Pat Buchanan: Was the Iraq venture worth the cost?

...as 90 months of war in Iraq come to an end for America, what was won? And what was lost?

To stampede us into war, the neocons told us that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda and had a role in 9/11, that he had VX gas, botulism, mustard gas, sarin and anthrax, and was acquiring nuclear weapons. What further proof must you have, demanded Condi Rice, "a mushroom cloud over an American city"?

The truth. Saddam had no tie to al Qaeda, no role in 9/11, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no nuclear program.

We attacked a nation that did not attack us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us -- to strip it of weapons it did not have.

We were misled. We were deceived. We were lied to.

The cost: 4,400 dead, 35,000 wounded, $700 billion sunk.

"Much has changed since that night" we marched into Iraq, said President Obama. "A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives. Tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested."

Estimates of Iraqi war dead run from 70,000 to 100,000, which means hundreds of thousands of Iraqi widows and orphans. Christians have seen priests murdered, churches burned and half their number driven into exile. Four million Iraqis have left or lost their homes. Two million are in exile, as Baghdad has been cleansed of Sunnis. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq under Saddam. It is there now.

"Time to turn the page," said President Obama.

How does Iraq turn the page, as we retreat to secure bases and prepare to bring home the last 50,000 troops?

Terrorism has returned. Iraq's casualties are back up to where they were before the U.S. surge. Electricity is off much of the time. Six months after elections, no government exists. The Iraqi dead, wounded, widowed, orphaned, homeless and exiled are surely not better off.

What about those we leave behind? What happens to Iraqis who worked with us when we leave? How did our Vietnamese friends fare? What kind of future will Iraqis have, if civil and sectarian war return?

That our soldiers, Marines, diplomats and aid workers did their jobs bravely and honorably is understood by their countrymen -- and attested to by the fact the U.S. military is the most respected of our institutions.

But was the war worth it? Some 72 percent of Americans said in a recent CBS poll that it was not worth the price in U.S. war dead.

What does the secretary of defense think?

"It really requires a historian's perspective in terms of what happens here in the long run," says Robert Gates. "How it all weighs in the balance over time remains to be seen." A seven-year war, and our minister of defense cannot declare that it was all worth it.

How Iraq was pacified and what it means for Afghanistan

The author, David French, is a captain in the United States Army Reserve and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom

The departure of the last “combat brigade” from Iraq (don’t be misled; thousands of combat troops remain) is a critical symbolic moment in the War on Terror. It’s a symbol not just of a battle won but also of the battles that remain.

When I flew into Forward Operating Base Caldwell with the 2d Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment in November 2007, the surge was at its height, and the outcome in Iraq was very much in doubt. In fact, the outcome was in doubt in my own mind. Our Humvees were torn apart by powerful IEDs, the countryside was in al-Qaeda hands, and good men were dying.

Slowly but surely, however, the tide turned. In February of 2008, I could never have imagined a drawdown. The Iraqi Army in our area was passive, al-Qaeda was aggressive, and the citizens were intimidated. By August, villages were free of al-Qaeda, roads were patrolled by the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police, and the terrorists were demoralized, homeless, and exhausted.

Why the difference? To quote Oliver Hazard Perry: “We have met the enemy, and they are ours.” Our Fox Troop, Grim Troop, Rattler Troop, and Lion Battery went into the enemy strongholds and set up camp. They didn’t raid and leave. They didn’t strike and move. They struck and stayed. Our soldiers won.

To me, that’s the lesson of Operation Iraqi Freedom. When you give them the tools and the right strategy, soldiers win.

This week’s news from Iraq gives me hope for Afghanistan. Once again, we’re facing a situation that to outside observers seems to be spiraling out of control. Once again, politicians and pundits who know nothing about war are proclaiming gloom and doom. Once again, we send our best out into dusty outposts and tiny villages and tell them to accomplish the seemingly impossible.

Nothing is certain in war, and the enemy always has a say in the outcome, but if I were the Taliban, I would look at this week’s news, examine the ruins of a once-mighty insurgency in Iraq, and worry that I was looking at my own future.

