Bush's Ugly Legacy

Writing about the Iraq War is difficult for me. I have relatives serving there and sons of friends, one who gave his life. My daughter’s ex-boyfriend is a Marine currently doing his second tour. I think about him every day. He comes to see me whenever he is home. My son, Adam, is in the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian training organization staffed by former Air Force officers. He plans to join R.O.T.C. in college and will likely become a pilot in the Air Force at some point.

My objections to the war are not born of naïve liberal pacifism or a loathing of our military. In fact, I am profoundly respectful of those who serve in the armed forces. I believe they are the best of the best and many in our nation are unworthy of their sacrifice. My objections to the war are aimed squarely at George W. Bush and his close advisors. They have put the United States in an unwinnable situation where long-term commitment of our military forces is inevitable. The deployment will exacerbate our deficit problems, further weakening the Dollar. And most importantly, it will provide additional fodder for Islamic extremists, aiding in the recruitment of terrorists and strengthening the grip of radical clerics on the region.

In retrospect, Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship served as a stabilizing presence in the Middle East. Of course, that sounds callous, even cruel. But this post is discussing war, where truth and reality must be respected above our idealism regarding the dignity of humanity and our inane desires to speak in politically correct terms. Saddam’s reign of terror kept rival tribal and religious factions under constant fear, thereby limiting most of the civil conflict now plaguing the nation. Iraq is surrounded by nations with brutal dictators, tyrannical kingdoms, and pseudo-democratic theocracies. Saddam’s military, although inept against our superior forces, was sufficient to keep at bay those in the region posing a threat to Iraq.

I allowed Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike McConnell, Bill Cunningham, and others to sell me on the necessity of taking out Saddam Hussein. But I am a real estate appraiser with no training or expertise in foreign policy. I deeply regret that I allowed those people to paint Democrats opposing the war with the broad brush of cowardice and anti-patriotism. Bush’s advisors were paid to be expert on foreign relations and should have known that removing Saddam would create a dangerous vacuum of power in the region. I think they did know. I believe that neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz wanted to create a situation where we would have to maintain a military presence in Iraq indefinitely. And the purpose of this military presence is two-fold: the free-flow of oil and the protection of Israel. It should be noted that I like inexpensive gasoline and I wholeheartedly support Israel's right to exist, but not at the expense of our nation's future.

It is obvious, even to those opposed to the war, that we can never leave Iraq. The day we leave, be it tomorrow or fifty years from now, Iraq will see a bloodbath and violent conflict for control of the country. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey will all choose different factions to support and provide arms to those groups. The resulting chaos and violence will make Saddam’s brutality pale in comparison. Iran would support the majority Shiite population. Saudi Arabia, fearing a next-door neighbor controlled by Iran, would support the Sunni population. Turkey would likely go to war with the Kurds in the north.

Scott Ritter, the U.N. Weapons Inspector in Iraq, was the number one thorn in the Bush Administration’s side before the war began. Ritter claimed that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration went to great lengths to refute Ritter’s expert opinion with limited success. Mysteriously, Ritter was charged with trying to meet a fourteen-year-old girl for sex by Albany police and was branded a sex offender. I have always questioned the bizarre coincidence and timing of Ritter’s arrest. And conservatives instantly jumped on this to discredit him. Suddenly, Ritter became irrelevant. Of course, even if he was guilty, his expert opinions about Iraq’s weapons programs should not have been ignored. But there was no fourteen-year-old girl. And the simplicity with which the CIA could fake a computer IP address should make all of us at least consider that Ritter may have been set up. But I digress.

The fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was insufficient reason to remove him from power. If it were, we must question why all of the other brutal dictators plaguing the world are not targeted. Of course, we now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam probably had chemical weapons. (He had gassed the Kurds to squelch an earlier uprising.) But chemical weapons without the means to deliver them, en masse, to Israel should have been none of our concern. And Saddam was smart enough to know that Israel would respond to such an attack with overwhelming force. Even a nuclear response was not off the table.

So we went to war and within days, our finest men and women had militarily taken the country. But then the internal violence began, foreshadowing the bloodbath to come. General Patreas’ expert leadership has finally reduced most of the violence with a surge of additional troops and a get-tough policy that does not concede any area to the insurgents. But the success of the surge only proves my point. Only the ever-present power of the United States military can keep the internal violence to a minimum. A troop draw-down will only result in more violence and instability. We must remain in Iraq forever. Paul Wolfowitz got what he wanted: indefinite protection of his beloved Israel at the cost of our economy and our influence in the world.

Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that immediately leaving Iraq is not an option. Barak Obama, in an effort to get the Democratic Presidential nomination, has suggested we could immediately begin leaving Iraq. But he is a smart man. He knows a full withdrawal will only appear to put the blood of millions of Iraqis on his hands.

George Bush has created a foreign policy nightmare for every President for the next fifty years. He has greatly strengthened the position of his good buddies, the Saudi Royal Family, allowing them to spread Wahhabism throughout the world and enrich themselves while denying basic human rights to women and non-Muslims. And I voted for him twice. What was I thinking?