Will he or won't he?

The burning question ahead of the President's address on Iraq tonight is whether he'll credit his predecessor George W. Bush with any of the undeniable success in Iraq. The word from Obama's spokescritter is that the President will phone Bush before the address, but there's no telling what that means.

Obama's in a real tough spot with this, one he enthusiastically made himself:

If he doesn't credit Bush at all, he implicitly takes credit for policies and strategies he previously (and repeatedly) said would not and did not work.

If he does give Bush any credit, it's an admission that if it had been up to him, Iraq would be in a complete shambles with the US watching helplessly from afar.

Either option provides ample fodder for his political opponents to pummel him.

Speaking of Iraq...

Here's a USA Today article from last May about Iraqis who fled Iraq during the war and later returned...as members of the US armed forces.

Aldawoodi, who is an Army interpreter, is one of at least eight Iraqis who fled to the United States in the midst of the war, only to have returned home as members of the U.S. armed forces, according to Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, a Pentagon spokesman. Melnyk said the figure likely understates the actual number of Iraqis in the U.S. military because personnel records don't require recruits to list their nationality.

Interesting stuff.

Is Iraq today better than Saddam's Iraq? Hell, yes.

This report (PDF format) on Iraq from the Brookings Institute, published monthly, carries some fascinating facts and insights on the changing face of Iraq since the invasion in early 2003. For example:

• Under Saddam Hussein, prior to the invasion, there were NO commercial television stations and NO independent newspapers. By 2006, 54 commercial TV stations were operating and 268 independent newspapers and magazines in circulation.
• In 2003, there were 833,000 telephone subscribers. Today, there are 17.7 million cellular subscribers and 1.3 million landline users.

There's a load of other information of an encouraging nature in the report. Take the time to check it out.

War of choice

In President Obama's speech to "the Muslim world" in Cairo, he perpetuated the notion that Afghanistan was a just war while Iraq was a bad one because it was a "war of choice". Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, this has been the term used by those who opposed the invasion to suggest that it wasn't justified or necessary.

But setting aside for now the question of which of the two wars were justified, aren't all wars wars of choice? President Bush could have chosen not to invade Afghanistan and drive out the Taliban just as he chose to invade Iraq and rid the world of one more despotic dictator. The fact that one choice may have been more evidently wise than the other is not relevant -- they were both wars of choice.

In the months preceding the invasion of Iraq, I wasn't convinced that the time was right for running Saddam out of town. The Bush administration, as well as that of Britain's then-PM Tony Blair, justified the action almost exclusively on the basis of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program. I never doubted (and still don't) the existence of Iraq's WMD program at the time, but I also didn't doubt that, given the time allowed, Saddam had ample opportunity to erase the evidence. I gradually concluded by early 2003, though, that removing Saddam was necessary for a host of other reasons, not the least of which were his demonstrable ties to international Islamist terrorists*, even if those terrorists weren't directly connected to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Ultimately, Iraq would have to be dealt with in the broader context of fighting and Bush appears to have asked the question "if not now, when?", to which one might add "at what cost of delay?". Bush knew he had a small window of opportunity to move against Saddam, the alternative being to leave the problem for his successor. Had Bush chosen to do so, what would his obsessive critics had to say if in the intervening years there'd been a terrorist attack on the US traced back to Saddam, or a situation forcing Barack Obama to deal with him?

* See, for example, Abu Nidal, killed in Baghdad in August 2002 by Iraqi agents, and Abu Abbas, captured by US troops in Baghdad in April 2003, right after the invasion.

Map The Fallen

Sorry for the lack of posting lately, but work's been hell. So even this past three-day weekend I mostly ignored the computer, except to goof off on Twitter.

It would have been nice to have stumbled across this before Memorial Day as it would have made a good post for yesterday, but better late than never.

Google employee Sean Askay embarked on a Google Earth project to map the fallen servicemen and women from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To be honest, when I first saw this my initial thought was that it might be an anti-war propaganda thing. But that definitely does NOT appear to be the case. If Mr. Askay has an agenda besides his stated one of simply honoring the fallen, it's not at all apparent.

The project is a Google Earth map overlay which represents the home of record (not always the same as hometown) of a service member and the location of their death. Clicking on one of the icons brings up information about the fallen soldier and in most cases a link to their obituary.

I haven't lost any friends or acquaintances in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I did find out that an old classmate of mine lost a son. Whether you've lost a friend or relative there or not, it's worth checking out.

