Instapundit » Blog Archive » MICHAEL YON: Victory in Iraq: Next Stop, Afghanistan….
MICHAEL YON: Victory in Iraq: Next Stop, Afghanistan.
I guess it all boils down to what you mean by victory.
If you mean an Iraq under the control of a Shia majority, and controlled by a military whose core, the Badr Brigades, was created and is probably still controlled to some extent by the Mullahs in Tehran, living next door to a nuclear-armed Iran, well, sure. Victory.
I’m not sure that’s how I’d define it, but then, I’m not a Bushbot nitwit, either.
So, tell me again: What in the hell have we gained by our Iraq adventure? And how was it worth the cost?
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
We might have taught other would be enemies a lesson, although if that were ever true, the lesson has likely been lost on them.
We got rid of one enemy of the US to be replaced by something that’s probably not as bad, but ain’t no great shakes either.
In the long-run we might get cheaper oil prices (or cheaper than they would be absent an invasion) by making more oil availalbe to the global market.
In the long-run we might get what is truly a valuable ally (similar to South Korea), but if that were ever to happen, that would be at least a decade in the future.
Worth the cost? Probably not.
Keep in mind, Daniel, when I talk about cost, I’m not just speaking of American blood and treasure expended directly on the war. I’m also talking about the destruction of the GOP as a viable political force for a few election cycles, and the election of Barack Obama, and all the costs that will entail.
While I would agree that Iraq played a big role in turning Congress over to the Dems in 2006, I don’t think it had that much of a role in Obama’s election. By around mid-2008, whether it was true or not, anecdotally I would say, and irrespective of whether most voters felt that we should have been there in the first place, the conventional wisdom was that the surge had worked and that we would achieve a sufficiently decent outcome there. What really turned the election in Obama’s favor was the quick fall of the economy.
And based on what the Republicans have become — irrespective of foreign policy issues — should we really lament them being out in the wilderness for the foreseeable future? In a way, even though I didn’t vote for him, I see a silver lining in Obama’s election in that a new generation will experience first hand the consequences of left-wing rule. If we get everything we’re promised — excellent universal health care, a no CO2 emissions vibrant economy, and a big homes for all — then I’ll be happy to eat crowe. Somehow though, I don’t see that being the case. Enough voters will realize that soon enough.
Daniel, you’re rewriting history:
Presidential Candidates’ Weaknesses in Depth
It was the war in Iraq that shattered Bush’s popularity, destroyed the GOP, and generally led to Obama, who was perceived as being the most anti-Iraq war candidate in the fray, winning the election - not just over McCain, but over Clinton as well.
That poll was taken seven months before the election. I believe, although I could be wrong, that by October, the economy was the most important issue to voters according to polls.
True, I have my doubts that McCain could have won absent the economic crisis. I just don’t think Iraq made his defeat a foregone conclusion.
Oh, we definitely taught them a lesson - although not the one we would have preferred to teach…
What we taught was that, if you piss us off enough, we’ll send in the Marines - then follow up pretty quickly with a cop-on-the-beat approach, trying to get everybody to play nice and follow the rules. Then, if necessary politically, we’ll “surge” on your ass enough to (temporarily) achieve an apparent (to us) “win.”
Another variation on the old game:
If you hang in there long enough, and bide your time, we’ll let you keep a strategic toehold - then, when the political tide turns, and you’ve bloodied our cops’ noses sufficient, we’ll declare the win/claim another triumph for Truth, Justice and Amurrican Democrary…and start heading for home.
Make that definitely not - and the total cost is not even close to being toted up, yet. We will almost certainly have some troop presence - and will be making some fairly substantial (if not truly massive) “investments” - in Iraq for many years to come. The “drawdown” that will come over the next year-and-three-quarters (or more), even should a substantial redeployment to Afghanistan occur (perhaps especially if/when that occurs), will quite likely cos at least as much as our military “venture” in The Land Between The Rivers has already absorbed.
Plus, there’s the human cost - over 4,000 troops…many of whom were losses incurred trying to make a silken “democracy” out of a dirty sow’s-belly of internecine tribal warfare - with only marginal and still extremely tenuous results.
Try maybe two to three decades - Iraq’s likely going to be Iran’s bitch for at least a decade, maybe more, starting in 2011 or thereabouts, and depending on how the Iranian nuke thing plays out - and Iraq is not even close to being “similar to South Korea,” which was pretty well saturated with our military for a couple of decades after open warfare in the “Police Action” ceased anyway.