Fiasco Author: Obama's Iraq Optimism "Sounds a Lot Like Bush"

The Pulitzer-winning journalist whose 2006 book so thoroughly debunked the "Mission Accomplished" myth of the Iraq war came to my town a few hours ago and asked his audience to face some nasty new diagnoses about Iraq.

Being so fresh from hearing Fiasco author Thomas Ricks speak here in Seattle on Thursday night, I can't swear to which of his statements is ultimately the most distressing. Here are a few contenders:

* "The best-case scenario for Iraq is a country that is not particularly democratic, is not ... stable, is not a great respecter of human rights, is almost certainly a closer ally with Iran than it is with Washington. That's the best-case scenario."

* Iraq "almost certainly" will end up being America's longest war ever.

* Obama is so "overly optimistic" about prospects for getting troops out of Iraq that the new president "sounds a lot like Bush before the surge."

* In overthrowing Saddam Hussein, America forcibly traded a "toothless tiger" of an enemy for the possibility of a much worse one: "There are a lot of little Saddams in Iraq wearing police and army uniforms and I worry that one of them may grow up and become a big Saddam. ... We may say, 'My God, we created a monster.'"

Of course, most of these are predictions. They look to the future. We don't have good data on the future. So, as dire and plausible as Ricks' predictions are, I'm actually more interested in his judgments of the recent past. The recent past is the subject of Ricks' new book, The Gamble. Its subtitle is "General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008"

Speaking on Thursday about those years and about the Petraeus-led "surge" that defined the period, Ricks used a blunt word that jarred me. The word was "failure." The surge, Ricks said, failed. All the big political issues Iraq faced before the surge are still there, he said.

This, in a sense, is not news to me. Back in July, I wrote a piece here on HuffPost called "McCain's Premature Surge Adulation." In it, I tried to counter the incessant scolding from Senator McCain's presidential campaign that painted Obama as mulish for refusing to rejoice in the truth that everyone supposedly knew: that "the surge worked."

As Gov. Sarah Palin put it in her GOP convention speech, "Victory in Iraq is finally in sight (and Obama) wants to forfeit."

I knew that was nonsense.

All the same, Ricks' words did jar me Thursday. Thank goodness. Because we need to be jarred.

There's the saying about how people who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. But what about people who actively lie to themselves about the past, about something like the surge? Surely, such people are in for something even worse than a mere repetition of the past.

This matters for Afghanistan. It matters for Iraq. It matters for America.

As Ricks writes in the very last sentence of The Gamble, "the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered probably have not yet happened."

UPDATE (4/11/09): Many thanks to all of you who took the time to read, think, and comment. Based on what you wrote, I just want to share a few more quotes from Ricks' Seattle appearance:

* Obama "inherited the worst foreign policy situation that any new president has ever taken on."

* "The invasion of Iraq was the single biggest blunder in the history of American foreign policy."

* "Staying in Iraq is immoral. I think leaving Iraq is even more immoral."

And since commenter "viper234" brought up the crucially important issue of torture, I should note that Ricks said "every one of us have had people tortured in our names." Ricks wants a Truth and Reconciliation Commission aimed at discovering the full facts of what has been done since 9/11. He blogged about it here.

Even without a truth commission, Ricks predicted the facts will continue to leak. "I see this as Cheney being waterboarded by history," he said.

Huffington Post blogger David Quigg's previous posts about Iraq are archived here on his new blog, AfPak Ignoramus. To follow David on Twitter, click here. Or, if you want to understand how Dick Cheney ultimately failed the torture enthusiasts every bit as much as he failed you, please take a few moments to read "Keep Yapping, Dick. (Why Even Another 9/11 Can't Redeem Cheney and Bush)".

Comments

[Yermammy]

"The invasion of Iraq was the single biggest blunder in the history of American foreign policy."

Blunder is to kind of a word for a planned invasion based on outright lies and deception. That was a War Crime (Crimes against Humanity are described as "aggressive war"). When countries in S. America can hold truth and reconciliation commissions (against criminals in power DESPITE an improving economy)j, that speaks ill of our third world heavily armed state. We live in a nuclear capable banana republic now.

[MSB]

Iraq is, and will remain, an absolute fiasco until it goes through whatever cultural evolution it is set to go through without our presence or major involvement.

The "Surge" is a complete lie. As was said before we embarked on the strategy, it is like "Whack-a-M­ole." The fighting will calm down where we are located. In addition, as populations shift from fear of being in the wrong region, the local violence will also calm down in the short term. In the name of individual security, sides have been taken. Now it is like two dogs separated by their 'master,' just waiting for him to step out of the way so they can go at it.

Civil War is inevitable. I'm sorry, America has some bizarre need to be viewed as "the good guy." In this instance, no amount of redefining or nurturing through intervention is going to transform us into healers. We screwed up. That is ALL it will ever be.

