Obama’s Iraq
Peter Beinart’s piece in the Atlantic leads with the obligatory and customary condemnation of Bush, an attempt to make it clear that he’s not, repeat NOT, gone over to the Republican, pro-Bush dark side. Please don’t make that mistake:
Yes, the Iraq War was a disaster of historic proportions. Yes, seeing its architects return to prime time to smugly slam President Obama while taking no responsibility for their own, far greater, failures is infuriating.
His bona fides established at the outset, Beinart writes:
But sooner or later, honest liberals will have to admit that Obama’s Iraq policy has been a disaster.
Beinart then goes on to describe a few reasons why. Most of you are aware of them and more, so no need to describe them again here. Then there’s this curious statement:
Obama inherited an Iraq where better security had created an opportunity for better government. The Bush administration’s troop “surge” did not solve the country’s underlying divisions. But by retaking Sunni areas from insurgents, it gave Iraq’s politicians the chance to forge a government inclusive enough to keep the country together…
So, pray tell, how does one reconcile that statement (and the rest of the article, which describes Obama’s mistakes and their consequences) with Beinart’s initial disclaimer, where he says that the Republican architects of the Iraq War and its aftermath were responsible for “far greater, failures” than Obama? You can’t. You’re not even meant to connect statement one with statement two and see the contradiction. The first is the dogma of the party faith, with no need to prove it or back it up. The second is the tentative struggle towards the truth of what’s occurring now, and the deity (Obama) that failed.
Beinart continues:
For the Obama administration, however, tangling with Maliki meant investing time and energy in Iraq, a country it desperately wanted to pivot away from…
Under an agreement signed by George W. Bush, the U.S. was to withdraw forces from Iraq by the end of 2011. American military officials, fearful that Iraq might unravel without U.S. supervision, wanted to keep 20,000 to 25,000 troops in the country after that. Obama now claims that maintaining any residual force was impossible because Iraq’s parliament would not give U.S. soldiers immunity from prosecution. Given how unpopular America’s military presence was among ordinary Iraqis, that may well be true. But we can’t fully know because Obama””eager to tout a full withdrawal from Iraq in his reelection campaign””didn’t push hard to keep troops in the country. As a former senior White House official told Peter Baker of The New York Times, “We really didn’t want to be there and [Maliki] really didn’t want us there.”¦ [Y]ou had a president who was going to be running for re-election, and getting out of Iraq was going to be a big statement.”
In recent days, Republicans have slammed Obama for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But the real problem with America’s military withdrawal was that it exacerbated a diplomatic withdrawal that had been underway since Obama took office.
The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page.
And this is from a liberal, in a liberal periodical.
Now, you might say that there’s a reason for this backing away from Obama. If Hillary Clinton is to run successfully in 2016, she probably needs to say she disagreed with Obama and was more hawkish on Iraq when she was Secretary of State. That may even be the truth, but if so she wasn’t very influential. At any rate, for her disclaimer to be successful in 2016 the way has to be paved by criticizing Obama now. This has the extra advantage of probably being a relief for people like Beinart, who must be tired at this point of making excuses for Obama and running the risk of looking like a fool himself, and who wants to be an “honest liberal.”
Beinart is an interesting case and not especially typical, a liberal who is a practicing Orthodox Jew and who originally supported the Iraq War. But not long afterward he recanted and toed the party line:
Beinart was a vocal supporter of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq but by 2006 as he published his first book, he “had concluded that it had been a tragic mistake”, according to George Packer in The New Yorker. [Beinart’s] second book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, published in 2010, in Packer’s words, “look[ed] back at the past hundred years of U.S. foreign policy in the baleful light of recent events [and found] the ground littered with … the remnants of large ideas and unearned confidence [as demonstrable in] a study of three needless wars”, the First World War, Vietnam, and Iraq.
