-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Following President Obama’s lunchtime announcement that [nearly] all American troops will exit Iraq by years end, Mitt Romney campaign issued the following statement:
President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.
To answer Mr. Romney’s two part question about our exit from Iraq, I suggest that the move is absolutely political, but it’s also compulsory. We have run out of options in Iraq, but make no mistake, American troops are leaving because the Iraqis don’t want us there.
First of all, the politics of the matter. President Obama owed it to his political base to end the war effort. To do so, he needs only follow the roadmap outlined the Status of Forces Agreement mapped out by President Bush in 2008. It was not a coincidence that the words “as promised” were dealt into his speech today.
As far as our “sheer ineptitude,” I think Mr. Romney’s frustration with the profile of our exit demonstrates a misplaced presumption that the United States could maintain an insufficient troop presence to prevent a catastrophic collapse of state.
After all these years, one remarkably simple lesson escapes him. We cannot continue fighting what our presence makes inevitable. We cannot prevent civil war, state failure, or safe haven for terror by providing tinder for all of the above - unless this country is ready and willing to dramatically augment the shape and stature of its Mesopotamian military presence. I do not believe it is. Perhaps more importantly, the Iraqis are similarly disobliged.
John Tabin is absolutely correct. The Obama administration envisioned a continued presence in Iraq that was considerably more robust than what we’ll be left with, and it was unable to negotiate terms. However, had we stayed in force , it’s a safe bet that radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s bloc would have abandoned President Nouri al-Maliki’s fragile ruling coalition. The parliament would have collapsed into a political melee and the flimsy bureaucracy would have followed. This would have proven a strategic nightmare - particularly the ill-equipped and insufficient American troops left to pick up the pieces.
Regardless of whether America troops remains in the country, violence will increase and people will die. Just as well American soldiers and Marines do not remain as fodder, if we no longer have the stomach to conduct a proactive counter-insurgency.
This is the reality facing us in Iraq. In an odd way, the aftermath of America’s troop withdrawal already exists. They Iraqis perpetrated and endured a bloodbath, and their state survived civil war…but barely. One doubts things could get worse than they’ve already been, unless America stays to prevent what it actually prolongs.
Update: This post has been edited to expand on an earlier version and add links. 11:44 a.m.
View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/22/and-thats-a-wrap-in-iraq
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Intelligent Design| 10.22.11 @ 7:50AM
Translation: It was agreed 3 years ago, during the Bush administration, that we would leave by 12/31/11. The Iraqis don't want us to stay, and it is great that we are leaving. We should also get the hell out of Afghanistan and Libya, and stay out of other Islamic hell-holes. Let the Muslims fight and kill each other. We can't control these events. Our "nation building" efforts are naive, idiotic, and futile. Having more of our soldiers killed or wounded in Islamic countries is immoral, since our so-called "leaders" realize, or should know, that in the final analysis they will revert to Islam, which means the death of freedom.
Now we have Senator McCain beating the drum for more U.S. involvement in Libya, to help the rebels build a freedom-loving country, et cetera, ad nauseum. Has McCain lost his marbles? The rebels will build an Islamic state. Despite the pie-in-sky optimism of McCain and other low-wattage American "leaders", Libya will not become our ally. In fact, the rebel forces there probably have connections to Muslim terrorist organizations.
Jack in Wi.| 10.23.11 @ 12:53AM
The War in Iraq was a forseable disaster. Many sane and patriotic conservatives were against it. The list of honor includes Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, John Duncan, General Norm Schwartzkoph, General Brent Skowcroft, Lew Rockwell, Bob Novak, and James Baker.
The lunatic Neocons have been wrong on everything they have ever advocated or done. They villified the truth tellers who knew how this would end. Well they should be held accountable for their many lies and mistakes. Instead they are out advising people like Romney, Cain, Bachman, Santorum, and Gingrich. They have destroyed the Republican party and the conservative movement, yet we can't just tell these people to go to hell.
