« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s Iraq Speech: One Page Left Unturned

Just words.

The Iraq War did not just fade away. It ended with a qualitative result: a spectacular victory for America in the face of long odds and complete vindication for the leaders who decided to stick it out instead of tuck tail and run when Democrats wanted to.

Americans have largely forgotten about Iraq and have long since tired of hearing about it.  That is in large part a reflection of our troops’ success in reducing the violence and producing a stable enough situation for a government to stand up, albeit slowly.

For this reason, Obama’s speech marking the end of combat operations in Iraq will play well with the public. In truth the speech was not so much a wrap up of the war in Iraq as it was a “Like-you-I-am-tired-of-hearing-about-Iraq-so-let’s-just-declare-it-over-and-move-on-to-things-I-care-much-more-about” speech. That much is evidenced by what the speech did not contain.

• Context: Neither the name Saddam Hussein nor any reference to his history of brutality toward his people and his neighbors was mentioned, let alone his coddling of terrorists and his history of making threats aimed at the United States.

• Accomplishments: This was a speech devoid of statistics. Did US troops build any schools? Fix any roads? Treat any Iraqi children? Restore any power? Do anything other than get wounded and die? One wouldn’t know it from the president’s text.

People who don’t generally pay too much attention to politics at this time of the year will hear about this speech (Iraq war over!), breathe a sigh of relief, remember that it was Obama who ended it, and move on with their lives. Ultimately, that will not redound much to Democrats’ benefit in November, because this election is not about national security.  On the contrary, Democrats will not be made to answer for their feckless political opportunism on Iraq unless something else happens.

That is why a Republican push for a declaration of Victory in Iraq and an accompanying national celebration is so important.

A united Republican push to celebrate America’s unquestionable victory in Iraq would counter the narrative that the war just faded away. Rather, it ended with a qualitative result: a spectacular victory for America in the face of long odds and complete vindication for the leaders who decided to stick it out instead of tuck tail and run when Democrats wanted to.

It would also force the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats to put some action behind their platitudes on the war.  Obama can say that the troops performed magnificently and wax eloquent about their sacrifice if he knows he won’t have to actually do anything to honor them.  Similarly, Democrats can bask in the glow of ending the war they all opposed if they don’t have to face a choice about what that end means, victory or disgrace.

Calling on Obama and the Democrats to put some meaning behind their words by supporting a victory parade or some such national celebration (for which monies have been authorized in at least one of the Iraq War supplementals) will force every Democrat to either admit President George W. Bush and Republicans were right all along about invading Iraq and sticking it out there, or diminish the troops’ achievement and their sacrifice.

Democrats will choose the latter, and was evident in Obama’s speech.  He simply could not talk about the war without mentioning our standing in the world allegedly suffering and our unity as a people allegedly coming under strain.

These are the arguments Democrats will make if Republicans force them to come out from behind their rhetorical defenses.  And that will hurt them in November. Because as much as Americans may have tired of Iraq, they won’t want to vote for politicians who won’t take a victory when it’s handed to them, choosing instead to run down America and her brave and selfless troops.

COMMENTS

  • bobojake

    We did not lose over 4000 American Soldiers stopping the Whorefiffic HUSSEIN killings and CORRUPTION by his sons and his thugs to just turn the page.
    I have found the obama facts are about 10% accurate and his speeches should be treated as such.
    See you on NOV 2nd obama and obama crats. Real American will not forget IRAQ and all the GOOD our Soldiers have done NO THANKS to obama.

    • cactusjack

      exactly the way GWB said, and we end up with a stable, pro-western market oriented, somewhat secular although Islamic, Republic that stabilizes and wedges the Muslim fanatic solidarity within the Syria -Lebanon – Iran Corridor. It is not a pipe dream, that’s actually what Iraq was in the 1950s. Kissinger and Nixon knew you had to have Iran friendly, to stabilize the entire middle East. They did for awhile but Carter threw their good work away. Our next best shot is/was Iraq if you can’t get Iran in this model. Very far forward thinking.

      • JSobieski

        but I think most would agree that Turkey is moving in the opposite direction. In the long term, I think Iraq will be a bellweather of Islamism.

        If the trends of the last 30 years continue in their present trajectory, places like Turkey and Iraq will be part of the trend. If those trends change, even directionally in a pro-western way, Iraq could be a leader.

        No offense, but I would short a long term investment in any ME country. The Muslim Brotherhood was just starting out in the 1950s. They have been very busy, and quite efficient in their work.

  • HerbC

    One of the many things which irked me about the speech last night is that he fails to see the good that regular Soldiers and Marines do when out on patrol. Not every patrol ends up in a shoot out. Many folks fail to understand that when
    we are over there, we also contribute to the betterment of their infrastructure and daily lives. There were numerous times when
    we’d request toys, clothes, and other items from our family members and support networks which we would turn around and donate to the kids. Or we would help with building and stocking a school. We aren’t only Soldiers, but statesmen as well and our actions have a great bearing on politics.
    I’m heading back next year, and I’m thinking more and more he’s setting us up for the sequel to ‘Blackhawk Down’.

    • ywhyvon1

      Hopefully by time you go back, we will have a congress that will be willing to look out for you.

  • Ausonius

    Last night MOE LANE commented that at least the speech was short, which I explained as coming from MAObama’s lack of interest in the War On Terror.

