Chip Bok's Bokbluster

President Obama is fond of insisting he won’t put boots on the ground. Even when no one is asking. But now he’s putting 275 pairs of “boots on the ground” to protect American assets as the Iraqi army melts away before ISIS terrorists. Here’s Dick Cheney in a controversial WSJ op-ed last week:

Watching the black-clad ISIS jihadists take territory once secured by American blood is final proof, if any were needed, that America’s enemies are not “decimated.” They are emboldened and on the march… When Mr. Obama and his team came into office in 2009, al Qaeda in Iraq had been largely defeated, thanks primarily to the heroic efforts of U.S. armed forces during the surge. Mr. Obama had only to negotiate an agreement to leave behind some residual American forces, training and intelligence capabilities to help secure the peace. Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

Cheney goes on to call Obama a fool. It’s hard to argue.

In the face of this threat, Mr. Obama is busy ushering America’s adversaries into positions of power in the Middle East. First it was the Russians in Syria. Now, in a move that defies credulity, he toys with the idea of ushering Iran into Iraq. Only a fool would believe American policy in Iraq should be ceded to Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terror… American freedom will not be secured by empty threats, meaningless red lines, leading from behind, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies, or apologizing for our great nation—all hallmarks to date of the Obama doctrine. Our security, and the security of our friends around the world, can only be guaranteed with a fundamental reversal of the policies of the past six years.

On the other hand, Kirsten Powers, still blames Bush.

She says none of this would have happened if Saddam Hussein were still around. “At least he was secular by Arab standards”. That’s hard to argue too. Note for next cartoon: Saddam – “Miss me yet?”

Personally I’m 0 for 2 on wars with Iraq. I was against the first one. When Saddam invaded Kuwait I figured both sides wanted to sell us oil and it wasn’t worth breaking things and killing people over which one got to do it. Besides, April Glaspie may have given Saddam reason to think he had a green light on rape and pillage in Kuwait.

As it turned out, Saddam had been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction before the first Iraq war. In light of that , and in the shadow 9/11, I was in favor of the second Iraq war. That put me in the same boat as Kerry, Hillary, and most of the rest of the Democratic leadership. The difference is I didn’t switch sides when WMD weren’t found in Iraq. Once you’re in a war it’s still better to win than lose. That’s where I admire Bush – that and his ability to draw pictures in the bathtub. He didn’t give up on the sacrifices made in Iraq, even though just about everyone else did – Dems and Republicans alike. He found Petraeus and won the war.