The end of W's war.

 The pretzel logic being used by my right wing friends these days is stunning. They say things like the Iraqi war was successful because it led to the "Arab Spring". Then why is it that with the Muslim Brotherhood on the verge of taking over in Egypt , and with radical anti- American elements having a greater influence in places like Libya and Yemen; you  [right] wingnuts blame his Oness for not walking across the Atlantic Ocean and bringing peace and harmony to the region?

You can't have it both ways. If the invasion of Iraq led to the Arab Spring,  well then whatever flows from those uprisings is also a result of the Iraqi invasion. 

Anyway, the neocons and right wingnuts are upset because Obama is bringing home the troops.  Thankfully, the troops rolled across the Khabari Crossing into Kuwait with no incident early this morning. The wingnuts, of course, are not happy about these developments. They wanted more war not less. The narrative now, from the right, is that Obama is an appeaser; he is making America look weak, and he is not finishing what W started in the right way. The same W, BTW, who declared that the mission was accomplished about eight years too early. Sadly, there was still almost 4,500 American lives and over 100,000.00 Iraqi lives to be lost. Not to mention 770 billion one trillion in American dollars to be spent. 

W's war was foolhardy and misguided from the start. He should have listened to one of his father's advisers: "Besides arguing that Iraq was not the top strategic priority in the war on terrorism or in the Middle East, critics of the war also suggested that it could potentially destabilize the surrounding region. Prominent among such critics was Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Advisor to George H. W. Bush. In an August 15, 2002 Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "Don't attack Saddam," Scowcroft wrote that, “Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region... there would be an explosion of outrage against us... the results could well destabilize Arab regimes”, and, “could even swell the ranks of the terrorists.."  Mr. Scowcroft, do you give tips on betting football? I might have to give you a call.  

Iraq and the region is worse off now than when W and his merry men of neocons decided to invade almost nine years ago.  And saying that President  Obama, by ending it, is at fault for what continues to happen in Iraq, is like having someone come into your home,  s*#ting on your carpet, and then blaming Stanley Steemer for not getting the stain out. Just today I read that a boycott of the Iraqi parliament by a political coalition of Sunnis and secularist is threatening to derail the year long governing coalition in that country. So things are not even looking good on the political front over there.  I guess the [right]wingnuts wanted us to stay until the Iraqis could come to their Kumbaya moment.  Sorry, that would have been a hell of a long wait. 

Thanks to W, we lost this war when the first American soldiers stepped foot on Iraqi soil in 2003. Our mission there was never defined, and their strategy for success was a political and not a military one. The reason that we went there turned out to be either a lie or a mistake ------depending on who you want to believe.  And we stayed too long to achieve something that we all know could not be done in such a simplistic way in that part of the world: nation build.  

And if you still don't believe me about the foolhardiness of this war, consider the following:

"The Pentagon has spent nearly $770bn since 2003 on operations in Iraq. Categorized as overseas contingency operations, the sum is treated separately from the main defence budget, which has also included some funds for the Iraq war.

The World Bank estimates that Iraq's GDP fell by 41% in 2003.

The Iraq war and reconstruction is also projected to have cost US taxpayers $256m per day from 2003 to 2012, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Any accounting of the war's price tag also has to include billions in US civilian aid to Iraq, as well as the cost of care provided to wounded soldiers and veterans.

US government statistics do not distinguish between veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, as a large number of the 1.25 million veterans were deployed to both wars.

By the end of 2010, the United States had already spent nearly $32bn on medical treatment for wounded troops and payments for disability pensions, a benefit veterans receive for life.
The future cost of medical care and pensions for veterans will grow exponentially in coming decades. Linda Bilmes, professor at Harvard University, estimates that pensions through 2055 for veterans will reach $346bn to $469bn, mainly due to health care costs." [Source]

So welcome boys and girls. Hopefully you won't have to fight as hard at home for things like jobs, proper health care, and all the benefits that you are entitled to, like you fought the "enemy" over there.