Neocons cheered the Afghan strikes and the unforced Iraq project but now mainstream conservatives question both

As President Barack Obama assures the country that the war in Iraq is winding down, a sigh of relief is emanating from the unlikeliest corner: the conservatives who have for more than seven years been the war’s staunchest supporters.

It’s not exactly that conservatives have had second thoughts about Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, the “cut and run” Democrats, or the need to project military power after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What they have come to doubt, however, is those aspects of the Bush Doctrine that come dressed in Wilsonian garb.

However reluctant conservatives may be to question retroactively the justice of our Bush-era wars, many are beginning to wonder if our prolonged occupations and nation-building exercises are worth American blood and treasure. Are our recently acquired colonies in Iraq and Afghanistan, they might ask, merely children who will never grow up?

Some of this is mere partisan opportunism, as when Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele advised candidates at a Connecticut GOP fundraiser that they should disown Afghanistan — initially invaded under George W. Bush with near unanimous Republican support — as “a war of Obama’s choosing.” Translation: Let whatever goes wrong in Afghanistan be the Democrats’ problem for a change.

When Ann Coulter defended Steele against criticism from, among others, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, she took pains to distinguish Bush’s fine Republican war-making from Obama’s pusillanimous imperial time-wasting. This is unsurprising, as there is a long history of otherwise hawkish conservatives having distaste for what Bob Dole once described as “Democrat wars.”

Other mainstream conservatives are honestly starting to ask what we are accomplishing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is propping up Hamid Karzai or refereeing a political dispute between Nouri al-Maliki and Iyad Allawi really the great civilizational struggle between the West and radical Islam?

Many prominent conservative hawks are saying no.

Gunny Pop running against liberal San Diego Rep. Bob Filner

By James M. Simpson

A few months back I wrote a story about Veterans for Congress, focusing in particular on Marine Gunnery Sgt. Nick Popaditch, who is running for Congress in San Diego’s 51st district. “Gunny Pop” as he was affectionately known in the Corps, was grievously wounded in the first battle for Fallujah, Iraq, when he was hit in the head by an enemy RPG. Medically retired, he lost one eye and retains 8 percent use in his second eye, only because of the medical staff’s heroic efforts and Nick’s indomitable spirit.

Nick earned the Silver Star for his battlefield bravery and innovation. Nick is also widely recognized as the Cigar Marine, who sat atop his M-1 Abrahams tank triumphantly smoking a cigar while members of his unit helped topple Saddam’s statute when the Marines liberated Baghdad in 2003. He wrote a book about his experiences, Once A Marine, which made the Commandant of the Marine Corps recommended professional reading list for all ranks, won The Military-Writers Book of the Year for 2009, and was a national book club selection.

Contrast this with his Democrat opponent, Bob Filner. One of the most radical leftists in the House of Representatives, Filner is spawn of Joe Filner, one time head of the Pittsburg, PA, Communist Party. (NOTE: thanks go to Trevor Loudon for the Filner profiles, among thousands of entries Loudon has put together for his seminal encyclopedia of the Left, KeyWiki. Check it out!)

The nuts don’t fall far from the tree. A longtime member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Filner has close ties the Democratic Socialists of America. He has been staining the halls of Congress since 1992, and has been foursquare behind the Obama deliberate trainwreck agenda since his fellow socialist was elected President.

George Will: U.S. should get out of Iraq

"Recently, Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. troops there, "blanched" when asked if the war is "functionally over." According to The Washington Post's Greg Jaffe, Odierno said:

"There are still civilians being killed in Iraq. We still have people that are attempting to attack the new Iraqi order and the move towards democracy and a more open economy. So we still have some work to do."

No, we don't, even if, as Jaffe reports, the presence of 130,000 U.S. troops "serves as a check on Iraqi military and political leaders' baser and more sectarian instincts." After almost six and a half years, and 4,327 American dead and 31,483 wounded, with a war spiraling downward in Afghanistan, it would be indefensible for the U.S. military -- overextended and in need of materiel repair and mental recuperation -- to loiter in Iraq to improve the instincts of corrupt elites. If there is worse use of the U.S. military than "nation-building," it is adult supervision and behavior modification of other peoples' politicians."