The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 5-27-2015

________________________________________
The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 5-27-2015
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Memo to the GOP: Get Iraq Right
Do NOT Betray America's Blood and Treasure

By Mark Alexander

May 27, 2015

“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace … it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” —George Washington (1793)

Over the Memorial Day weekend1, I set aside time to take account of the enormous cost of American blood and treasure paid to sustain Liberty2. In addition to other activities, like placing flags at veteran headstones at Chattanooga’s National Cemetery, I took time to mine YouTube for inspirational speeches and events devoted to American Patriots3 who sacrificed all.

One speech that captured my attention was from President George W. Bush — his remarks delivered on April 8, 2008, when posthumously awarding the Medal of Honor to the family of Petty Officer Second Class Michael A. Monsoor4, a Navy SEAL.

Monsoor threw himself onto a grenade, saving other SEALs nearby. One of those he saved said, “Mikey looked death in the face that day and said you cannot take my brothers. I will go in their stead.”

It was this tear-choked observation from President Bush that spoke volumes about Monsoor’s death on his watch — and also revealed the devaluation of his sacrifice by Barack Obama: “For his valor, Michael Monsoor becomes the fourth Medal of Honor recipient in the War on Terror. Like the three men who came before him, Mike left us far too early. But time will not diminish his legacy. You see his legacy in the SEALs whose lives he saved. You see his legacy in the city of Ramadi, which has gone from one of the most dangerous places in Iraq to one of the safest.”

Two weeks ago, the Islamic State retook control of Ramadi5 (just 70 miles from Bagdad), having already overrun Mosul and Fallujah. IS now controls much of the ground that American forces liberated prior to 2009. And after seizing Palmyra, they control more than half of Syria. The Islamic movement is metastasizing throughout the region virtually unabated and is spilling over into North Africa.

In response, Obama timidly claims, “I don’t think we’re losing” against ISIL, which prompted Charles Krauthammer6 to dryly observe, “The administration is sounding like Baghdad Bob during the invasion of Iraq. They’re losing. Everybody understands that.” He added, “The administration is delusional or cynical. I would hope cynical because otherwise we are in deep trouble.”

Indeed, this past weekend a friend who recently retired from an Army four-star command told me without reservation that there is no way we can restore the stability Obama abandoned, much less protect our critical national interests in the region, without a massive reinfusion of military forces.

That brings me to George Bush’s younger brother Jeb and his fumbled response7 to Fox News host Megyn Kelly’s question, “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”

For the record, “knowing what we know now” is generally understood to mean, “since there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” However, there most certainly were WMDs in Iraq8, and, though nuclear WMDs were not recovered, concern that Saddam could provide weapons of mass destruction to Islamic Jihadists targeting the USA9 was not the only objective for invading Iraq.

The “Iraq Mistake” narrative is the liberal talking point that the Leftmedia have latched onto as a litmus test for 2016 GOP presidential aspirants. Unfortunately, as often is the case with Beltway news inbreeding, a substantial swath of more objective journalists are buying into the “Iraq mistake” thesis — including Kelly and others at Fox News.

Jeb told Kelly, “I would have [authorized the invasion], and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.” But he immediately began parsing his answer — not because he misunderstood the question, but because he was unprepared to answer it, given that in recent weeks more than a few talking heads have begun to equate Iraq with Vietnam. (Iraq equals Vietnam — seriously?)

And they are now rolling out a new round of “Blame Bush10” rhetoric to suggest that the current Middle East meltdown11 is all W’s fault.

Clearly, given the colossal failure of Obama’s policy in the Middle East (whatever that policy was or is), Democrats and their media opinion shapers are attempting to divert attention from that disaster in order to insulate Hillary Clinton from the real question: “Who lost Iraq and who is responsible for the consequences?”

Jeb was pilloried because he did not immediately get on board with the Left’s Iraq mistake charade. But within days he folded and declared, “Knowing what we know now, I would not have engaged. I would not have gone into Iraq.”

Jeb’s latest position is wrong, and his flip-flop undermines his otherwise respectable qualifications as a candidate.

What Kelly should have asked Jeb — and what Hillary Clinton needs to be asked — is this: “Knowing what we know now, would you have supported Obama’s retreat from Iraq?”

GOP, get this right! Here is how every Republican candidate should answer the Iraq question.

The objective of Operation Iraqi Freedom12 (OIF) in 2003 was 1. to remove Saddam Hussein from his reign of terror and disable his capacity to establish a regional hegemony; 2. to eliminate Iraq as a principal state sponsor of terrorism and find and remove any weapons of mass destruction that could end up in the hands of terrorists; 3. to establish a stable democratic government in Iraq; and 4. to establish a forward deployed military capability in Iraq to ensure regional stability.

Our military forces, at great cost in blood and treasure, accomplished the first of these objectives and largely accomplished the second and third under President Bush. The fourth was well underway and was left up to Bush’s successor, Barack Obama. But out of pure political expedience, Obama chose failure.

Obama failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, withdrawing all U.S. forces in 2011 to satisfy a reckless campaign promise instead of keeping a residual force in Iraq as a check against precisely the kind of actions that the Islamic State is now engaged in.

To suggest now that the Middle East would be more stable today if Saddam had been left in power, or that he would not now have nuclear WMDs, is patently absurd. One need look no further for evidence to the contrary than the rise of the Islamic State13 (or Da'ish), whose leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, appointed the remnants of Saddam’s Baath Party to fill key Islamic State military and intelligence positions. As to the nuclear WMD question, one need look no further than Obama’s acquiescence to Iran’s nuclear ambitions14.