Spring Break
How's Iraq really doing?
John Staayer
Issue date: 9/24/07 Section: Opinion
My wife insisted that I clean my office at home, so I began by reviewing and then tossing my file of newspaper clippings labeled "Iraq/Bush/separation of powers/budget/monarchy."
Since the beginning, our Iraq adventure has seemed like a yo-yo - first up, then down, then up, then down again. The President says it is up now; we're having success.
Initially, of course, things went well.
Our President, the "uniter-not-divider," determined that after a contingent of exclusively non-Iraqis hit New York, Iraq needed fixing.
Saddam was a tyrant, had weapons of mass destruction, had the capacity for weapons of mass destruction, had plans to develop the capacity for weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi people deserved liberty and democracy, Saddam ignored the U.N., and it was time to act.
To use the language of our leaders, we stunned Iraq with shock and awe, accomplished the mission, prepared for the receipt of flowers in Baghdad and told the evil ones to bring it on. We pulled down Saddam's statute, moved Americans into his palaces, built a green zone with pools and sports bars, said we'd deal with a bunch of dead-enders and found no weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq, our President said, had an opportunity to build a western-like capitalistic democracy, a model for the Middle East.
He sent dozens of young American administrators to help, but Iraqi history, culture, religion, ineffective leadership, shortages of jobs and electricity, outsiders who weren't there when we got there, and now even our own Blackwater mercenaries, all got in the way.
But as the Commander in Chief who was opposed to nation building has said, building a nation takes time.
At home some politicians didn't back the adventure, nor did France or others in old Europe.
Questions were raised about the purpose of the invasion and occupation, the competence of the post-combat leadership, the adequacy of equipment and troop numbers, even the final destination of billions in shrink-wrapped U.S. currency.
Since the beginning, our Iraq adventure has seemed like a yo-yo - first up, then down, then up, then down again. The President says it is up now; we're having success.
Initially, of course, things went well.
Our President, the "uniter-not-divider," determined that after a contingent of exclusively non-Iraqis hit New York, Iraq needed fixing.
Saddam was a tyrant, had weapons of mass destruction, had the capacity for weapons of mass destruction, had plans to develop the capacity for weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi people deserved liberty and democracy, Saddam ignored the U.N., and it was time to act.
To use the language of our leaders, we stunned Iraq with shock and awe, accomplished the mission, prepared for the receipt of flowers in Baghdad and told the evil ones to bring it on. We pulled down Saddam's statute, moved Americans into his palaces, built a green zone with pools and sports bars, said we'd deal with a bunch of dead-enders and found no weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq, our President said, had an opportunity to build a western-like capitalistic democracy, a model for the Middle East.
He sent dozens of young American administrators to help, but Iraqi history, culture, religion, ineffective leadership, shortages of jobs and electricity, outsiders who weren't there when we got there, and now even our own Blackwater mercenaries, all got in the way.
But as the Commander in Chief who was opposed to nation building has said, building a nation takes time.
At home some politicians didn't back the adventure, nor did France or others in old Europe.
Questions were raised about the purpose of the invasion and occupation, the competence of the post-combat leadership, the adequacy of equipment and troop numbers, even the final destination of billions in shrink-wrapped U.S. currency.
Be the first to comment on this story