Intelligent Design| 10.23.11 @ 2:36PM
Some say that the war on terror has not been cost-effective. They think we should not have gone after the vermin behind 9/11. I guess they don't remember how much 9/11 damaged our economy only 8 months into George W. Bush's presidency. I guess they think it would have been okay to let the terrorists attack us again and again. They are truly dumb. Multiple 9/11's would have destroyed our country. There was no choice but to seek and destroy the terrorists.
les nesman| 10.23.11 @ 5:07PM
What did Iraq have to do with 911. Answer: nothing. So says El Presidente Jorge himself. Saudi was the source of most of the terrorists anyway. Why don't we hear more about invading those guys.
os| 10.23.11 @ 5:44PM
Bush was too busy holding Prince Abdullah's hand.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa.....us-flowers
Teflon93| 10.22.11 @ 8:50AM
This is the surest sign yet we will do absolutely nothing about Iran. Within the next year, Iran will dominate the Middle East.
Intelligent Design| 10.22.11 @ 11:52AM
It isn't necessary to have boots on the ground in the Middle East. We can still bomb Iran.
Kingofthenet| 10.22.11 @ 12:34PM
That would be the worst option, in a deck of bad options. All bombing Iran would do is pull the Country together under patriotism, and drive the nuke program underground with the EXPRESS goal of making bombs.
Occam's Tool| 10.22.11 @ 6:55PM
All bombing Iran would do is destroy Iran, if done properly. They aren't good, merely feral.
Nation building with Islamists is futile. Before they can be built, they first must, as the Nazis and the Japanese Empire did, submit to superior force. This has not been done yet. But nuking Teheran would be a GREAT start. They have still not gotten repaid for 1979.
Lullaby, you are a great guy, but I gotta disagree with you slightly---I don't think the Iraqis can hold stuff together, because their dominant ethos is based on the meanderings of a mass murdering child molesting thief.
Occam's Tool| 10.22.11 @ 7:10PM
Again, I emphasize, if you don't have the cojones to beat your enemies to a pulp, they will beat you.
The Iranians merely need to load two or 3 nukes into cargo ships and have them explode in a few ports---New York, San Diego, Newport News, Va.
Will they have the nukes soon? Sure, within 5 years easy. Will they hate us and want to hurt us even if we cravenly withdraw our military from the rest of the world? Sure. Do I trust our intelligence agencies and the Famous But Incompetent to protect us under, say, a Paul administration?
The answer is obvious.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 10.22.11 @ 7:37PM
OT: Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, thinking that Iraq will hold together after the U.S. Military leaves? I'd just hate to think that I wasted three years of my life in that Country, just to see it taken over by Iran in less time then I was there for!! I "want" to believe that all those kids that would wave to us as we were passing by in our convoys, had a future that was worth living for. So call me an optimist if you will, but that'll be the first time I've been called that, I can assure you, but I really do believe Iraq is going to hold together (finger's are still crossed)!! It'll never be freedom, like we think of freedom here, but it'll be better than what the rest of the Muslim World will have. Umm, do we still have freedom here by the way? Rhetorical question!!
Les Nesman| 10.22.11 @ 9:46PM
I think OT smokes crack. There is no way Iran would ever attack the US with Nukes, ever, period, end of story. We all know what would happen if anybody attacked the US with nukes, it's the end of the world. You're going to come back with the Islamist & the Jihad horseshit but these are Persians you are talking about here. "Take 2 shock treatments & call Bibi in the morning" Why don't you do that before you try to get us in yet another preemptive horseshit war.
Occam's Tool| 10.23.11 @ 10:25PM
No, I don't smoke crack. Please review Newt Gingrich's writings on EMPs. Thank, Clint, for your ignorance.
Jack is an antisemite to the max.
By the way, Ron Paul is going to be destroyed in the primaries. Everytime he loses, imagine me laughing hysterically--AT YOU!
Jack and Clint, you two are proud descendants of Haman.
Clint| 10.24.11 @ 12:55AM
Tool Job Kisses Bibi's Crack.
The Screwball Israel Firster Maniac, Tool Job Is All PMS'Y & Atwitter Because Many Of Us Tea Party Patriots & Our Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul & Our Tea Party Senator Dr.Rand Paul Don't Asskiss Tool Job's Personal Israel Firster Agenda.
Jack in Wi.| 10.23.11 @ 1:06AM
Occam wants a war of genocide on the Iranians. It shows the depths to which these lunatic Zionists would go. His racism and hate is evident to everyone here. The Iranians are an ancient and peaceful people who have a long history of peaceful relations with the Jews. Iran is home to the largest Jewish population left in the Muslim world. Over 25000 Jews, who could leave at anytime, prefer to stay in Iran then to go to Israel.