Funny thing, though, though, Beinart seems to now support the leaving of some troops in Iraq post-war, and to be criticizing Obama for not doing so. And here’s an interesting dialogue of his with Bill Kristol about our involvement in Afghanistan, from a few months ago. It isn’t very consistent with his own position on Obama and Iraq today.
Panetta on The Factor Tuesday.
More to be learned about this epic fail.
Prediction: The Battle for Baghdad begins this month.
About Beinart and his being an Orthodox Jew — here he is indulging in a bit of nuance (aka palaver) about that:
“I didn’t call myself an Orthodox Jew; I said I attend an Orthodox synagogue. But anyway, it’s a reasonable question. I feel a spiritual connection through Jewish observance—when I’m in shul, on Shabbat, even through kashrut. And I feel a spiritual connection to Jewish people—a certain delight at certain Jewish idiosyncracies, at a sense of global peoplehood.”
Not exactly a man of conviction in anything, it seems.
The Iraq and Afghanistan projects were over by 2009. All the casualties sustained and money spent after that point, was a waste, a Democrat boondoggle. I knew it. Others might have known it but didn’t say it, because that would be defeatism right?
Yea, except when the American President orders people to “stand down, let them die”, that’s not defeatism, that’s just being Presidential and Authoritative.
You were expecting consistency?
This is a crowd that has reached the end of history — history’s memories, that is.
Cornhead…
Al Baghdadi appears to be prepping the battlespace.
Bill Roggio posits that the “Battle of the Belts” doctrine is being re-applied.
See Long War Journal for the details.
Due to weather and climate, Baghdad’s campaign season starts in Early December.
Prior to that time, I’d expect ISIS to make Baghdad a VBIED Hell. ISIS uses VBIEDs in quality and quantities never seen before.
I can easily imagine the Shi’ite faction fleeing Baghdad.
Even now the Shi’ites are turning over major military assets to ISIS — and on the cheap — and in perfect working order. The girls just cut and run.
Re Packer on Beinart
the ground littered with … the remnants of large ideas and unearned confidence [as demonstrable in] a study of three needless wars”, the First World War, Vietnam, and Iraq.
Is it not the problem today that the political Parties have too much power, influence, and demand too much devotion? A reasonable conclusion is made hostage to political/ideological loyalties and a man makes an ass of himself trying not to step on the wrong turds.
I would not want to be an American at our embassy when isis takes Baghdad.
Flash back to Saigon, 1975
The difference will be that although some, not enough but some, of the Vietnamese who had put their trust in us got out, came to the U.S., and have become loyal and productive citizens. I doubt that will happen in Iraq.
The great similarity is that a costly war that could have ended satisfactorily, was squandered by subsequent Democrat malfeasance. Will we never learn?
With regard to Beinart, and other Leftists, the appropriate nom de guerre might well be “Pretzel”. Thus do they twist and turn reality.
George Bush was supposed to be a domestic policy president too, he got blindsided by history, but he rose to the occasion to do the best thing for America by his lights. I thought the surge–in the face of so much opposition–was a courageous decision. Then this president throws victory away because it’s not on his personal agenda.
Perhaps Beinart and his editor felt no need to reconcile the latter statement with the earlier one, figuring that the faithful would read only the dogmatic part and then move on.
That’s why setting the record straight and correcting the false narrative against OIF is a hobby horse for me.
It’s patient zero, the cornerstone premise, the anchor point, for the corrupted social political dialogue that has caused so much compounding harm.
The primary sources for OIF clearly show it was right on the law and justified on the policy, yet the false narrative against OIF is their One True Thing that validates every other piece of partisan propaganda. Take that piece away, flip the script, and the rest starts to unravel.
In Beinart’s defense, he did think it was important to renew the SOFA agreement back in 2010:
The rest of the article, though, gets sort of wishy-washy.
