems to me that you forgot to mention a very great accomplishment. It seems to have failed to merit your mention that we killed tens of thousands of Islamic Jihadis who chose to flock to Iraq...to their deaths.

Yes, our enemies have learned much about our spineless politicians and our soft civilian center and our mindless and timid media.

But they have also learned much about the American fighting man and his brilliant use of tactics, strategy, equipment and leadership.

And they have had their fill.

So wring your hands and lament all of the geo-political events if you wish.

But underneath it all, one fact remains....American fighting men kill the enemy.

And that, I think, is the most valuable lesson that we taught our enemies, and the most valuable that we will teach other enemies in other yet-to-be-begun wars.

nathan| 12.20.11 @ 11:27AM

We lost. We have to simply admit this fact. We lost. Also admit that the way Bush/Cheney handled 9/11 was grossly incompetent and Bush is among the 10 worst presidents in history, maybe as bad as Obama. But for Iraq:

1. 4500 American troops dead.
2. No WMD's found.
3. 30,000 wounded many of them horribly.
4. Christian community, left alone by Saddam, destroyed now in poverty stricken exile in places like Syria.
5. Cities like Fallujah destroyed. We had to destroy them to save them.
6. Our principles thrown under the bus. Detainees beaten to death in Abu Ghraib. At least one probably others threated to have their children tortured in front them. Real American exceptionalism there folks.
7. A democracy left behind. Sharia based. Any of you planning to move there? And why pray tell the emphasis on democracy? Just one of you give us a quote from ANY of the Founders praising that form of government. You can't. Madison called it the vilest form of government on earth. So why pray tell are we going off and imposing it on others? Any one care to answer that question?

If this is anyone's definition of victory tell us how you define defeat. We lost, pure and simple we lost. Accomplished nothing of value due to the gross imcompetence of Bush/Cheney who dragged us into the mess and those "conservatives" like Rush/Sean and others who supported it.

We have to admit we lost, lost big, so we don't do it again like Newt and others seem determined to do.

Nick| 12.20.11 @ 3:02PM

Nathan,

Take your lefty, commie clap-trap over to Huff-po or the kos-kids, would ya'?

nathan| 12.21.11 @ 7:59AM

Since when is quoting the Founders being a lefty? But why should I be surprised? Today when you quote Dr. King "content of character, not color of skin" you are considered a racist because you don't support affirmative action and quotas. I love the exercise in Orwellian newspeak on this site. I quote the Founders liberally, and I'm the commie, I'm the lefty? REALLY? Just how pray tell did being one with the Founders go from being a conservative position to a far left position? We truly live in interesting times indeed. LOL For the record I'm probably older than you, I supported Goldwater when when I was a kid, I read National Review most of my life long before I suspect you knew it existed. I will match my understanding of the Founders and the principles on which this country was created against anyone here, you included.

As I have sadly discovered, far to many of the people on this site either don't know/understand the principles on which this country was created or are far to eager to compromise them in the name of "saving the country" or saving one American life" or other such nonsense. No folks, government officials take an oath to uphold and defend what? Say it altogether now "THE CONSTITUTION!" And you see, that oath follows them, is binding on them not just in Los Angeles, or Atlanta, it's binds them at Abu Ghraib, at Bagram, at Gitmo. It means that when the US Code says you can't torture people, it means you can't torture people ANYWHERE! Or misbehave ANYWHERE!

You see that's what real conservatism is about, defend the country yes, but doing it the right way. Not throwing our principles and values away, not forgetting who we are, and what we are.

And understanding that while the Founders themselves were human and they strayed from those principles now and then, we still can insist on adhering to those principles primarily because those principles are RIGHT! They are correct.

Simple isn't it?

Nick| 12.21.11 @ 12:11PM

Nathan,

Commie lefties quote the Founders all the time. In the same way that Satan quoted the Scriptures to Christ in the desert.

I've asked you a couple of times if your support of Goldwater and reading of National Review are your only conservative credentials? Or, do you have more?

Your comments show that you do not understand the principles of the Founders or the U.S. Constitution.

Also, WMDs were found in Iraq. You must have missed it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/i.....7AZ3RO9qnM

Now, one thing is beyond dispute and cannot be argued by anyone: Saddam, or his two deviant sons, will never be able to kill any American, ever again. And, that is a good thing.

For those of us who have served in the U.S. armed forces, as I did during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, we know how much more lethal the weapons of war have gotten since the Viet Nam War.

After 10 years of war, in two different theaters, the fact that there are only 6,316 fallen American warriors, 1,414 of which are non-combat deaths, is a miracle.

By comparison, we lost over 116,000 brave service men, in a little over a year of fighting, during WWI. Over 36,000 killed in Korea, after only 3 years of fighting. And, over 58,000 killed in 10 years of war, defending the Republic of South Viet Nam.

The U.S. Constitution was not violated fighting Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom. Both conflicts were voted on by the U.S. Congress, with bi-partisan support.

If you are going to criticize President Bush, and his administration, for the conduct of the war, try doing it from the right, not the left, okay?

ole meanie| 12.21.11 @ 10:13AM

Our superpatriots need to stop conflating the American State and its military/intelligence apparatus with the interests of the American people. Americans have been told that we must "support our troops". We are told that any criticsm of what generals and politicians do is a criticsm of our troops, and is unappreciative and unpatriotic. "Support Our Troops" is still being used to stifle reasoned and principled dissent.

When someone asserts that we "won" in Iraq, I ask for evidence of any benefit--not benefit to Iraqis but benefit to Americans. So far, I have seen no such evidence. Instead, neocons and superpatriots assert that we made the Iraqi people safe from Saddam, gave them the opportunity for democracy, created a new regional "ally", etc. But, these claims are unproven, and EVEN IF TRUE do not show a benefit to ordinary American citizens. Maybe there has been some benefit to the American State, the military/intelligence complex, or multinational corporations.

The Iraq war WAS a disaster for Americans, EVEN IF Iraq someday becomes the model of stability and democracy in the Middle East--which I am sure it never will. Aside from the blood and treasure wasted there, we have allowed our government to divert attention from pressing issues here at home, to use the "war on terror" to undermine both Constitutional separation of powers and individual liberties., and to create a national security state here at home. THIS is a loss to Americans and it will never be rolled back.

So, Nathan, I say you are right.

bruce108| 12.20.11 @ 8:32PM

Iran is the enemy. Has been since 1979. Everything else is just a distraction.

C Bowen | 1.31.12 @ 6:20PM

So now Babbin is suggesting that Saddam did not have WMDs and Rummy et al was easily tricked by Iranian agents?

This one is a keeper!