Iran has not attacked anyone in hundreds of years. It has asked on numerous times for talks to end differences with the USA. It's nuclear program is under International inspection and it abides by the non prolieration treaties it has signed. Our combined intelligence agencies have stated that Iran is not building a bomb. The only people pushing this lunacy are the crazed zionists and their paronoia. It is time to send an ambassadr to Iran, open relations and work for peaceful solutions and trade.
redpatch| 10.23.11 @ 1:37AM
Hey Jack I got a really good deal on a bridge and you seem like just the smart guy to buy it
Occam's Tool| 10.23.11 @ 10:26PM
Yup, it's abiding.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 10.22.11 @ 9:12AM
Well I guess this is good news for me!! Now I won't have to spend another miserable summer in that crap-hole, melting in the sun (who by the way has a summer home in Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, a lot of people don't know that, but it's true!!). If the Iraqis don't want to keep their new Government, or their somewhat better, newly found freedoms, and want to tear their Country apart in a Civil War, well that's on them. Good luck on killing each other then!! We did our job, now it's up to them!! My early prediction is, I don't think Iraq is going to fall apart, I think it's going to hold together. I get the feeling that the Iraqis like where they are now, in comparison to where they used to be, and they're going to do their best to hold onto it. I hope that's the case, they deserve some peace in their lives (finger's crossed)!!
Bob Grant| 10.22.11 @ 9:15AM
I knew in approx 2004-2005 that Iraq would never turn into some Middle East version of a Jeffersonian Democracy (like Lebanon for a short period) because all of those parties that would have been responsible for creating such a society (intellectuals, REAL businessmen, and other successful individuals) fled the country and now live in Detroit, London, Paris, and other places.
They have no intention of returning to their homeland. They are too westernized in their thinking and know too well the writing on the wall about their country.
What's left are people like Al-Sadir or other cleric/tribal leaders responsible for "forming a more perfect union".
Was it worth it? ...painfully, probably not.
Kenny| 10.22.11 @ 9:44AM
Has McCain lost his marbles? He lost them years ago. Theold fool is so outdated he's pathetic.
As for Iraq -- get out and forget this nation building nonsense.
JimH| 10.22.11 @ 10:13AM
Great example of having your cake and eating it too. The One gets tell his supporters..look I left as promised. To those who think we should stay he says.. they made us leave.
axbucxdu| 10.22.11 @ 11:09AM
Agreed. And who the hell got us there in the first place? Why the Rethug establishment of course. The same outfit that's doing its best to jam the "Rovian" Romney down our throats. They got themselves a collection of rocket scientists there for sure.
Red Phillips | 10.22.11 @ 10:52AM
We should have never invaded them in the first place, so it's a good thing that we are leaving.
Intelligent Design| 10.22.11 @ 11:57AM
It was logical and appropriate to invade Iraq after 9/11. Saddam Hussein allowed terrorists to use Iraq as a base of operations. Same scenario in Afghanistan, with the Taliban. We killed or captured thousands of terrorists, and there were no more terrorist attacks in the U.S. for the remainder of George W. Bush's presidency. But then we switched to "nation building" in those countries, and that is dumb. They are Islamic countries which will never accept Western civilization. Islam is 180 degrees opposite freedom.
C Bowen | 10.22.11 @ 4:31PM
It was logical to launch a trillion dollar debt financed invasion of a secular nation in the Middle East that would create a vacuum insuring Islamic state dominance in the region?
Are you insane?
Occam's Tool| 10.22.11 @ 7:00PM
The secular nation was led by a mass murdering maniac who had tried to assassinate a US President.
We should have gotten rid of Hussein, after we destroyed Iran. It would have been an object lesson, and, without nation building involved, not that expensive. The crushing of the Islamic regime in Iran first would have set back Islamic dominance after the crushing of Iraq; and, without trying to nation build, would have resulted in very few casualties (probably less than 1000 all told), and multiple chastened Islamic states, especially if we went for maximum protection of our troops and minimum protection of their civilians.
C Bowen | 10.23.11 @ 7:13AM
You have evidence Saddam tried to assassinate a US President?
Curveball and Chalabi duped you but good.
Occam's Tool| 10.23.11 @ 10:26PM
It was Bush, Sr.
