Recently combat missions in Iraq officially came to an end, with combat brigades withdrawing. Over 56,000 U.S troops including about 4,500 special forces will remain to help the train Iraqi forces to be more capable to maintain order. Despite this great achievement of being able to leave because our troops provided conditions to vastly improve stability since the invasion, the media has not given it as much attention compared to when the war was going badly with mounting casualties and violence. In addition, politicians skeptic of success have either remained silent or try to take credit for this achievement. Politicians falsely taking credit includes President Obama. The fact prevails that the duty, sacrifice, honor and commitment to victory by our troops and allies have defied negative skepticism of the media and politicians who seek to gain politically. Many politicians despite opposing the war disgracefully shirked their duty when they took actions and made statements that would impede success. If only more politicians could understand what duty to country really means and display even a fraction of commitment that is exemplified by our troops.
Many in the media would loudly make sure casualties and negative press of the war hit the front page of the newspaper or the number one topic on TV and other media outlets, but failed to honor the warriors when they made great achievements such as securing freedom for millions and making the world more secure. Some like the New York Times would leak confidential information which ultimately put our troops in danger. Rarely on days such as Memorial day would the troops be honored on the front of a newspaper. That spot has been seemingly reserved to give attention to celebrities behaving badly.
It is very important review key facts regarding the Iraq war and highlight the significance of why the war was fought , the importance of a stable Iraq to our national security and middle east peace , to differentiate the players who deserve credit and those who do not, and why the dedication to duty by our leaders is crucial to prevent snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
The Iraq war is no doubt one of the most controversial and debated war in U.S history. After 9/11 then President Bush declared war on terror. He sought not to distinguish between terrorists aimed at attacking Americans and the people that harbor them, especially people who might be trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. After the invasion of Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein became the next target. He had suspiciously violated many UN inspections and sanctions, had a record of developing chemical and biological weapons which he used on his own people and coveted nuclear capacity which he also expressed willingness to use. Saddam's character at the time of using weapons of mass destruction distinguished him from the other regimes seeking nuclear power such as in North Korea and Iran. Saddam Hussein already had a nuclear program to develop weapons in the 1980s but it was destroyed by an Israeli air strike, which very likely did the world a favor.
There were documents with quotes from Iraqi politicians and scientists which indicated that Saddam wanted to free himself from UN sanctions to restart efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other WMD. Intelligence reports both from the Bush and Clinton administration indicated that Saddam was trying to acquire these weapons. At the time Senators Clinton, Kerry and others also supported the war based on those reports. These intelligence reports were not just from US sources but also from several allies. No WMDs were found, which has been the main basis of debate about war. However, in the last days during interviews of Saddam Hussein after his capture, he revealed he only boasted he had them but he seriously had the intention, capability and technology to re-constitute the program to pursue WMDs. A 2005 Duelfer Report issued by the Iraq Survey Group outlined Saddam's WMD ambitions. A recent article by Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal mentioned this report and examined if Saddam had stayed . Millions of tons yellow cake uranium from Saddam's 1980s old nuclear program were secretly removed after the invasion, so it would not fall into the hands of elements such as Al qaeda who might find a destructive use for them. These old reserves were not associated with the WMDs which Saddam was thought to have and were not in a form where they would have caused mass destruction.
It is essential to realize that the absence of WMDs does not negate the importance of winning the Iraq war, nor does it negate the significance of removing Saddam Hussein in the interest of American national security. The long term impact for Middle East stability that a democratic Iraq can encourage will also be crucial to American national security. It is in the interest of every American that we succeed in Iraq and underscores why it has been inexcusable for politicians who oppose the war not to support efforts to accomplish this in order to make political points. This is a case were duty to country should supersede duty to ones political career. This duty to country over ones political career was not exhibited by then senators Obama, Biden and many others in summer of 2007 when they were seeking party nomination for president and other offices. When the violence and casualties in Iraq escalated and the American public became very weary of the war and intensely questioned the justification of it, these politicians tried to ride the political tide and promised withdrawal from Iraq and other policies which would have led to American defeat. They strongly opposed the surge strategy proposed by President Bush to win the war. The surge was overseen by coalition forces commander General Petraeus and implemented by General Odierno. General Odierno's son lost an arm while serving in Iraq. Despite low poll numbers and high opposition to the war, President Bush exhibited leadership and duty as commander and chief to secure victory by adjusting strategy and keeping faith with commanders and troops on the ground to succeed. Senator McCain who also at the time was seeking his party's nomination for president supported the surge and said that "he would rather lose an election than lose the war ".
The leadership characters dedication to duty to succeed despite political consequences of both President Bush and Senator McCain were of sharp contrast to Senators Obama, Biden, Kerry and Reid. Then Senator Obama not only strongly opposed the surge but he voted to de-fund the war, said our troops were air raiding villages and sided with Senator Kerry when he implied that our troops were terrorizing women and children in the night . Harry Reid declared the war was lost while our troops were valiantly fighting and Senator Biden wanted to partition Iraq into three different sections as he was sure there would be civil war.
