The Corner

Bush Ended the War in Iraq; What Obama Ended Was Our Influence There

By the time I got to Iraq in July 2007, the surge operations had utterly defeated the insurgency in Anbar province, Baghdad and most of the surrounding environs, and most of the Shiite heartland; and the Kurdish areas remained at peace. Basra remained restive (the central government of Iraq would take care of that the following year), but the only major pockets of resistance were in Diyala province and in the far north around Mosul. In most of Iraq, American casualties had dropped to levels commensurate with peacetime activities and attacks on coalition forces had virtually vanished.  

In the course of 2008, these gains were consolidated with elections that returned strong victories for pro-American, anti-Iranian, and anti–al Qaeda parties in Iraq, and were further consolidated with the strategic-framework agreements negotiated by the Bush administration. 

It was President Bush who ended the war in Iraq — by winning it. For Obama to claim that he ended the war in Iraq by bringing the troops home is as ridiculous as if he claimed credit for ending World War II by bringing troops home from Germany and Japan.

All Obama ended in Iraq was our position of strategic influence there, a priceless position gained after a horrifying sacrifice. Just imagine what the fate of Germany and Japan (and of democracy) might have been if we had abandoned those countries’ nascent democratic institutions at the start of the Cold War? We learned in the years after World War I that democracies are most vulnerable to subversion and demagoguery when they are youngest. It was the long-term presence of U.S. troops that allowed stable institutions of democratic politics and flourishing commerce to sink deep roots in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere on the periphery of the free world. A long-term presence in Iraq would have allowed us to do much the same, standing as bulwark against Iranian influence and guiding Iraq to a role of democratic leadership in a part of the world that desperately needs modern democracy to succeed.

Instead Obama utterly neglected Iraq, and made no effort to maintain the strategic position that the Bush administration bequeathed to him. As elsewhere in the Middle East, the Obama administration has merely presided over the erosion of American influence, leaving us far less able to safeguard our most vital interests, or ensure the future peace and prosperity of the Middle East. 

And that’s a “responsible end” to the war in Iraq? Please.  

Mario Loyola — Contributing editor Mario Loyola is senior fellow and Director of the Center for Competitive Federalism at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. He began his career in corporate ...

Most Popular


The Left, the Wall, the Truth

Democrats and others on the left offer three reasons for their opposition to building a wall on America's southern border. 1. A wall is ineffective. 2. A wall is too expensive. 3. A wall is immoral. Each one is false, so false as to constitute lies. So, the only question is: Do Democrats and others on ... Read More
White House

The FBI Tramples Our Political Order

The FBI took it upon itself to determine whether the president of the United States is a threat to national security. No one had ever before thought that this was an appropriate role for the FBI, a subordinate agency in the executive branch, but Donald Trump isn’t the only one in Washington trampling ... Read More