Occam's Tool| 10.23.11 @ 10:29PM
From Frontline, PBS Website (not a GWB supportive website)
During the former president's visit to Kuwait to commemorate the coalition's victory over Iraq in the Gulf War, Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 people allegedly involved in a car bomb plot to kill George H.W. Bush. Through interviews with the suspects and examinations of the bomb's circuitry and wiring, the FBI established that the plot had been directed by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. A Kuwaiti court later convicted all but one of the defendants.
In retaliation, President Clinton two months later ordered the firing of 23 cruise missiles at Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad. The day before the attack U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine K. Albright went before the Security Council to present evidence of the Iraqi plot. And, after the U.S. attack, Vice President Gore said the attack "was intended to be a proportionate response at the place where this plot" to assassinate Bush "was hatched and implemented
Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/.....z1bf81g3RX
Dai Alanye | 10.22.11 @ 6:56PM
It is far too early to know whether Iraq was or was not a good idea, although getting rid of Saddam was golden. Wait for the final outcome to see if Iraq becomes a responsible nation and maintains representative government.
But this does point out the need for settling Iran's hash as soon as can be. Recognise a govenment in exile, for starters.
crazy| 10.22.11 @ 12:00PM
Once upon a time Saddam's Iraq kept the Islamist shiites of Iran occupied. Will the House of Saud step up to the task or will they try to lead the resistance to Israel is the great unanswered question. They've spent the last 30 yrs trying to have it both ways. I guess we'll soon see.
W| 10.22.11 @ 2:03PM
We lost over 4700 Americans, over 32,000 wounded, spent close to one trillion dollars on this dump, and we are just packing up and leaving becuse some Iraquis don't like us. Worse, our leaders GWB and Obama agreed to leave.
Why did we ever go there in the first place? But once there, and having spent our blood and money, we just leave, and the place returns to its disfunctional condition. It will become a satellite of Iran, our enemy.
In retrospect, we should have not invaded Iraq, but once there we should stay to protect our interest that it does not become a satellite of Iran.
GWB is looking worse and not much better than Obama. Sorry I voted for him.
axbucxdu| 10.22.11 @ 10:24PM
Same here. I'm not just sorry I voted for him, but for his old man as well. I was never too keen on the old schemer, but when I read about his opinion of Reagan that he divulged to Gorbachev of all people, it confirmed my low opion of 41. His slip also says all that needs to be said of these RepubliCANTS. Well, never again. Better to have an identified enemy like Obama, than to have these incompetent turncoats in our midst.
Bob K.| 10.22.11 @ 7:43PM
It is tough to win a war entered into by one Administration for whatever reason and continuing into another one. All the enemy has to do is wait us out.
Eisenhower knew this. The first action he took after being elected was to go to Korea to see what he could do about ending the Korean War. We ended up with a "draw" in the negotiated settlement on that one and it is still a "draw."
We learned nothing from Vietnam either. Started in 1963 by the Kennedy Administration and escalated by the Johnson Administration and finally ended 10 years later with negotiations by the Nixon Administration. This war has to be considered a loss.
We can be compared here to the Bourbon Kings of France of whom Talleyrand is supposed to have said: "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing."
bluecollarbytes| 10.22.11 @ 8:12PM
This day was coming one way or the other, unless we decided to have' another Korea', where tens of thousands of troops would be standing in the crossfire of Iraqi 'politics' indefinitely with no end in sight.
I don't feel good about the prospects for a 'free' Iraq into the future, but one thing we couldn't import into Iraq was 'the American way' mindset. Culturally, Iraq is probably a lost cause, but maybe the next strong-man ruler will be better than Saddam.
Whether it offered Obama political cover or not, having out troops stationed in Iraq without immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts is untenable.
martin j smith| 10.23.11 @ 8:15AM
The War in Iraq and the War in Libiya are the same war. Its the whole region that has been ready to explode because of Radical Islam and Iran/Syria provocations in particular. So Obama can take all the victory laps he wants at this moment but....when things fall apart his brilliant foreign policy can be viewed as a factor and thus a failure. I would add this: The GWB foreign policy especially towards the end of his second term and the "surge" in Iraq not withstanding also was highly problematic. GWB was backing off the war on terror and morphing into a Socialist light on foreign affairs. But, its aint GWB now baby it is BHO>
yisong| 10.24.11 @ 10:27PM
slewing ring can also bear the larger axial load, radial load and overturning, can replace several sets of ordinary bearing combination to use function. http://www.1stbearing.com