A few pointers since some in the comments at the site seemed to have difficulty figuring it out...make sure you have Google Earth 5.0 or later installed, then just click on the download link at the top right of the page. It worked fine for me, but some folks in the comments say they had issues, probably related to having an older version of Google Earth.

Right on cue

As if on cue, protesters turned out in Luton to "greet" British troops returning from Iraq.

Twice in two years they have fought in Iraq, with two of their comrades paying the ultimate price when they died in a roadside bomb attack in Basra and 10 more killed in Afghanistan.

But a homecoming parade in honour of 200 soldiers back from the battlefields was marred yesterday(tues) by Muslim anti-war protesters.

They hurled abuse as members of the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment marched proudly through the centre of Luton.

Waving placards with slogans saying: 'Anglian soldiers: Butchers of Basra,' and 'Anglian soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists,' and 'baby killers,' they were hemmed in by police as the parade passed.

Sick.

Rabble-rousing

Click for larger image

Spotted over at Theo's place. Guess which peaceful, respectable religious group wants to disgrace troops tomorrow at a homecoming parade in Britain?

Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia...Iraq?

I don't know how to take this op-ed column by Bennett Ramburg...I really don't. Is he being serious, or is it sarcasm? The lead-in to the column says of previous instances of America's hastened departure from other countries: "...despite immediate costs to America's reputation, disengagement ultimately redounded to America's advantage." The previous examples cited are Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.

OK, so our departure "redounded to America's advantage" in the sense that American soldiers stopped getting killed in those places, but can anyone really say with a straight face that we're better off with those countries in the state they're in now than if they were thriving under a stable democracy?

How the hell does anyone hold up Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia as examples of the good that can come from us leaving a job undone? Sounds more to me like he's making the case for not intervening in the first place.

'Security...has ceased to be a concern'

I really wish Obama and his gang of fools would stop saying they're going to "end the war" in Iraq. Dude...it's fucking over, no thanks to you.

Maj Gen Andy Salmon told The Daily Telegraph that following months of steady improvements in the security situation in Iraq's second city, the rate of violent crime and murder in Basra has fallen below some major British cities.

"On a per capita basis, if you look at the violence statistics, it is less dangerous than Manchester," he said, hailing a "radical transformation" in Iraq's prospects.

[ ... ]

The general, a Royal Marine Commando, also jokingly compared Basra and Stockwell in south London where he once lived. Asked where he would rather spend a Saturday night, he replied: "Downtown Basra, in the restaurants, enjoying myself."

He said: "It's pretty normal down there: people going about their business, the nights bustle, people are enjoying themselves, kids are playing in parks. People are concerned about the normal things you'd be concerned by: jobs, the delivery of essential services, their future prosperity."

[ ... ]

Maj Gen Salmon said the improving security situation is largely down to the presence of very large Iraqi army and police forces: there are more than 30,000 Iraqi security forces in a city of more than 2 million. He said: "The risks are diminishing on a monthly basis. Security, as far as the population is concerned, has ceased to be a concern."

What's galling about this is that over a period of about two years - not 16 months as promised - Obama will gradually withdraw nearly all troops from Iraq and take credit for "winning" the war when he runs for reelection in 2012.

Bait and switch

Is this an example of incompetence at Associated Press, or are they deliberately trying to mislead people who only skim headlines?

AP: Asshat Press.

Update: They've now corrected the headline to read "Iraq wraps up election with no major violence".

VI Day

VI - Victory in Iraq Day - is an initiative of the venerable photo-blogger Zombie. The date Zombie chose was actually yesterday, 22 November, 2008. Zombie's rationale:

By every measure, The United States and coalition forces have conclusively defeated all enemies in Iraq, pacified the country, deposed the previous regime, successfully helped to establish a new functioning democratic government, and suppressed any lingering insurgencies. The war has come to an end. And we won.

What more indication do you need? An announcement from the outgoing Bush administration? It's not gonna happen. An announcement from the incoming Obama administration? That's really not gonna happen. A declaration of victory by the media? Please. Don't make me laugh. A concession of surrender by what few remaining insurgents remain in hiding? Forget about it.

I was initially skeptical about this, as evidenced by my being a day late with this. Not because I don't think we won - we clearly did - but because of my fears that the incoming Obama administration might negate that victory. But I see a certain logic in identifying a specific day now on which we mark the successful end of the Iraq war.

As things stand now, a mostly stable Iraq with a functioning government will be turned over to the Obama administration in less than two months. A failure in Iraq after that will fall squarely on the shoulders of Barack Obama.

So, yes. Let's mark 11/22/2008 as Victory in Iraq Day, with a clear message to Obama not to fuck it up.