Beinart is a case-in-point of a phenomenon I described on one of my (poli sci) professor’s blogs in 08-09:
After 9/11, Bush faithfully carried forward Clinton’s Iraq policy, correctly followed the GW ceasefire enforcement procedure, and rationally matched means to achieve liberal ends with Iraq. Yes, it cost more than we wanted – because the enemy’s ferocity and canniness caught us off-guard and he seized the initiative before we seized it back with the COIN “Surge”.
That’s what happens in competition. Respect the enemy.
People like Beinart claim the same liberal ends as Bush but decry the ugly competitive activist reality it takes to achieve them in the arena. Put them in charge, and policy becomes irrational.
When I was an activist, I faced a mini version of the same phenomenon. When the left activists I competed against made the contest ugly, many on my side pulled accused me of making a mess they wanted no part of. Of course, they partook in the spoils after our side won.
Folks like Beinart relish the fine-cooked steak while protesting the abattoir and the butcher.
Neo quoting wiki quoting George Packer: “Beinart was a vocal supporter of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq but by 2006 as he published his first book, he “had concluded that it had been a tragic mistake”, according to George Packer in The New Yorker.”
A piece of armchair analysis about that aspect of Beinart, from my blog:
The Left spanked the heretic and they recanted. Peggie Noonan did something similar.
When the tough gets going, the Left bends knee to tyrants.
@ neo-neocon:
Totally off-topic, but you got a huge shout out in an article on The Federalist:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/03/you-cant-change-anything-from-your-living-room/
Eric:
Or maybe they think the definition of “long and involved” is about a month.
B is of the type “Liberal Monster”.
The one who cannot escape responsibility for losing what was won and creating suffering mayhem and chaos are exactly and precisely the liberals like B who savaged Bush and voted for a ne’er do well who never did a damn thing in his life and made him President.
B. is a disgrace and eternal shame should be heaped on his very head. He has no one to blame but himself and his fellow liberals. They not only scr&%d over the USA, the **&^ed over half the world out of pride and spite.
Matt_SE:
Thanks for the heads-up.
Neo,
Beinart reminds of Ross Douthat. Educated and smart, but shallow of conviction. Rationalizers.
Eric:
Yes. I don’t quite understand how their minds work. Back and forth, back and forth, erratic. A bit like Andrew Sullivan, Peggy Noonan, sometimes on and sometimes off.
Neo,
They rationalize their own dilettante character.
Mike: “He has no one to blame but himself and his fellow liberals. They not only scr&%d over the USA, the **&^ed over half the world out of pride and spite.”
On my blog, I said this in reaction to a David Brooks opinion piece in April, but it agrees with your take on Beinart:
Matt_SE,
Loftis is calling for a Right activist social movement.
http://doingdemocracy.com/
Eric,
Essentially, but you’ll note the absence of the words “Marxist method.” Heh.
I think she mentions the more long-term goal of renewing social norms/interactions, but the article also instructs on the correct tone to take in other settings to garner converts.
As the reference to neo-neocon and David Horowitz explained, creating converts is not about gloating; quite the opposite.
It is about creating doubt, then letting that lead the seeker where it may.
Eric:
Actually, the Vietnam War was patient zero.
“So, pray tell, how does one reconcile that statement…”
Lefties can reconcile it thusly:
The invasion itself was a monumental mistake. But once he’d been handed that shit sandwich, Obama could’ve made it worse or better. The left will always blame Bush for the wrong of handing off to Obama an imperfect world.
Note also, this is a very self-serving position to take, as there’s no arguing the counterfactual idea that the ME would’ve been more stable had Saddam been left in power.
Would it have been better? Who knows?
Neo,
You’re right, but a rough analogy can be made to Duncan as (potential) ebola patient zero in America, but not the originating ebola patient zero in Africa.
The false narrative against OIF is patient zero in the 9/11 era though not the historical patient zero of the false narrative against the Vietnam War.
Matt_SE:
The problem is reconciling this statement “Obama inherited [from Bush] an Iraq where better security had created an opportunity for better government” (and which he screwed up) with this statement “the Iraq War was a disaster of historic proportions…[whose architects had] far greater failures [than Obama’s].”