    He has no interest in anything positive done by America in Iraq or Afghanistan, and uses the negative only as a way to criticize America. Therefore of course he fails to mention the schools built, the water systems built and repaired, etc.

    There is no hope for a change in BIG BRObama’s personality. :)

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      “The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people; trained Iraqi Security Forces; and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians -and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people – Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.”

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/31/obamas_speech_on_the_end_of_operation_iraqi_freedom_106965.html

      • Richard Mullins

        Also, the whole thing to him is eating crow because the end date was formulated by the Iraqi’s themselves with US back in 2008. I think we might want to see the punch marks in the wall after the cameras left and the speech was over.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          he said some things I think were important to say that I wasn’t sure he would say. Doing column for this week that will detail same.

          • Ausonius

            Agreed that the paragraph, although it is lacking in specifics, does contain some praise for the military.

            The danger of depending on a summary of his remarks! Of course, I could not listen to him deliver the speech: I don’t want to buy a new TV set! :)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            poorly communicated.

  • mexdawg1

    Declaration of any kind of victory in the war on terror is impossible for democrats. This process would embolden more people to become terrorists in most of their minds. Similar to the arguement that not allowing the GZM will only breed more terrorists. Dems are stuck on this issue with no way out. I completely agree with Mark, it is entirely up the the GOP to show America all the good that has happened in Iraq and to honor our troops accordingly.

  • abeldred

    achievement. The word victory for the progressive left is more exclusively used when defeating anything Conservative or their real enemy “the people of the U.S.” Now if the military could help out with that, then maybe we would see a victory rally. However, they cannot understand what or why the the American soldier even does what he does because it is out of their realm. To have expected Obo to speak with any passion or pride when referring to the accomplishments in Iraq is delusional thinking. Even in the “good” war (Afghanistan), there will be no victory speeches should the U.S. be able to overcome the insurmountable odds before them (many of which are placed in the way by our own govt).

  • bobmontgomery

    The O said this is not a victory lap. For the O, there can never be a victory for America any more, or for freedom from terrorism, tyranny and oppression. We can only assume that the example was set when Eric Holder filed suit against someone with the audacity to defend America on it’s southern border. If Obama catches anyone doing a ‘victory lap’, there will be hell to pay.

  • JakePrime

    In principle, I agree, we did win a big victory. But a literal victory parade would be inappropriate. We still have 50,000 troops in Iraq and are knee deep fighting in Afghanistan. Our war isn’t over yet, not for our troops nor ourselves as a nation. This is a solemn victory, not a “finally the war is over” kind of moment as Obama framed it, but not really a joyous one either.

  • wannabeanncoulter

    We just don’t seem to have the right terminology to describe “victory” in the Iraq War. Partly this is because different reasons at different times were given for the necessity of the war. The only irrefutable accomplishment is that Saddam Hussein and his two sons are dead; everything else is still open to debate.

    • Jim Tomasik

      We went there to kick their ass and we did it. That government is gone and America is still here. Whether or not we should have kicked these asses may be up to debate but the fact that we did and won is not. These people have been crazy since Christ walked the earth. They will always be crazy. We did not take them to raise. We went there to kick their asses.

      Saddam and Co are dead! Long live President Bush and Pres. Obama.

      Women in this world, as a whole, are better off now.

      • tacoslayer

        If Iraq ends up being another Islamofascist hotbed due to the meddlings of Iran and Syria then nothing was won.

        • cactusjack

          meanikng, if the bad guys try anything funny in say the next 5 years, the US has an automatic, understood option to go back in unilaterally and fix things. But we must stress right now, the proper narrative, which is simple: we won the war. Now let’s help Iraq wwin the peace. The template here is Korea, not Vietnam.

        • Jim Tomasik

          Let them man up and fight for their country like we fought for ours. We’ve given them a huge opportunity that no other nation on earth would have given them without us leading the way. They need to design their own destiny.

          That’s not to say we should not help a distressed ally in the future.

  • bobmontgomery

    …for Obama to deny the troops their ‘victory’. His only sop to the troops was to pledge to maintain their benefits, to perfunctorily thank them for their service and to say he and Sasha and Mahlia and Michelle will continue to provide photo ops.
    Surge or no surge, Rumsfeld or Gates, Powell or Mullen, pro-war or anti-war, regardless, does anyone recall how many TENS OF THOUSANDS of U.S. KIA were expected in the initial assault?
    The /US military performed admirably and heroically in Iraq and they defeated the enemy.

  • bobmontgomery

    ….at the Corner.

  • onehutu

    Mark states we should push for a declaration of victory and celebrate unquestioned victory. What exactly does the mean beyond a platitude? Neither this president nor the previous ever defined what victory in Iraq would look like. Yes, Saddam is gone (but there are a few more like him still skulking around) but Iraq is a complete mess with a barely functioning government and military, miserable conditions for its people (yes, far worse than before the war) and likely to descend into civil war in the near term. Iran is a looming threat and now stands as the only real power in that neighborhood. If we are to declare victory, someone needs to say what exactly that is (and it has to be better than “kick their asses” Tomasik ;) ) Failure to heed the words of our first president regarding the avoidance of foreign entanglements, led to what many of us consider to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history.