President Bush: The War on Terror-Iraq

So now we finally get to the juicy stuff don’t we? Enough already about what I think of President Bush’s personality or which presidents I would like to have a beer with.

Now we’re actually talking about issues, real issues that get people’s blood boiling, mouths moving, feet marching and tempers flaring.

Now we’re talking about war…literally, a life and death topic.

It’s no secret that President Bush’s global execution of the War on Terror (specifically Iraq) has been the most controversial and divisive issue in his eight years as president.

But why such division? Why such controversy? Why such strong opposition?

To me, the invasion of Iraq, subsequent overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and development of Iraq’s new democracy was an extremely justified and noble endeavor.

I believe this because I share President Bush’s view of the War on Terror.

In a pre-9/11 world, we were content to let Hussein keep up his activity as long as he didn’t attack his neighbors, while remaining contained in Iraq. But as you all know, 9/11 changed everything.

With the Islamo-Fascist threat we currently face not having a home base to call their own; we need to root out terrorism everywhere it lives. By not doing so, we would be subjecting ourselves to the complacency and naivety that led to 9/11.

President Bush finally believed the old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. He was not about to sit back and let a mad terrorist continue to intimidate an entire region and, for that matter, the rest of the world with his dangerous activities.

That’s right, whether people like to believe it or not, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. This is not some right-wing theory that I’ve developed. This is a fact. He used biological weapons on Iranians and Kurds. He presented the families of suicide bombers with checks worth $25,000.

That is why he needed to be taken out, simple as that. He was a terrorist and after 9/11, terrorists were no longer going to be tolerated.

I think the reason so many people objected to this military action was because the administration needlessly complicated the issue.

We heard about the “stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction” and the “humanitarian good” we would be doing by going in. But see, those are dicey arguments to make.

First, we had intelligence that stated there were stockpiles of weapons, not facts and, as we know now, intelligence isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be.

Secondly, humanitarian aid, while a noble and just reason for intervening in Iraq, also brought up other instances where we failed to intervene when humanitarian aid was needed around the globe. It made the administration appear that they were making up reasons to go to war as they went along.

I think if President Bush had simply stated the following, the invasion of Iraq would’ve been better received:

My fellow Americans, due to the continued terrorist activity

committed by Saddam Hussein, his very presence endangers

not only the United States, but also the rest of the world. If

we sit idly by and let a known and unrepentant terrorist

continue to threaten his region and the rest of the world, it is

only a matter of time before someone, somewhere will pay

dearly for this indecision. As a result, I will authorize the

invasion of Iraq and elimination of Saddam Hussein. We will no

longer allow terrorists to roam free as an uneasy world hopes

for the best. Thank you.

Now, those that would oppose the invasion automatically, whether for moral objections to the war or just a blind hatred for everything President Bush stands for, would not have been swayed by this speech. However, those independents, those undecideds, those on the fence may have actually supported the invasion, rather than trashing it.

So to me, the President’s main failure was not the decision to into Iraq, but in his sales pitch to the American public. The reason this is important is because the invasion’s popularity, or lack there of, really made things difficult for President Bush’s second term.

By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that the same issue that President Bush’s critics point to to illustrate his ineptitude and deceptiveness is the same issue that his supporters point to to illustrate his greatness and courage? I think it’s pretty rare to see that happen.

So, I’ve established that I view the decision to invade Iraq as the proper one, now we have to look at the execution of the invasion.

The initial military strike was phenomenal by any measure. The “Shock and Awe” campaign, did just that, the vaunted Iraqi army proved to be absolutely no match for our military might and Baghdad fell with far, far, far fewer casualties than even the most optimistic experts estimated.

Not to get off topic, but do you guys remember “Baghdad Bob”, Saddam’s Information Minister? He was the guy that would announce to the media that Iraq was actually routing us and that we were on the run. He said things as absurd as:

"Today we (Iraq) slaughtered them (United States) in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed."

"Be assured. Baghdad is safe, protected"

"We have them surrounded in their tanks"

I’m sorry, but if you don't find that funny, there's something wrong with you.

Ok, back on track here…

After the initial invasion until the troop surge…well, things were not so good in Iraq.

I do not blame President Bush for that, per se. Yes, he made a number of the personal appointments and those personal executed a less than flawless campaign, but that’s what happens in war. What we as a nation fail to understand is that war is a terribly difficult activity to properly carry out. There are going to be mistakes, there are going to be miscalculations, there are going to be casualties; as no war, no matter how just was ever perfectly executed.

That’s what we expected though: perfection. Now, part of that was due in no small part to the “Mission Accomplished” banner, a gargantuanly short-sided public relations stunt that really came back to hurt the administration after violence in Iraq increased.

The mistakes made in Iraq, however, pale in comparison to many other mistakes that were made in previous wars.

All one needs to do is look back to D-Day. While the initial invasion had fewer casualties than expected, the following weeks were a bloodbath. We lost over 80,000 troops in the hedgerows of France due to insufficient air cover and incorrect intelligence.

Now, does that mean we should not have conducted the D-Day invasion?

No, of course not.

But for some reason, we now seem to hold our military to unrealistic expectations. It’s as if we look at our military and say, “well, they’re not perfect therefore, they’re not good”.

Where I will heap abundant praise on President Bush, however, is in his decision to institute the troop surge.

Against conventional wisdom and the advice of every one of his senior staff of advisors, the administration sent more troops to Iraq and gave them a new commander (General David Petraeus) with a new strategy. Even President Bush's most vocal critics now acknowledge that Iraq is in far better shape than it was two years ago.

The surge, the Sunni Awakening and the pacification of the Anbar Province have allowed Iraq to rise from the ashes of civil war to a future that, while not brilliantly bright, certainly appears to be rather promising.

In fact, I will go so far to say that the war in Iraq is essentially over. The Iraqi military and police control security in over three quarters of the country, civilian and military deaths are at an all-time low and the few remaining terrorists have no real base of operation.

Iraq is a functioning democracy with a new round of elections right around the corner, something that seemed impossible three, six, even ten years ago.

Clearly, it is my opinion that President Bush made the correct decision to go into Iraq. In fact, I don’t even think it was a decision at all; we needed to go into Iraq. Now I know some will categorize me as a bloodthirsty, war-mongering, neo-con for this stance and that’s fine, I can handle that. What I would not have been able to handle was to have us sit idly by as another threat was allowed to run free, committing terrorist deed after terrorist deed.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John