Ironically, the end of the war in Iraq was announced the day after the campaign in Libya ended. Iraq and Libya epitomize two radically different approaches for dealing with terrorism: massive intervention and targeted strikes.
The war in Iraq was led by the United States. It lasted nearly nine years and cost the U.S. $1 trillion and over 4,400 American lives. The outcome is still uncertain. The Libyan revolution was led by the Libyan people. The conflict lasted seven months. No U.S. combatants were killed, although several American journalists lost their lives. The cost to the United States was about $1.1 billion, or about a thousand times less than the war in Iraq. The Libyan revolution succeeded.
The Bush Administration justified the war in Iraq as "the central front" in the war on terror. "September the 11th should say to the American people that we are now a battlefield," President Bush said at a news conference just after the U.S. invasion. The idea was that the United States, as a matter of its own national security, had to disarm Iraq in order to prevent another 9/11.
The American public bought that argument. In the March 2003 Gallup poll, 88 percent were of the opinion that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorist groups that had plans to attack the United States. In fact, 51 percent believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in 9/11. That's the reason why Americans supported something they had never supported, or even imagined, in the past -- a pre-emptive war.
There was only one check on Bush's bold agenda: the American people. Bold agendas make Americans nervous. Americans have no ambition to remake the world. Their ambition is simple. They just want to feel safe.
By 2004, the terrorism issue and the Iraq issue began to diverge. As the insurgency in Iraq intensified, Americans became disillusioned with the war in Iraq and started to see it as a distraction from the war on terror. First the former U.S. weapons inspector acknowledged that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Then the 9/11 commission reported finding "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Shortly thereafter, for the first time, a majority of Americans said the war in Iraq was a mistake.
From that time on, the war continued to lose public support, even though, after the troop surge in 2007, Americans believed the security situation in Iraq was improving. Last year, only one quarter of Americans felt the U.S. was safer from terrorism as a result of the war in Iraq, according to the USA Today-Gallup poll.
Muammar Gaddafi was more clearly linked to anti-U.S. terrorism than Saddam Hussein was -- the bombing in 1986 of a Berlin nightclub frequented by U.S. servicemen, the 1988 downing of Pan Am 103 that resulted in 270 fatalities, including 189 Americans. But the U.S. did not invade Libya. "Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives," President Obama announced following Gaddafi's death last week. The Libyan people started -- and finished -- their own revolution with support from the international community, including the United States.
The Obama Administration has banished the term "war on terror." But it has still pursued a vigorous anti-terrorism policy. The President summarized that policy last week: "We've taken out al Qaeda leaders, and we've put them on the path to defeat. We're winding down the war in Iraq and have begun a transition in Afghanistan. And now, working in Libya with frieds and allies, we've demonstrated what collective action can achieve in the 21st century." ABC News lists nearly two dozen "senior terrorists" eliminated by the Obama Administration. President Obama's job rating on terrorism, at 64 percent approval, is higher than his rating on any other issue, according to polling this month by the Associated Press.
Last week, Karl Rove told The New York Times, "To the degree Obama tries to suggest he should be re-elected because of foreign policy strength, he looks like he's dodging the main issue." Keep in mind that Rove was the Bush strategist who advised Republicans a few months after 9/11, "We can go to the country on this issue" because voters "trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America."
That is exactly what Republicans did in 2002 and 2004. And it worked.
Follow Bill Schneider on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BillSchneiderDC
Jonathan Masters: Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
"The American public bought that argument. In the March 2003 Gallup poll, 88 percent were of the opinion that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorist groups that had plans to attack the United States. In fact, 51 percent believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in 9/11. That's the reason why Americans supported something they had never supported, or even imagined, in the past -- a pre-emptive war."
Furthermore, as time passes, disgust for the fear-mongers in the GOP and their ilk shows over and over. Rove and all the GOP are showing their unpatriotic stance toward the office of POTUS via rancorous attitudes, profound negative commentary and media fixated upon that commentary.
Again, why is it that so little is mentioned about reasonable thinkers, common sense reality and mature attitudes. I'm tired of the excuse by writers that they'll write what sells. What about what's right?!
