Iraq may be more stable now, but it was an unnecessary war in the first place and there is no end in sight. It is destined to drag on long after Bush has left the stage, perhaps longer than the Vietnam War, radicalizing another generation of Muslims, and immeasurably empowering Iran. And under Bush's leadership, the war in Afghanistan may be lost too. It will be hard to argue that Bush has left the world in better shape than when he found it.
Let's examine this, shall we?
Iraq was an unnecessary war. Let's see. The war began in 1991 and was authorized by the United Nations, which saw Saddam as a threat to world peace. Saddam failed to comply with the ceasefire that suspended that war and so the UN's reasons for that war were never eliminated entirely. Since 1991, we contained Iraq even as Saddam threatened Kuwait on at least two occasions and hit the Kurds and otherwise loomed over them. Saddam allowed al Qaeda into Iraq after the Afghan campaign, letting them function in Baghdad to support their camp. Saddam was caught pursuing WMD and longer-ranged missiles during the period of the ceasefire and obstructed UN inspectors attempting to verify Iraq's destruction of WMD programs. Saddam attempted to murder President Bush 41. The declaration of war listed many reasons. And American law enacted and signed in the 1990s made overthrowing Saddam's regime our official policy. In the aftermath of 9/11, was leaving such a thug ruler in power really a good idea? And if we succeed in creating a prosperous Iraq that undermines the appeal of autocracy and jihad, this war will be viewed as very necessary. It was and remains a good idea to get rid of a regime that was busting out of sanctions and would have resumed its record of aggression and continued its record of oppression. It has always been morally right. Ask the Iraqis if the war was necessary or right. Even with the terror campaigns that our enemies direct at civilians, majorities agree the war has been worth it.
There is no end in sight in Iraq and the fighting will last longer than the Vietnam War. Perhaps. But the fight began in 1990. Or perhaps in the 1970s if you count the Kurdish insurgency. And the fight will increasingly be done by Iraqis because Iraq has gone from enemy to ally because of the liberation. Many wars go on for decades or more. The level of fighting will decline, however. even more than it has already. But why limit ourselves to a comparison to Vietnam (except for the fetish war opponents have for Vietnam despite their inability to understand Iraq or Vietnam or how one may be compared to the other)? Why not say that the war may go on longer than the Korean war? Oh yeah, that UN-sanctioned war is still in a ceasefire today and we are attempting to cope with a maniac ruler out for nukes who is a proliferation danger. Let's see, the UN authorized that war in 1950 and the blue UN flag still flies over the DMZ. If the Korean War ends tomorrow, the Iraq war--authorized in 1991--will have 41 more years to go to match the duration of that UN-blessed war. Funny how the only two UN-sanctioned wars are still dragging on with no conclusion yet. You'd almost think the sainted international community was conflicted over fighting thug regimes and hates to see them go.
The Iraq war has radicalized Moslems. Moslems, by polling results, increasingly reject al Qaeda, bin Laden, and terrorism. Moslem governments cooperate with us more against jihadi terrorism than at any point prior to 9/11. And if Greenway hasn't noticed, Moslems have been radicalized for many decades prior to March 2003 based on heavy Saudi financing of a hitherto fringe 18th century vision of Islam that drives today's jihadis. Indeed, containing Iraq led tens of thousands of jihadis to go to Afghanistan to receive terrorism training during the 1990s. Saddam imported thousands of jihadis in the 1990s to help him terrorize Shias in the south. Yet Greenway thinks we've radicalized Moslems? When pretty much anything sets those jokers off? Is the concept of pissing in the ocean familiar to Greenway?
The Iraq war has strengthened Iran. Iran's military is weak. It has not gotten stronger this decade. The Iranian people as a whole reject their government. Nations friendly to us surround Iran, as do our forces. Arab Gulf states are allied with us to contain Iran. The Iranian economy is getting worse despite high oil prices. Worse, Iranian Shias are returning from pilgrimages to Iraq with stories of more freedom and democracy in Iraq. And if you believe the 2007 NIE, Iran has no nuclear weapons programs! Oh, Iran can still issue a scary press release praising imaginary new weapons, but other than that, Iran is weaker now than in 2000 but is trying to draw to an inside straight by getting nuclear missiles. In what way is Iran strengthened by the Iraq war? It's a mystery to me and to Greenway, too, apparently, since he offers no example.
We may lose Afghanistan. Any war could be lost. Yet Iraq war opponents have been yelling of imminent defeat in Afghanistan since the days our forces first attacked the Taliban regime back in October 2001. Have we won yet? No, not with Pakistan a sanctuary for jihadis. But with Afghanistan's government out of the terrorism business, I don't see Afghanistan becoming a terror sanctuary any time soon. My goals for Afghanistan are considerably lower than for Iraq, and we are exceeding those limited goals easily.
The world is in worse shape than Bush found it in January 2001. First of all, Greenway is a bit confused. Which shouldn't be shocking. The president is an American president sworn to defend American interests and not elected to promote a nebulous better world (define that concept given our rogue's gallery of a United Nations). I'd say we are far better off in terms of security than we were in January 2001. Being oblivious to the threats we faced in January 2001 isn't the same as actually being safe. Though I can believe Greenway was ignorant enought to have believed we were safe on December 31, 2000. But if we must discuss the world, how is the world worse off without Saddam? How is the world worse off with an Iraq that is truly building democracy? I suppose from the viewpoint of the world's thug regimes, that is bad. But why is that bad for America? Or bad for the people of the world who must suffer under thug dictators blessed by the sainted international community yet now see that even the most brutal dictator can meet his end at the end of a rope? When you take out the farcical unsupported conclusions from his piece, I don't see how you can argue the world is worse off.
Ultimately, Greenway thinks he sees a ghost. In reality, he is just flinching from shadows.
