Monday, June 29, 2009

"... many people in the Middle East appreciate the validity of Bush's central strategic insight ..."

"Strategic Mind!"
WINEP's John Hannah, here


On Tuesday, U.S. troops will leave Iraqi cities in accordance with an agreement negotiated under President Bush. Although President Obama has largely endorsed the Bush timeline for reducing the U.S. military presence in Iraq, far less clear is the extent to which he has also adopted his predecessor's appreciation for the importance of achieving America's strategic goals there.
For all his administration's mistakes in Iraq, Bush clearly understood the imperative of victory once U.S. forces were committed. He knew that removing our troops under fire would have been disastrous. Al Qaeda and Iran would have been emboldened. American credibility throughout the Middle East would have been shattered. Iraq would have descended into chaos, further destabilizing a region vital to U.S. interests.
More positively, Bush also understood that ..... the United States would secure a strategic foothold in one of the Muslim world's historic centers of political, religious and cultural power.
While Western elites may scoff, many people in the Middle East appreciate the validity of Bush's central strategic insight. A democratizing Iraq -- aligned with the U.S. and endowed with vast oil reserves, water resources and a large, industrious population -- could transform their region for the better...

Under Obama, Bush's commitment to winning in Iraq has all but vanished. Convinced from the start that the war was a mistake (a conviction fortified by the Bush team's post-invasion bungling), Obama has for years been the salesman in chief for a narrative of failure: Iraq is seen as a colossal disaster -- a senseless distraction that drained U.S. resources while alienating the rest of the world. While recognizing a vague obligation to help Iraqis forge a better future, Obama's bottom line comes through loud and clear: The war was a strategic blunder, and the sooner the U.S. can wash its hands of it and re-focus on our "real" priorities in the Middle East, the better.
Given that Obama has largely adopted the Bush timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, one can ask whether it really makes any difference that he still sees Iraq more as a liability to be escaped than an asset to be secured. The short answer is yes. Psychology in international affairs can have strategic effects.
When Bush authorized the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the psychological impact was arguably as important as the military one. ..........Obama risks fueling the reverse dynamic. Iraqis listen to his speeches and hear that withdrawal, not victory, is his highest priority. .....
"Are you Americans still here?" a top Iraqi leader asked me only half jokingly during a recent visit to Iraq. The vacuum being created by the perception of growing U.S. disinterest is palpable. At least before this month's turmoil in Iran, the void was being filled increasingly by the Islamic Republic. Iranian influence operations had escalated significantly since the Obama administration entered office, manifested most obviously in a surge of high-level Iranian visitors to Iraq.
Once again deeply uncertain about America's long-term commitment to their future, Iraqis are starting to hedge their bets in unhelpful ways. Accommodating themselves to the agenda of the coming Iranian hegemony rather than their departing American liberators is increasingly the order of the day. .."

2 comments:

Despondent Senior Founding Member of the FLC said...

WINEP, WINEP, WINEP! What will the world be without it? Assuredly a much better place, and especially the US. WINEP's recommendations for Middle East idiotic ventures are unfathomable in recklesness, wishful thinking, outright racism and bigotry. Subordinating the interests of the US to the needs of Israel is at best a most disloyal act, if not outright treason. Yet, few seem interested in putting an end to such flow of nonesense. And the saga of 'lost illusions' (with the permission of Balzac)continues. With such sentences like : "many people in the ME appreciate the validity of Bush's central strategic insight. A democratizing Irag--aligned with the US and endowed with vast oil reserves, water resources, and a large and industrious population-- could transform their region for the better..." Who are these 'many people'? besides the Zionists? Who is still reading the 'recommendations' of WINEP? Except the FLC who has a fondness for self falgellation and an unlimited fondness for the pearls of wisdom of the Schenker Maximus Idioticus?!

Anonymous said...

/Agree.

My god that second paragraph a howler. "He knew that removing our troops under fire would have been disastrous. Al Qaeda and Iran would have been emboldened. American credibility throughout the Middle East would have been shattered." :/

Yeah right like Al Qaeda and Iran haven't been emboldened by the Iraq mess?

American credibility was shattered around March 2003 since then Bush crushed the shattered pieces into dust.

What a moron...

Peace
Gonzolegend