Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHAT BUSH DID RIGHT ON IRAQ.
Marc Lynch has a nice argument pushing back on the conventional wisdom that Bush's finest moment in Iraq was the surge. "Perhaps we could have another round of arguments as to whether the surge brigades arriving in the spring of 2007 caused the Sunni turn against al-Qaeda in the fall of 2006?" he asks. But he's willing to give a bit of post-partisan ground. Bush did have a genuinely admirable turn in his Iraq policy. But it wasn't the surge. It was the Status of Forces Agreement.
"Signing a Status of Forces Agreement requiring the full withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq on a fixed three year timeline demonstrated a real flexibility on Bush's part," says Lynch. "It demonstrated a pragmatism and willingness to put the national interest ahead of partisanship that few of us believed he possessed. It is largely thanks to Bush's acceptance of his own bargaining failure that Barack Obama will inherit a plausible route to successful disengagement from Iraq."
COMMENTS (5)
Ezra, this is a bit off-topice, but ...
I keep seeing "THE SURGE" being echoed in the MSM as a moment when conservatives were right because they wanted to SURGE in Iraq and libs didn't and the SURGE WORKED ... however, my understanding is that the surge was done specifically to achieve a number of political goals in Iraq and as far as I can remember, NONE of those goals were achieved.
Isn't that what happened?
The goal of the surge wasn't to reduce violence (it stands to reason that if you dumped a whole lot more troops in one area, violence would go down) but to reduce violence so we can achieve goals A, B and C.
None of those political goals were realized, right?
Therefore, the surge didn't work, it failed, correct?
Posted by: Joshua James | January 19, 2009 11:18 AM
It's a fools errand to predict how history will treat President Bush, especially about the Iraq war.
Let's all remember that Lincoln was reviled on all fronts.
Posted by: El Viajero | January 19, 2009 12:50 PM
except when he won the 1860 and 1864 elections
Posted by: publius | January 19, 2009 3:25 PM
The thing that really stands out for me in this post isn't its main point, but this:
he conventional wisdom that Bush's finest moment in Iraq was ...
I was taught in English 101 that the use of the superlative ("finest") requires at least two other data points.
Posted by: Saffi | January 19, 2009 4:54 PM
Bull. Bush's signing the agreement didn't show flexibility, wisdom or anything else except necessity. He agreed to a deadline back when he believed there would be a permanent Republican majority. If he didn't sign the agreement, the U.S. troops presence would have ceased to be legal. Iraq knew that, and Iraq's main ally (Iran, not the U.S.) knew that. They stalled until he ran out of time, and Bush had only two options, sign anything he could beg for, or sign a short extension and leave it to Obama to dictate terms. He chose what in his mind was the lesser of the evils.
Posted by: Eric | January 19, 2009 6:06 PM