"This should be a surprise to no one that this is happening," said House of Representatives intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers.
"Most people believed, the assessments that were coming out believed, that the sudden rapid withdrawal with no troop presence on the ground was going to leave this vacuum that would be filled with the kind of problems that you're seeing," Rogers, a Republican, said in an interview with Reuters.
Not that our troops were actively patrolling and fighting terrorists. Iraqis have proven capable of doing that. But our presence was a psychological safety net that Iraqis could (mostly) engage in politics (with too much corruption tainting it, I admit) instead of sectarian warfare to settle differences.
Not that Iraqis are doomed because of their ethnicity to fail at democracy. I shudder to think of what Japan and Germany could have turned into if we had left in 1949. But then, the Soviet Union inspired us to remain to defend what we had liberated. Sadly, Iran did not inspire the Obama administration to defend what we'd liberated when the surge broke the back of jihadi resistance by the fall of 2007.
But the Reuters writer wants to make sure you know it is all Bush's fault:
It was Bush, however, who agreed in his last months in office to the end-of-2011 deadline for a U.S. troop withdrawal.
The Obama administration's negotiations with Iraq over a follow-on troop presence fell apart over a Pentagon demand that Iraq provide U.S. troops with immunity against prosecution for any crimes committed there.
Iraq's government was unwilling to meet that demand and its political elite were divided over a post-2011 U.S. military presence.
What rot. Oh, the basic facts are true. President Bush did negotiate a 3-year agreement with Iraq. Iraqi did insist on having our personnel subject to Iraqi law. And there were divisions about keeping our troops there.
But the supposed context that journalists are supposed to provide versus the simplistic notions we bloggers unworthy of legal protections as writers and commenters on events provide is sorely lacking here. Let my non-journalism degree training have a go with the context to those facts, eh?
The left here screamed in outrage over the Bush 3-year deal, demanding it be subject to Senate approval where the Democrats would make sure it was not approved. The Democrats, including then-candidate Obama, just wanted to get out as fast as they could run. The assumption was always that this agreement would buy time for a new and more permanent agreement. And I assumed it bought time for cooler heads to prevail by locking in an agreement through the first several years of the next administration.
And Iraqis did want our troops subject to their laws. But we had operated for years not subject to Iraqi laws. And we have operated under similar conditions in many places around the globe where we can't trust the local system of justice. But a last-minute White House effort does not negate the failure to find a way to get to a "yes" over the three years of the agreement. Why didn't we unleash that nuanced and "smart" diplomacy we're constantly reminded we have now? Shoot, couldn't we have deployed one of those awesome presidential speeches to the Iraqi people that would just shock and awe them into cooperation?
There was just no will to come to an agreement. Period. The urge to retreat has been strong in the Democratic party since the 2004 election, held in check only by the fear of being blamed for losing the war. With Iraqis to blame, the administration felt safe to run.
Were the Iraqis divided? Yes. But only the Iranian backed Sadrists wanted us out. Others recognized they needed us. What they were divided over was the wisdom of openly saying they wanted us to stay without any confidence that we could stay. If we have made a strong effort to come to an agreement, with statements saying we'd keep what it took in Iraq to preserve our win instead of leaking numbers like 3,000 that nobody thought was enough to win, Iraqis would have had the confidence to find a way to get to "yes" on the American troop presence question.
All the Obama administration wants is a decent interval between our withdrawal and chaos in Iraq. Push that chaos to after next year's November election and they could have a second and final term. Iraq has always been a battlefield for the Battle for the White House, as far as the Democratic Party is concerned. Why should I have ever thought they'd see this as an American war once they were in charge?
President Obama can give a nice speech lauding our troops for winning despite the inconvenience that effort was for Democrats who said we could not and should not win the war. But he is unwilling to expend the effort to make sure the loss of life and treasure was for a victory.
It is quite possible that this bombing spree was simply a ploy by the terrorists to get press attention, and the Iraqi government will react well and clean up the cells that pulled it off. Bombings will happen on occasion whether we are in Iraq or not. But our presence was some assurance that any bombing is not the signal that the great sectarian war is about to kick off.
Even at this late date, I'm disappointed in President Obama. I'm naive that way. I thought victory was something we all really wanted. If we are to have our hard-fought victory in Iraq confirmed, it is mostly up to the Iraqis, it seems. If Iraq succeeds, the administration will claim they led from behind, in their wisdom. And if Iraq fails? Well, that's just Bush's fault anyway.
