Obama Sugarcoats Iraq Disaster

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Sept. 3, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                                             

             Speaking from the Oval Office, President Barack Obama told the American public that it’s “time to turn a new page” on the seven-year-old war costing 4,416 lives and nearly $1 trillion from the U.S. Treasury.  Obama fulfilled a campaign promise to mercifully end an ill-conceived war, based on the paranoia following Sept. 11.  Former President George W. Bush insisted that Iraq’s late dictator Saddam Hussein, a former U.S. ally in the 10-year long Iran-Iraq War, presented an implacable danger to U.S. national security.  Bush ignored former U.N. weapons inspector Dr. Hans Blix, insisting that Saddam possessed a dangerous arsenal of biological and nuclear weapons.  When the dust settled after waging war March 20, 2003, there were no weapons of mass destruction, only a toppled regime creating the power-vacuum that left Iraq vulnerable to bloody civil war and a magnet for terrorism.

            Obama’s speech extended an olive branch to Iraq war supporters whose continued adherence to Bush’s feeble rationale divides Republicans and Democrats.  While there are many reasons for Obama’s 2008 landslide victory, voters punished Republicans for a wasteful misguided war.  Obama’s bold opposition to the Iraq War won him the lion’s shared of independents and crossover Republicans.  Barack’s continued support for a failed Afghan campaign has cost him those same independents and crossover Republicans hoping he’d take the same stand on Afghanistan.  Telling a national audience that the country “has paid a huge price” for Iraq, Obama minimized the extent of the damage to the U.S. economy. Barack’s decision to escalate the Afghan War has come with a heavy political price.  More weak economic news and deaths in Afghanistan cost him precious approval ratings.

            Barack’s somber speech highlights the glacial progress in Iraq, where political squabbles and incomplete infrastructure makes life difficult in Baghdad and around the country.  All of Bush’s promises of a better life in Iraq without Saddam were not redeemed.  Since the March 7 presidential election, Iraq’s U.S.-backed prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has been in a bitter power struggle with his chief Shiite rival Ayad Allawi, with Allawi narrowly besting al-Maliki by only two seats.  With suicide bombings by rival Sunni groups, former Saddam loyalists and remnants of al-Qaeda, the fragile peace shows signs of disintegrating.  All the U.S. deaths, permanent injuries and nearly $1 trillion in U.S. tax dollars hasn’t resolved political divisions once ruled with an iron fist by Saddam.  Obama’s decision to finally end combat operations was met with sour grapes by Bush’s loyal minions.

            Throwing a bone to his GOP critics, Obama praised former Bush for his effort, sincerity and patriotism.  Barack highlighted the differences with his predecessor over Iraq, in no small part responsible for his historic victory Nov. 4, 2008.  “It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from the outset,” Obama said.  “Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security,” going over the top.  Barack himself, and many of Bush’s left wing critics before, during and after the ’08 campaign, believe Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney conspired to rig fraudulent intelligence on which to justify going to war.  Few from the left believe Bush supported our troops by putting them into a dangerous shooting gallery or, for that matter, helped U.S. national security by wasting valuable manpower and tax dollars.

            Bush hyped the Iraq War as necessary to U.S. national security, calling it “the central front in the war on terror.”  While all that seems like water under the bridge, Obama’s praise reflects the kind of insincerity bound to backfire.  Bush’s critics wanted to initiate impeachment proceedings for taking the nation to war under false pretenses.  His narrow victory over Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) in the 2004 attested to a deeply unpopular war, costing painful U.S. blood and treasure.  “Over the past several months, we’ve heard about ending the war in Iraq not much about winning the war in Iraq,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), taking a shot at Obama.  If everything goes according to the GOP plan, Boehner stands to replace Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Nov. 4.  Boehner can’t explain what he means by “winning,” only slogans and platitudes for extending U.S. losses.

            Barack’s decision to end the Iraq War was long overdue, over a year-and-a-half since taking office.  His decision to escalate Afghanistan carries political risks, especially among antiwar independents and crossover Republicans.  Praising Bush rings hollow for Obama who ran a strongly against the Iraq-war.  Whatever Bush’s intentions, he weakened U.S. national security by stretching the military and U.S. Treasury to the breaking point, sending the country into the worst recession since the great depression.  Nothing hurts national security more than a weak economy, where defense and domestic budgets must be slashed.  Boehner and other GOP partisans know that sending more young Americans to their graves in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t add to U.S. national security.  Bush betrayed his promise to not use the military and sacrifice U.S. lives for nation-building.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.