And end is a start if we pretend.

[J.W. Frogen]

One of the criticisms I have about President Obama is that he has a tendency to believe if something is well said, if his reason can lead to beautiful or clear rhetoric, that makes it true. I am not talking about lying here, I think he believes if he can articulate something in a meaningful way it must be true, right, good policy. He is verbal, a man of the spoken word. If he says it well it becomes true.

The recent withdrawal of troops in Iraq which he states brings an end to US combat operations in the country, as he promised, is a perfect example.

He will honestly claim this is the end of combat operations, but honesty and truth are not the same thing. If one states something and they really believe it, they are being honest, that does not necessarily make it true.

Bush stated Saddam still possessed WMD, any serious reading of the internal workings of his Presidency reveals he believed it, that does not make it true. Bush believed it because all his Intel was telling him that, even many of his opponents claimed the same before the war, they just disagreed with war as a solution. Again, it was not true.

Is it true? On the ground are still 50,000 US troops declared to be in training and logistics. 50,000 heavily armed US troops who can still respond and who it is conceded may have to conduct offensive operations, “counter terror operations” with the Iraqis. This includes a Stryker Brigade (used for offensive combat operations, as well as civil affairs) and an air combat unit. Some of these young men and women will die, they will die in combat (indeed one died shortly after the declaration of combat’s conclusion) and they most certainly will kill insurgents.

There has been much progress in Iraq since the surge and the present troop’s withdrawal is the dividend of that strategy, (a strategy Obama opposed though had the wisdom to see through when he actually had responsibility in the Oval Office) but is it really the sort of end of US involvement in the war the peace movement envisioned when Obama became their peace candidate?

Oh, there is one other possibility; maybe Obama is just a garden variety a liar after all?

That all depends on whether Obama believes what he can say oh so well?

[boxy]

Sounds like they're going into "police action" mode, rather than occupation.

Still, sounds like war to me, either way.

[J.W. Frogen]

Where is Robo cop when you need him?

[AiA in Atlanta]

How did the US benefit from its invasion of Iraq? Where is the "domino effect" we were promised?

[J.W. Frogen]

Certainly the democratic movement in Lebanon took inspiration from US commitment to the idea and under serious assault from Syrian backed fascist parties and Hezbollah.

We saw a huge democratic protest movement in Iran which was brutally repressed by the Mullahs (and which Obama shamefully gave very little support to, even rhetorically.) But this sort of paradigm changing take decades.

If Iraq does rise as a stable democracy the movement in Iran will attempt another go, democrats in Lebanon will also be bolstered and long term who knows where else?

Still, the same old same old autocracy for oil was no longer working, so something must be tried.

[J.W. Frogen]

If Iraq can not normalise it's political culture and peacefully practice democracy then we can always bring Saddam back to.....oh wait, that tyrant has sailed.

[J.W. Frogen]

And if you disagree with me AIA I will invade Atlanta and make Sherman look like Gandhi.

[AiA in Atlanta]

Obama is promising a "peace dividend" just like Thatcher and Bush the Elder did. LOL

[J.W. Frogen]

From the snippets of the speech I heard I think President Obama is referring more to saved money and resources from the withdrawal of so many forces which he wants to move to Afghanistan.

The First Gulf War did provide benefits to the US and West, not only bolstering the international system (if we had allowed Saddam to extinguish an entire UN recognized nation state the tyrannies of the world would have descended on their weaker neighbors like a pack of wolves) but the West and US did get an economic benefit, the grateful Kuwaitis pumped oil like there was no tomorrow and put pressure on OPEC to keep the price moderately low, this, in part, helped the low inflationary boom of the 90s.

There was also a political benefit, for a time at least, the success of the US led forces in Iraq got the Palestinians (who backed Saddam) to seriously negotiate with Israel and the demonstration of US commitment and success of force weakening one of Israel’s great enemies persuaded them to follow US pressure and negotiate as well, providing progress that led to the Oslo accord.

Still, Gulf War II was disastrously planned, or the occupation was not planned at all. Bush thought democracy would some how spring up, rather than being oil hungry imperialist as many on the Left accused him of, his early occupational mission was closer to being anarchist. Let freedom work some sort of mysterious magic with minimal US power or interference.

This did prove costly to everyone involved.

[AiA in Atlanta]

Bush the First and Thatcher the Battle Axe promised that the resources that had been channeled into the Cold War would be redirected to "the people" which is the same promise Obama is making. Why am I so doubtful?