The success of the surge proved these Senators wrong. Al Qaeda was defeated in Iraq but they are still a threat, local tribes realizing that our troops and government were committed to long term victory over Al qaeda and the brutal remnants of Saddam's regime joined in the our coalition to defeat them. More locals also joined in our troops quest to defeat Al qaeda when they experienced their own casualties due to al qaeda deciding to make Iraq their primary front. Millions of Iraqis experienced freedom and better quality of life for the first time especially women because of the surge strategy. Our troops not only was defeating an enemy but they were winning the hearts and minds of local Iraqis who realized what America really stood for. This should be a key lesson to President Obama who has more than once indicated a cut and run approach or announcing withdrawal dates to appease his base. Local populations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that they will align themselves with the force which they believe will prevail after a conflict. If they think American forces are going to leave them to Al qaeda or the Taliban they will align themselves with that group to ensure their own security. However, if they are confident in American support to root out those radical elements there is greater chance they will support our mission.
The success of the surge had political implications not only in Iraq but in nearby Muslim countries as many witnessed the result of President Bush's doctrine of defeating terrorism and encouraging democratization. As Iraq was being seen as a model for democracy in the middle East , radical Islamists in surrounding countries such as Kuwait were defeated in elections and for the first time by women. Voter turn out increased by 70 percent. Moderate Shiites who make up a quarter of Kuwait's population were big winners as they were strengthened by the coming of power of moderate Shiite parties in Iraq. In addition, Islamists power voting in Pakistan was reduced in elections to 3 percent from 11 percent , and Hezbollah backed coalition was surprisingly defeated in Lebanon. In neighboring Iran, opposition groups have been louder and more bold than ever to challenge the radical regime there, and the more stable and democratic Iraq becomes, the more Iranian people who seek democracy will be galvanized to fight for it in that country.
The success of the surge allowed the conditions for most of our combat brigades to recently return home. President Obama on more than one occasion has falsely taken credit for this by saying he was fulfilling his campaign pledge to end the war and bring home troops by August of this year. Vice President Biden has said that the Iraq war was the crowning achievement of this administration. However, the measure for this withdrawal was included in the flexible status of forces agreement negotiated and signed between President Bush and Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in late 2008. Many in the media have fed the Obama's taking credit publicity without stating this fact. In addition, very few in the media even highlighted that while senator Obama was running for president he tried to privately persuade Iraqi leaders to delay such an agreement till after the election which he knew would give him credit. An article in September 2008 by Amir Taheri in the New York Post outlined Obama trying to stall the withdrawal of forces from Iraq .
He described the Bush administration as being too much in a " state of weakness and political confusion" to effectively carry out this negotiation. Ironically Obama's state of weakness in handling foreign relation issues, political confusion in what he really stands for and his quest for personal political gain has embolden our enemies and may even cause once blossoming Arab democracies outside of Iraq to lose ground. When Obama became President he realized that he could not realistically fulfill his campaign pledge "to immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq," specifically calling for the removal of " one to two combat brigades each month." Instead, he has had to follow the policy set by President Bush who he gives very little credit for success in Iraq but never cease to criticize.
Despite the warnings from military leaders such as U.S Marine Gen. James Conway and others about 'giving our enemy sustenance' by setting withdrawal deadlines, President Obama has set July 2011 as a withdrawal date for forces in Afghanistan and end of 2011 for all troops in Iraq. Again, President Obama has set deadlines which he knows will appease his base but could help him politically as they would coincide with campaigns for elections, especially his bid for a second term. This mind set has superseded his true political obligation and duty as Commander and Chief to secure ultimate victory in these wars, secure the peace and create at atmosphere in these regions to resist radical elements.
President Obama now own these wars, and despite progress in Iraq, situations there are still very delicate especially since there is a need to form a legitimate government. It is up to his administration make sure the success earned by the sacrifice of our troops and allies endures. His recent Oval Office address while giving gratitude to our troops focused intently on the 'huge price' and burdens of the last seven years rather than the what our troops achieved and the significance of a strategic ally a democratic Iraq could become in the Middle East. He implied that nearly a trillion had been wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan as if threats to national security, peace , stability by brutal regimes and terrorists were of no value. Obama's spending spree as outlined in the New York Post in the last 2 years by far outpaced the war over 7 years.
The media owes our troops to honor to them more and highlight what they have achieved despite any political debate about the war. President Obama owes it to our troops who came home, the ones who are still there serving, those injured, the ones who came back in flag draped coffins, and their families to make sure their sacrifices are not in vain by doing his duty to finish the job in the name of victory.
Comments