[freedomis]

Pockets

Here we have this Uncle Sam who used to be a generous sort to the less privileged and many pockets for the things of peace like the sick, infirm, the poor , the needy and to give all a chance to live a dream to the future.
Yet it has been for many years where this Uncle Sam has emptied his peace pockets and filled them with war implements, ideas, groups; not for the defense of the ideals set forth from our beginnings
The pockets are deep and giving to the privileged, the greedy who would not share and a war machine to help them acquire what they would from whoever they could with no thought to life or limb or others property or goods or any dream they may nurture.
This Uncle Sam is starting to look ratty and worn from being a practitioner of usury with the less privileged and loading up the “other class” and borrowing to and from the future, if any, from the pockets of peace. Peace has more pockets but empty ones and the war ones would keep it that way by hoping that we are nothing but lemmings
What are we? Tony 5/10/09

[harriscrl3]

Folks need to make up their minds what they want as far as Iraq. I couldnt care less how he makes it sound as long as he bring the troops home.

Carol

[1dogs2]

President Obama is in the unenviable position of having to withdraw our troops regardless of what is happening "on the ground." He doesn't have another 3 or 4 or 5 years to wait while the Iraqis jockey for power and influence among themselves. Americans expect him to get us out of there as quickly as it's possible to do so without further endangering our troops. But the electorate is fickle. It remains to be seen how it will feel about the withdrawal when Iraq descends once again either into violence and civil war or into a repressive form of governance. At this point, the latter is the best that can be hoped for. It is the least terrible option left by the disastrous policy of the last administration, and the one the Obama administration appears to have chosen. It may require a slower withdrawal than Americans find palatable to have a chance of "success."

So before all the "who lost Iraq" nonsense begins, Americans would do well to get the answer firmly fixed in their heads: Bush "lost Iraq" the day of the invasion.

[Policon]

"So before all the "who lost Iraq" nonsense begins, Americans would do well to get the answer firmly fixed in their heads: Bush "lost Iraq" the day of the invasion."

Isn't it a little early for newspeak?

[ThesagaciousOne]

No. This is Huff Post. Everything about the last 8 years is "doubleplu­sbad."

[Prattvictory2]

The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shah. Who is still calling that a victory?

Victory in Iraq is newspeak. We are more hated in the Middle East and less respected in the World than at any time in my life. Whatever government we install will never be considered legitimate and will fall with the speed of the retreating Vietnamese Army once we draw down sufficient troops.

[1dogs2]

From the moment American boots hit the ground in Iraq, there has been no good choice available for extricating ourselves. All of the predictable and predicted consequences -- sectarian and tribal war, rising tensions among the countries in this volatile region, a war ending in stalemate at best -- have come to pass. The "surge" was intended to buy Bush enough time to get out of office before the inevitable endgame so that he could blame someone else for "losing Iraq."

Iraq has never been "won." There isn't going to a western-style democracy in Iraq. The best that can be hoped for is a less murderous and repressive militarized regime than Saddam's. Maliki is showing signs of growing into the role of strongman, and the immediate issue is whether he has accumulated enough power to suppress violence by Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish minorities, its Shiite extremists and AQ infiltrators. A fine mess left behind by an American president so ignorant of what he was doing that he had never even heard of Sunnis and Shiites a week before the invasion.

It is inevitable that those who stand to lose under a Maliki government will increase their violence as the American withdrawal begins. But Americans have reached a consensus -- we should never have invaded and are unwilling to expend more blood and treasure there, especially when the genuine terrorist threat is located, as it was in the first place, in Afpakistan.

[cam]

Agree with you on every point except the last. I don't think America is going to get out of Iraq until the realization strikes home -- there never will be a good time to get out of Iraq.

[lafrance]

I am developing this pet peeve. It seems everyone is sooooooo paranoid about Bush and Cheney that everything Obama does is compared to Bush. And then, if they don't agree they declare, he's just like Bush.
Honestly. It's the most stupid comment yet. And something that points to the sheer paranoia people have with Bush.
Newsflash: He's gone and everyone is different and their own person.

[ThesagaciousOne]

Lafrance, you must understand that BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrom) is sort of like Malaria. A person is never cured of it. It just becomes dormant for a while, before it erupts again with the cold sweats, hot flashes, uncontrolled shaking, and meaningless rambling.

[Querent]

Bush Derangement Syndorme! Ha! You are really dating yourself, Thesa. That little canard went down like a lead balloon the week after it was coined. But, freedom of religion being the law of the land, you are free to continue to worship the Beast for as long as you have the strength of will and the weakness of mind. Talk about meaningless rambling. Your post could be the paradigm of that affliction.

[MacQ]

lafrance:
Quite true.
As you say, everything is evaluated in light of Mr. Bush--whether it's so very different from him (=good) or too much like him (=bad).
Some posters here are quite obsessed with him. Poor things.

[MacQ]

PS:
The question about BDS'ers is why they are so afflicted.
My own theory is that they have the same disease that afflicts people who hate the military. They themselves lack the courage they see in another. A larger minded person would admire it. A small minded one has to diminish it.
This was very prevalent in the 60's among the leftists who dissed our soldiers. They tried to represent themselves as being too intellectually gifted to soldier. In fact, it was because they were too yellow.

