Glenn links to this piece in the Washington Post arguing who gets credit for the Iraqi elections, but fails to mention the egregious final sentence of the story. In short, the piece discusses in detail who deserves the credit, and my short reaction is – the voters and the soldiers. Domestically, the Democrats will never give Bush credit, the Republicans will give him too much, and neither will be correct nor will either have the last word, as historians will be arguing about this 50 years after Bush is dead.
On the foreign scene, it is hard to imagine anyone giving to Bush, but rather, the axis of weasels will instead pretend that the elections were an event that was just going to happen one way or another, with or without any help from the US.
So, in short, the article is pretty boring. Until you come to the last sentence, which follows a discussion that intimates that the elections may pave the way towards an allied withdrawal:
“Will the new government demand that the occupying forces vacate Iraq, as many of the candidates were threatening to do,” asked the Dubai-based Gulf News. “And, if they do ask, will the United States, and others, really go?”
In a peculiar turn of political events, the elections that Bush welcomed may wind up being the best means of undoing his Iraq war policy.
Peculiar turn of events? Undo his war policy?
The clear implication is that Bush is unwittingly being duped again, and that Bush really wants to stay in Iraq ad infinitum. The reality of the situation is that Bush held the elections as part of a step to remove the US from Iraq.
How does someone get it so ass-backwards?
Kimmitt
The reality of the situation is that Bush held the elections as part of a step to remove the US from Iraq.
This really is not my understanding; while Bush (and the rest of the US) wants to get out of the business of providing the daily peace, it has been made clear in various sources that one of the realpolitik benefits of having a friendly government in Iraq would be the opportunity to construct major military bases with which to contain/threaten (pick your preferred terminology) Syria and Iran.
Richard Aubrey
Well, Kimmit. We “got out” of Germany, in the sense we quit running the place.
Still there with bases.
Are we “there” or are we “not there”.
Certainly, running Iraq looks like a thankless task best left to those who have a dog in the hunt so as to make up for catching crap from various groups (aka politics).
It’s unlikely that having bases out in the desert will annoy very many folks aside from those who think inconveniencing the remaining dictators in the area is a Bad Thing.
derek
the opportunity to construct major military bases with which to contain/threaten (pick your preferred terminology) Syria and Iran.
And this is a bad thing?
Kimmitt
It probably is to the Iraqi people, which is why self-governance is inimical to the overall Bush strategy.
Ricky
Ah,yes, Kimmitt fronts the looney “empire” strategy.
Sigh.
Terry
No, Ricky, it’s not the “empire strategy” that’s looney, it’s Kimmitt, as usual. How NOT surprising.
derek
Kimmitt,
COME ON!
What the…freaking…rghh…
Words fail me.
Rick
Now, now…easy on the upstanding member of the “reality based community.” The one with the green sky.
Cordially…
The Lonewacko Blog
Chicago Tribune’s 14 `enduring bases’ set in Iraq: From the ashes of abandoned Iraqi army bases, U.S. military engineers are overseeing the building of an enhanced system of American bases designed to last for years… Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 “enduring bases,” long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.
Paul
First, the Iraqis will not ask us to leave until they can manage their own security. Only the clueless left and the MSM (which it is part of) will imagine (hope) that it might be otherwise.
Second, after we are no longer needed to help them manage their security, I suspect they will find it mutually beneficial to have some American military bases there. Many more Iraqis are pro-American than the MSM will have us believe, or than the hate-America left can imagine, and once all Iraqis understand that we are not interested in a permanent occupation and have proven it by turning over control of Iraq to Iraqis, most of them will be friendly. As there economy and standard of living improve, and as they pull farther and farther ahead of their Arab counterparts who are still mired in backward states, their pro-American feelings can only increase, as it will be obvious that we did truly liberate and help them on the road to freedom and prosperity
And the gnashing of leftist teeth will provide those of us who live in the real world with much delicious schadenfreude.
Kimmitt
Lonewacko’s got it — we’re building for the long haul in Iraq, just as planned.
You guys gotta keep up. “Bases to invade Iran and Syria” was justification number 14 or so on the ever-shifting list.
Paul
Well Syria and Iran just might need invading, though I know it distresses you no end to think of your Baathist and Mullah fellow traveling buddies getting the old what for like your boy Saddam did.
