President Obama says it's over.
The President announced that the US will pull all remaining troops from Iraq by the end of the year.
Most would call this a good thing. Conservatives disagree. They (apparently) see this as a "consequential failure," as Republican Senator John McCain put it, because of increasing/always-present tensions/hostility with Iran. The 2012 Republican Presidential-hopeful Mitt Romney said, "The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government." The concern is that by leaving Iraq we are giving Iran exactly what they want - a defenseless Iraq.
However, Obama is only keeping promises. Obama promised all of us that he'd end the war and bring our troops home. We also promised the Iraqi government in a signed agreement in 2008 that we would pull our troops from their country by December 2011. This was an agreement signed under President George W. Bush... not President Obama. Now conservatives are criticizing Obama for upholding the agreement that Republican President Bush made.
This reminds me of how conservatives blamed the crumbling economy, due to the outsourcing of American jobs overseas, on former President Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA into effect and opened the door for such possibilities. However, NAFTA was the brain-child of George H. W. Bush, who Americans voted out of office before he could pass it. Clinton signed NAFTA into effect as a courtesy; at the time, the country wanted it and it was simply the right thing to do. Had NAFTA not developed so many negative side effects, conservatives would have no problem reminding America that it was "the baby" of a Republican President. But that's not convenient for conservatives in this case, is it?
But I digress...
So, Obama is showing the integrity of his word to our country and to Iraq by bringing our troops home to their families... and this is a grave mistake? Surprisingly enough, the voice of reason has come from Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner. Boehner urged the President to "continue engaging with the Iraqi government in a way that ensures our hard-fought gains translate into long-term success." I think a resounding "duh" works well here, but seriously, he's being rational. He continued, "While I'm concerned that a full withdrawal could jeopardize those gains, I'm hopeful that both countries will work together to guarantee that a free and democratic Iraq remains a strong and stable partner for the United States in the Middle East."
And that, I believe, is the bigger point here. The United States is supposed to be a world leader. Being a leader means acting like it. That means exuding integrity and empowering others. We helped liberate Iraq, regardless of the debate in America as to whether or not we should have been there in the first place. We helped clean up and rebuild. We stayed to keep the peace, as oxymoronic as that may seem. We gave them our word that we'd leave. Now we're keeping a promise with an Iraqi government that wants the chance to shape its own future.
Some conservatives say that it shouldn't matter what the agreement was or what Iraq wants, they aren't equipped to do this on their own right now; they're not ready. As Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, the United States was still "keeping a real close eye on Iran" and would be "well equipped" to do so even after the withdrawal.
I agree. We've already sacrificed over 4,000 soldiers to this war. We've already signed an agreement. We've already promised our troops and their families. It's time to be the leader we claim to be and give Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own. It's time to have a little integrity again. It's time to be the same "greatest country on Earth" I was told we were when I was a kid.
Obama may not be the greatest president we've ever had, but he's not a miserable failure like the last guy was. I appreciate that Obama's doing what he said he'd do. Integrity from a politician.
Wow.
The President announced that the US will pull all remaining troops from Iraq by the end of the year.
Most would call this a good thing. Conservatives disagree. They (apparently) see this as a "consequential failure," as Republican Senator John McCain put it, because of increasing/always-present tensions/hostility with Iran. The 2012 Republican Presidential-hopeful Mitt Romney said, "The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government." The concern is that by leaving Iraq we are giving Iran exactly what they want - a defenseless Iraq.
However, Obama is only keeping promises. Obama promised all of us that he'd end the war and bring our troops home. We also promised the Iraqi government in a signed agreement in 2008 that we would pull our troops from their country by December 2011. This was an agreement signed under President George W. Bush... not President Obama. Now conservatives are criticizing Obama for upholding the agreement that Republican President Bush made.
This reminds me of how conservatives blamed the crumbling economy, due to the outsourcing of American jobs overseas, on former President Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA into effect and opened the door for such possibilities. However, NAFTA was the brain-child of George H. W. Bush, who Americans voted out of office before he could pass it. Clinton signed NAFTA into effect as a courtesy; at the time, the country wanted it and it was simply the right thing to do. Had NAFTA not developed so many negative side effects, conservatives would have no problem reminding America that it was "the baby" of a Republican President. But that's not convenient for conservatives in this case, is it?
But I digress...
So, Obama is showing the integrity of his word to our country and to Iraq by bringing our troops home to their families... and this is a grave mistake? Surprisingly enough, the voice of reason has come from Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner. Boehner urged the President to "continue engaging with the Iraqi government in a way that ensures our hard-fought gains translate into long-term success." I think a resounding "duh" works well here, but seriously, he's being rational. He continued, "While I'm concerned that a full withdrawal could jeopardize those gains, I'm hopeful that both countries will work together to guarantee that a free and democratic Iraq remains a strong and stable partner for the United States in the Middle East."
And that, I believe, is the bigger point here. The United States is supposed to be a world leader. Being a leader means acting like it. That means exuding integrity and empowering others. We helped liberate Iraq, regardless of the debate in America as to whether or not we should have been there in the first place. We helped clean up and rebuild. We stayed to keep the peace, as oxymoronic as that may seem. We gave them our word that we'd leave. Now we're keeping a promise with an Iraqi government that wants the chance to shape its own future.
Some conservatives say that it shouldn't matter what the agreement was or what Iraq wants, they aren't equipped to do this on their own right now; they're not ready. As Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, the United States was still "keeping a real close eye on Iran" and would be "well equipped" to do so even after the withdrawal.
I agree. We've already sacrificed over 4,000 soldiers to this war. We've already signed an agreement. We've already promised our troops and their families. It's time to be the leader we claim to be and give Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own. It's time to have a little integrity again. It's time to be the same "greatest country on Earth" I was told we were when I was a kid.
Obama may not be the greatest president we've ever had, but he's not a miserable failure like the last guy was. I appreciate that Obama's doing what he said he'd do. Integrity from a politician.
Wow.
