How history will judge the Iraq War
- January 20, 2009
- Politics
- Leave a Comment
William McGurn writes in the Wall Street Journal that George W. Bush’s greatest failure was his victory in Iraq:
Mr. Bush’s disfavor in Washington owes more to his greatest success. Simply put, there are those who will never forgive Mr. Bush for not losing a war they had all declared unwinnable.
In other words, many people expected Iraq to be a complete and total failure, yet President Bush stubbornly proved them wrong, much to their dismay.
The article goes on to explain how this expectation of defeat is clearly rooted in “Vietnam thinking,” which begs the question: When everything is said and done, how will history ultimately judge the Iraq War?
Will we look back on it 30 years from now as another Vietnam, a long and drawn-out military campaign with no clear metrics for victory and one which ended only because our collective will finally gave out? Or will we see it as a turning point, not only in the war on Islamic terrorism and not only for the people of Iraq, but for America as a whole, a sound rebuttal to our past inadequacies?
From the outset, I disagreed with President Bush’s decision to go into Iraq, yet once there, it became crystal clear we had to finish what we had started. Leaving prematurely because we weren’t winning fast enough simply wasn’t an option. To his credit, Mr. Bush understood that, even when his critics did not. And now because of his steadfast commitment, we have a real opportunity to walk out of Iraq with our heads held high.
Michael Goldfarb points out in the Weekly Standard blog, “The result is that Obama has inherited victory in Iraq.” And there’s the answer to the question.
If we ultimately win in Iraq, President Obama will most certainly get the credit; if we lose, President Bush will most certainly get the blame.
History, as they say, is written by the victors.
Previously:
President Bush: the exit interview













