Not that things can't go wrong even if our domestic support holds firm and allows us to prosecute the fight to the end. In the end it will be up to the Iraqis to build a better Iraq. We can't guarantee that. But I think we can guarantee them the chance to succeed or fail. And even a failed Iraqi experiment in democracy will leave us with a less threatening and more friendly Iraq, in my opinion.
So it is perplexing to me how so many outside the military can look at events and think "quagmire" or "retreat." Even a respected military historian (see this) can seem pessimistic contrary to the facts as I see them. Strategypage notes:
Differences of opinion about how well things are going in Iraq has created some strange situations. For example, many Americans, and most Europeans consider the Iraq war a disaster. Iraqis and American troops over there disagree.
So it will be interesting how historians will explain that following disaster after disaster brought on by American blunders and blindness, that we won anyway:
Looking at this as a piece of history in the making, it’s obvious that many books will be written trying to explain how the pessimists justified their departure from the facts on the ground. At this point in time, one can only conclude that politics, and political faith, does strange things to people.
I suppose the easiest way will be to ignore what Iraq was like under Saddam and insist that Iraq is no better off because women are under-represented in parliament or some other such statistic that they can find to show failure to reach perfection in Iraq. I doubt that most historians will ever try to explain any departure from facts because they will deny any departure from facts in the first place. Indeed, they will likely simply deny we won at all.
But it will be interesting.
