So when I see that Dionne is defending the brilliance of President Obama's foreign policy, I just shake my head. Of course he is. He isn't a purported deep thinker like Krugman, Zakaria, or Friedman. Nor does he have any faux defense credentials to peddle like Korb. So Dionne gets the job of defending the president no matter what. That's his niche in the liberal eco-system.
But heck, I'll even go along with Dionne that I'm not overly upset with Obama spiking the ball on getting Osama bin Laden. It worked. It needed to be done. Good for the president. Take a bow. Better than giving them, I say.
What is annoying is that President Obama is suddenly trying to portray a cowboy image that he once ridiculed. Yeah, Obama once killed a man just for looking at him funny.
What I mind is the idea that killing Osama ends the war on terror and ends the need to win in Afghanistan.
Funny that liberals once denounced the capture of Saddam and the killing of Zarqawi by saying they didn't matter in ending the Iraq War. They had a point then. Getting them worked, needed to be done, and contributed to victory in Iraq even though those achievements alone didn't win the war. Why the change now? Oh yeah, Bush is gone and they are in charge.
But don't make me address how good Obama is at foreign policy. I hope that claim doesn't pass the laugh test. Let me first address a small part about Iraq:
The war in Iraq turned out (and this is being quite charitable) much differently than the Bush administration had predicted.
It is always worth recalling Vice President Dick Cheney’s interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on March 16, 2003. Among other things, Cheney famously declared that “I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.” And when Russert asked whether “we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there” in Iraq “for several years in order to maintain stability,” Cheney replied, “I disagree,” insisting: “That’s an overstatement.”
It was not an overstatement.
The war was tougher? Well, not overthrowing Saddam. That was way easier. The anti-war side said that chemical weapons would be unleashed in the chaos of war, that Baghdad would be a Stalingrad blood bath, and that the Arab street would rise up against us. The real problem was in the post-war when we failed to prevent Syria and Iran from inflaming local allies and enabling al Qaeda to operate in Iraq as their main theater. If it had just been Baathist resistance we had to face, it would have petered out to low levels by February 2004. But our left was outraged that we might deal with Syria or Iran, and so we fought with one hand behind our back--and still won.
As for Cheney's quotes, one, we were greeted as liberators--complete with flowers. The Kurds, the Shias (even those who liked Iran), and even some Sunni Arabs were happy to have Saddam gone.
Two, is Dionne really going to argue that Cheney was wrong to say it was an "overstatement" that we would need to have "several hundred thousand troops" in Iraq for years to maintain order? When did we have 300,000 troops in Iraq? At the height of the surge, we had 170,000 troops in Iraq. From 2003 to 2008, to provide security, we had probably an average of 150,000 troops in Iraq. Half of the several hundred thousand Dionne is apparently arguing we actually put in Iraq to win. And we needed an average of 150,000 only because we let Syria and Iran get away with murder. I'd have more respect for Dionne if he'd spent 2004-2007 arguing we needed to hammer Syria and Iran to stop their interference inside Iraq that nearly sparked a civil war.
Contrary to what Dionne says (what a shock!), we achieved a lot in the Iraq War, as I argued here, here, and here (among others, I assume). Just what achievement would Dionne give back, hmm? Really, denying we achieved something good in Iraq--for us and not just for the people who suffered under Saddam's murderous tyranny--is just a way to avoid responsibility for defending what we gained. I have nothing but contempt for Dionne for that role he so enthusiastically carries out.
And the parts about Afghanistan are just incoherent. Bush neglected the war yet Obama--under whose strategy casualties have skyrocketed--is settling for less than the maximum that Republicans want? Seriously, dude? You are arguing that?
Oh, right. That's his niche. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. If he can look himself in the mirror after this article, who am I to disturb his self respect? Hey, at least Dionne didn't have to sing the praises of puppy cuisine.
