Really? I even like the author's writings. But he had to frame his piece this way?
But the global stage hasn’t been a second-term refuge for President Obama; it’s been an arena of setbacks, crises and defeats. His foreign policy looked modestly successful when he was running for re-election. Now it stinks of failure.
Failure is a relative term, to be sure. His predecessor’s invasion of Iraq still looms as the largest American blunder of the post-Vietnam era.
The idea that the Iraq War was a blunder is ridiculous.
Let's not even go into what we could have chosen to accept by declining to destroy the Saddam regime.
And let's ignore whether Iraq would have looked more like Syria or Libya if we'd supported a revolt against Saddam rather than invading or if we'd totally withdrawn soon after the rapid victory over Saddam.
Heck, Syria gives us a bonus deal with a Baathist minority dictator that "eliminates" the dictator's chemical weapons yet allows the dictator to use chemical weapons that weren't part of the diplomatic deal! Say, just how many years of inspections would have been required to confirm that Assad did not have chemical weapons not part of the disarmament deal?
Let's just ponder that the post-(American) Iraq War Middle East was in good enough shape for President Obama to announce a pivot of interest and power to the Asia-Pacific region because we didn't need to worry about threats to our interests in the Middle East nearly as much, as the administration explained:
The overall strategic context in which the rebalance takes place is important. And let me start with that. We in the United States find ourselves in national defense at a moment of great transition.
After 11 years of conflict since September 11th, 2001, one war has ended, in Iraq. The other, in Afghanistan, has for sure not ended, but is transitioning to Afghan lead, and thanks to the superb effort of U.S., coalition, and Afghan forces, will wind down in coming years.
And while we've been focused on fighting insurgency in two places and terrorism world-wide, the world has not stood still. Our friends and enemies have not stood still. And technology has not stood still.
And so this for us is a time to look up, look around, and look forward at what the world will need from us next – to the security challenges that will define our future after Iraq and Afghanistan.
If Saddam had been left in power in 2003, we would have been trapped in the logic of dual containment of Iran and Iraq to protect the Persian Gulf, tied to defending Kuwait on the frontline and always worried that a modern-day Nazi-Soviet Pact between Iran and Iraq could have spoiled the notion that Saddam rather than our power contained and balanced Iran. Saudi Arabia feared Iran and Iraq. Syria was solidly in Iran's pocket and a power projection asset. And Jordan was friendly with Saddam out of fear.
Remember, the so-called blunder of Iraq was actually touted by Vice President Biden as potentially one of the great achievements (one of how many?) of the Obama presidency. But it was still moving forward on Bush-era momentum before hope and change could fubar the place and region into the mess it is.
If Iraq and the Middle East (and Europe) aren't looking that hot lately, maybe the focus should be on the man who promised smart diplomacy to restore our relations abroad yet who squandered the environments in Europe and the Middle East that promised to allow us an easy pivot to Asia and the Pacific.
For some, it is inconceivable that the Iraq War could have made the Middle East (or even just Iraq) better.