How could their failures be far greater than his, if they left him an Iraq with better security and an opportunity for better government, and he destroyed those opportunities?
Matt_SE,
I would suggest to Loftis what I’ve suggested here. In addition consulting with accomplished ex-Left activists like Horowitz and Steve Beren on the nuts and bolts, look into contemporary examples of non-Left activist successes, such as the Ivy League ROTC movement, particularly the campaign at Columbia University that won over the University Senate, which was explicitly designed in the Vietnam War aftermath in part to keep out ROTC.
As far as the dissemblers like Noonan go, I would say that they lack moral courage or conviction.
Their lives are easy, and they’ve become temperamentally soft.
They go along as long as the going is easy. When things turn tough, they turn away.
That sentiment is shot through our society. Everyone wants the baby, no one wants the labor pains.
“How could their failures be far greater than his, if they left him an Iraq with better security and an opportunity for better government, and he destroyed those opportunities?”
That is a contradiction only if you believe the truth of both statements (the second statement’s truth is admitted by Beinart). I think the left sees the Iraq invasion as inevitably doomed, the facts of Iraq in 2009 notwithstanding.
Bush could’ve handed Obama utopia realized, but the perceived immorality of the project allows rationalization of the downfall. Good things do not come from the hand of Satan.
So, on an intellectual level it is impossible to ignore how Obama screwed up. But the feeling is that Bush is evil, so his “failures” will always be worse.
Matt_SE: “this is a very self-serving position to take, as there’s no arguing the counterfactual idea that the ME would’ve been more stable had Saddam been left in power.”
I do what I can with stuff like this:
From the Iraq Survey Group Duelfer Report:
And this, from Situation of human rights in Iraq, [United Nations] Commission on Human Rights resolution 2002/15:
And this, from the UN Special Rapporteur on Iraq, Andreas Mavrommatis in E/CN.4/2004/36, E/CN.4/2004/36/Add.1, 18-19MAR04:
I agree it’s impossible to resolve whether Iraq would have been worse or better off with Saddam. But we do know that the containment was failing, Saddam was in breach, including an undetected active program in the IIS (Saddam’s regime arm that worked with terrorists), and intent on rearming. We do know Saddam’s regime was a terroristic humanitarian disaster that was “far worse” than known before OIF.
While the counterfactual is hard to argue, you can at least clarify the situation with Iraq at the decision point for OIF. A lot of folks have revised, mischaracterized, or whitewashed what Saddam was.
* you can take out one of ‘revised, mischaracterized’ from above.
Matt_SE: “the perceived immorality of the project allows rationalization of the downfall.”
Agreed.
Again, that hits the reason correcting the false narrative is a hobby horse of mine, and why I emphasize the primary sources – Congressional states, UNSC resolutions, presidential policy statements, UN findings, across 3 administrations – clearly show OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy.
For Democrats who think as you describe, I emphasize that Bush’s Iraq enforcement isn’t the best source to understand OIF – in fact, Clinton’s is.
* Congressional statutes, not states
Matt_SE:
That’s why I wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA
This link from the federalist site is hilariously entertaining. Reminds me of a lot of experiments I carried out using my own standards.
They call it conformity, I call it brainwashing. Same concept.
When unions advocated that they wanted members to have an open vote, instead of secret ballot, I knew immediately they were trying to pressure people using those tricks. But the regular American citizen probably didn’t pick up on that nuance until it was too late.
Perplexing in a way, the grownups all knew in 2008 that Obama was going to be a disaster, that he was a fool in spite of the massive accolades from the numbskullery, that he was going to try and lose the war in Iraq and that he was going to get a lot of people killed. How many times have so many been so right about something so obvious while so many others seemed completely oblivious? It certainly was not rocket science to see red flags on a resume good grief, he and his both had to surrender their law licenses.
We live live in curious and stupid times.