More likely though we’ll be able to help effect regime change without an invasion, since we no longer are considered a paper tiger, and threats from the good ole USA mean something, as opposed to when we had (shudder) Donks running the show.
Imagine if we were able to help achieve freedom and prosperity in those countries too? You leftist assholes would grind your teeth to cinders, which alone would make it a worthwhile endeavor.
RW
That’s where we hid Bin Laden to foist during the election, right Kimmitt?
Or is that where they’re keeping plans for the draft you guys kept telling us was going to happen, right after Christopher Reeve would walk if Kerry was elected?
ape
Much as I dislike Bush, of course he gets the credit for the elections. it is an astonishing achievement.. not his first; eg Afghanistan (his greatest); Clampdown on nuclear ‘supermarket’; and the ending of US funding for Republican terror in Ireland.
My problem with the war in Iraq was that it was so far from being the best next target in a true battle ‘against evil’, ‘for freedom’, ‘for democracy’ or ‘against terror’. Firstly, because of the opportunity cost (eg; finishing the hunt for Osama; dealing with Sudan) and secondly, that it was likely to be counterproductive in the war against Islamist terror.
But of course the election is a great achievement; and we all share the hope that history will not regard it as an aberration.
CadillaqJaq
It’s good seeing a non-Bush supporter giving him credit where credit is due. Quite refreshing in fact. Thaqnks, ape
Re: Finishing the hunt for Usama— if he’s still in the general area, I’d speculate he’s in Pakistan. Do we risk the uproar of openly sending troops into yet another mideast country to nab his ass? I say, “No.”
Re: why Iraq? I say, “Why not?” It’s the heartland of the middle east situated between Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia: all potential hotbeds of terrorism support, and not that far from another blissful paradise, the Israeli/Palestine strip. Seeing the new Iraq as a model for freedom and democracy may certainly send chills through the leaders of those neighboring countries.
Lastly, taking out Saddam, with or without WMD (yet to be discovered IMO) was all important. Watching the Iraqis seek the freedom all are entitled to is priceless.
Paul
” that it was likely to be counterproductive in the war against Islamist terror.”
Wrong again Monkeyboy, nothing could be more productive than;
a) forcing the Jihadis to come to Iraq where they will be slaughtered by the finest military machine in world history.
b) where they’ll be forced to threaten and kill Arab Muslims (Iraqis) in an effort to try and derail the election, consequently turning many Arabs against them.
c) holding an election where Iraqis are cheering and dancing in the streets, giving the Arab world a clear alternative to blowing themselves up.
Plus all the obvious geo-political strategic reasons that a first year military student could rattle off in his sleep that are apparently beyond the grasp of the entire hate-America-anti-military left.
And as long as Bin Laden is making videos whining like a little girl and reciting Mikey Moore talking points he is probably more valuable as propaganda for us than anything. I hope he makes more like that one….pretty demoralizing to your everyday Jihadi I would imagine.
ape
“a) forcing the Jihadis to come to Iraq where they will be slaughtered by the finest military machine in world history.”
valid if the no. of jihadis is a constant. but it isn’t. there are more now than there were in 1950, for example.
although i do think you’re probably right and they are being defeated. what is troubling is that the US and Saudi Arabia both supported Sunni militancy and Baathism in the 70-80s in oppositon to the more radical threat of Khomeiniism. Khomeini himself used the same pro-democratic rhetoric that the Shiite majority are using now, until he came to power, after which the repression started and the ranks of the ‘disposessed’ decreased.
Kimmitt
c) holding an election where Iraqis are cheering and dancing in the streets, giving the Arab world a clear alternative to blowing themselves up.
This works only if the people who are blowing themselves up feel like the elections get the job done. Most Arabs are like most people, they want to run their businesses, raise their kids, and die of old age. They’re going to be thrilled to vote. It’s the radicalized fringe that we have to worry about.
Slartibartfast
It’d be rather stupid to do so by accident, no? Of course, it’s much easier to go with the rhetoric than it is to simply read the article, which has this shocker:
Golly, the idea that we’ll have some presence in Iraq as far into the future as March of 2006 really says a lot about our imperialistic leanings, doesn’t it?