In March 2003 when President George W. Bush ordered troops into Iraq with the full consent of both Republicans and Democrats in congress, then Illinois sate senator, Barack Obama, said there was no national security interest to do so. In 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Mr. Obama voted against the surge of troops in Iraq which eventually turned the War in favor of the United States, saying once again that there was no national security interest there. During the presidential campaign of 2008, candidate Obama promised to retreat from Iraq because, once again, there was no national security interest in prosecuting the war any further. After becoming president, Barack Obama could not pull troops out of Iraq fast enough, leading to the current enervation of peace, a peace which he was handed by the Bush administration in January of 2009.
When George W. Bush decided, after digesting all the available information at the time, that it would be necessary to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein according to the official policy of the United States made so by President Clinton, he made his case to the American people and the United Nations. The evidence was clear that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 for blowing themselves up in Israel and taking with them as many Jews as possible. Other evidence showed that Saddam was hosting Al Qaeda training camps inside his country. And of course there was Saddam's own admission, backed by most of the intelligence agencies in the world, that he was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
All the reasons given for invading Iraq eventually revealed themselves to be frighteningly true. Even the weapons of mass destruction, many of which have recently shown up in Syria, was proven to be a valid reason for invading Iraq. My question is that if Barack Obama has spent the last decade preaching the "No national security interest" sermon, why now is he saying his bombing campaign is going to be a protracted operation? If there is no security interest, why provide any military intervention? Certainly Mr. Obama, as well as the rest of the intellectual garbage disposals on the Left, realize that national security is the primary mission of the U.S. military. There is no valid reason to use the military for a primarily humanitarian mission.
It requires a super-sized portion of denial not to understand that the world is a less safe place with weak American leadership. The current mass killings, kidnappings, and the wreaking of general havoc in many parts of the world is a direct result of a United States president that gave material support to the terrorist group ISIS in Syria, allowed them to escalate violence in Iraq, and then dropped a few bombs to make it look as though he was trying to fix that which he broke. All the while blaming his predecessor, who by the way, has not been president for over five and half years.
Mr. Obama, as a function of running for president, called Iraq a "bad" war. In typical Leftist fashion, he was more interested in ending a war than in winning it. Somewhere in the dark recesses of his mind, Barack Obama knows he screwed up by pulling troops out of Iraq too soon. But he can not very well send them back in there, so he will conduct bombing raids until they do not work, then he will say Iraq was lost by George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama will have trained another ally not to trust the United States. That is the real shame of the president's Iraq policy, it has denied the U.S. an ally in a region where we desperately need them.