Over 7,397 strike sorties
“We are an Islamic country,” he said as the sun descended. “We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government. The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion.”
Among other things, he promised that Islamic banks would be established in the new Libya. The Associated Press reported.
Please note that those 20,000 'missing' portable SAMs are no more 'missing' now than they were under a sworn enemy with a network in place to distribute them at his whim.
The fact that a new government may choose to do so, or may not guard them carefully is no more dangerous than leaving them in the hands of Qaddafi, and, in fact, probably a lot less dangerous.
If anything Iraq is has moved further towards success than Lybia. Both resulted in toppling a tyrannical but contained dictator, to be sure. But in Iraq, he was replaced by a democratic government. We have no clue what is going to happen next in Lybia.
Many criticized Bush for a supposed lack of an exit strategy. The Lybian War was all about the exit strategy without much thought to what happens the next day. How is that a success?
NATO preferred to see Qaddafi go with a minimum of death on both sides.
That, my friend, was a success.
Obama on the other hand focuses on precision intervention with low cost in lives and treasure that yields very impressive outcomes. I guess being a community organizer has its benefits.
I thinks its amazing how foreign policy being the one responsibility the president has that republicans cant obstruct and sabotage is the one part of our government that is humming like a brand new Ferrari.
This should be a lesson to you "independent" voters that head to the polls next year.
If a party that runs on "government doesn't work" platform should not be hired to work in government.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/gaddafi-death-questioned_n_1027793.html
I want to look at the issue from a neutral perspective. Let me put it as a debate between Bushite versus an Obamaniac:
Obamaniac: President Obama is suddenly emerged as a better president against the war on terror.
Bushite: You'd have to consider the entirety of Bush's philosophy and actions.
Obamaniac: Oh? He had one? What might that be?
Bushite: President Bush believed that a war to plant democracy in the heart of the Arab world, Iraq to be specific, will eventually yield tremendous change, and engender a domino effect that will bring freedom to more countries in that region. History will judge George. According to him, the likes of Lincoln are just beginning to get assessed by historians.
Obamaniac: I don't know about all that, all i know is that President Obama got the job done; he killed Osama Bin laden, instigated the down fall of Muammar Gaddafi, not to mention scores of killed, or capture al-Qaeda leadership.
Bushite: Let me put it to you this way: in primary school, a youngster is asked, what is the sum of 4 + 4, and he replied 10! Sure the magnitude of his answer is greater than the correct answer 8, that doesn't make the student smarter than his teacher. We must give credit where it's due, President Obama has had great successes on the war on terror, but he must also deal with the issues at home in order not to appear lucky.
Those people took their countries, because they are tired of being oppressed.
Give 'em a chance.
Some will probably work out, some will still fail.
Obama didn't lie to get us into any conflicts, he intervened when the host country asked, secured broad-based cooperation and was later told by the new Libyan ambassador that the U. S. had made the right decision. Whatever the Libyans come up with on their own will take less political will to enforce, since it's homegrown and not imposed from the outside.
I know that you used to work for CNN. How I wish that you could help them out so they may get back to the basics of Journalism, reporting the truth.
The PEW Research has now scientifically proven that this pres is report on negatively than any of the TBGOPers' candidates.
This nation is in need of a press that is factual, truthful and presenting data accurately. We have lost that since Fox started beating CNN in 2002.
Fox who fought in the courts, in FL and won, that it was there right to LIE to their audience?
Ratings? In a nation of 308.7M. The highest rated show at Fox is O'Reilly and the most it gets intermittently is 3M plus. CBS Sunday morning show easily tops 5M plus. NBC gets over 8M, ABC News 7M and CBS gets 5M plus.
PBS gets 3M.
So please stop the spin.
It's so hypocritical for GOP people to blame Obama for achieving their own goals, which they couldn't do themselves from 9-11 to Obama's inauguration...
One can question Obama's moves allright. But here, it is clear that if it were a GOP President, none of that criticism would have occurred from the GOP side...