[Shieldmaiden]

Heaven help us, what a fine mess Bush has gotten us into. If we stay we will suffer, if we leave, we will suffer. We need Iran and Syria's help now more than ever.

[mbaty]

Obama didn't vote for this war, and before he took office he probably felt, like many Americans, that we should just get out. But I'm guessing he's having a harder time negotiating this mess since many of those with vested interests in Iraq are still around him, probably still in positions of power and/or influence. And, as good as he is, and I believe he is, he's only one person, and there are legions of others who still make, and expect to make, a lot of money from Middle East oil, the war, and it's continuation. Just think how difficult it would be if our president thought the "war" should go on for a hundred years. As easy as it is to criticize Obama, and as eager as we were to be relieved of Dubya, it would have been a lot worse with McCain in office. Can you believe we were even considering it? Let's give him time and some slack, because of all the presidents we've had over the last century, Obama is light years more intelligent and more compassionate than the lot of them.

[viper234]

Before it is even close to ending, the war in Iraq has already become a postscript in the minds of the American people. And talk of draw downs and ending combat operations is always followed by "contingency" language such as "conditions on the ground." And so, with Generals already suggesting a longer stay based on so-called renewed al Qaeda activity, I think the probability of expecting an end to the fiasco there over the next two years is slim to none.
America likes to turn the page on ugly historical events, particularly if our government is on the wrong side of history, but to turn the page on the Iraq war even as it rages on is beyond belief as is the nation's willingness to turn the page on the use of torture linked to a war and a country that was no threat to the US and played no role in the 9/11 attacks.

[wanked]

Everything about obama sounds more like bush with each passing day. My anxiety level is rising steadily..­......

[ajax2]

"Obama is so "overly optimistic" about prospects for getting troops out of Iraq that the new president "sounds a lot like Bush before the surge."

One big difference would be that Bush/Cheney had no intentions of removing U.S. troops ever.

[Truthahn]

"One big difference would be that Bush/Cheney had no intentions of removing U.S. troops ever."

----------­----------­------

That's not true. They thought it would be a cakewalk and we wouldn't need to stay very long. They didn't even have plans in place to maintain law enforcement and social services. They thought that stuff would just sort itself out.

[Querent]

You actually believe that Bush and Cheney, and the rest of the cabal, told you what they thought was the truth? How transparent does a lie have to be before you can perceive it as such?

[ajax2]

"They thought it would be a cakewalk and we wouldn't need to stay very long."

False the written record shows that Cheney wanted to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely.

[liecatcher]

With the largest military budget in the history of the world, Dwight Eisenhower , who warned:"beware

the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX", must be rolling over in his grave.

Is it any wonder that the interest on the deficit is on either side of one $trillion.­?

[GrainOSand]

“In overthrowing Saddam Hussein, America forcibly traded a "toothless tiger" of an enemy for the possibility of a much worse one: "There are a lot of little Saddams in Iraq wearing police and army uniforms and I worry that one of them may grow up and become a big Saddam. ... We may say, 'My God, we created a monster.'"

This becomes end of story for me in terms of casting any doubt on the president (related to Iraq) because what it says is doom was built into the act of invasion..­.which no matter how the propaganda machine of the future might spin it, preceded the president. He is in charge of cleaning up something that is potentiall­y...foreve­r soiled...a most difficult task. (no matter how we rub and scrub the tub of Iraq, that ghastly stain of invasion, toppling and hanging the president and stacking up hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians along with the thousands of Americans and other “coalition of the willing” forces, topped off with no-bid contracts that funneled money from the America coffers to a group of American and international thieves, that stain will not relent.)

“The word was "failure." The surge, Ricks said, failed. All the big political issues Iraq faced before the surge are still there, he said.”

Yet they tell the lie so well we now have Patraeus day. Yet they tell the lie so well, Surge and success have become interchang­able...syn­onymous.

[arvay]

Even more troubling, some American generals are now saying we may have to stay longer to fight renewed al Quaeda activity. I can't think of a better description of a "slippery slope." And we need to stop generals going public with their "ideas." Time for another Mac Arthur-like firing to remind them that they take orders, and keep their advice private.

Obama needs to absorb this from Ricks:

*"The best-case scenario for Iraq is a country that is not particularly democratic, is not ... stable, is not a great respecter of human rights, is almost certainly a closer ally with Iran than it is with Washington. That's the best-case scenario."

The logical nation to suppress al Quaeda in Iraq is Iran. They tried to help us with this after 9/11, and they still dislike the "Caliphate" nonsense Osama touts. They're Persians, after all. Rather than keeping American forces in country, which only exacerbates their activity, we need to turn this role over to Iran's armed forces and retreat to Kurdistan. There, we can defend the Kurds and prevent them provoking an attack from Turkey.

This would be an excellent outcome from our newly minted negotiating policy with iran, and should once and for all squelch insane Israeli ideas about attacking Iran.