BROOKS: HALF RIGHT ON BUSH AND IRAQ

BROOKS WROTE ON OF HIS NOW PATENTED SPLITTING THE BABY COLUMNS TODAY - BOTH PRAISING AND DAMNING BUSH.

PROVING WHAT?!?! JUST THIS: "GOLLY, HOW MODERATE IS BROOKS!"

Brooks tries to take an historical approach to Bush and the Iraq War and argues that Bush got a lot worn and the big thing right when it counted: the Surge.

Brooks - whose historical approach only goes back as far as 2006 - explicitly buys into the theory that the surge could have and should have been started MUCH EARLIER.

I disagree.

I would argue that the surge began at the earliest FEASIBLE time.

Why do I argue this?

Simple: LET'S LOOK AT THE TIME-LINE GOING BACK TO 2004.

2004: THE US ELECTION: NOT A PROPITIOUS TIME FOR A MAJOR CHANGE IN TACTICS.

2005: IRAQI ELECTION:

• BUSH GOES FORWARD WITH IT DESPITE ATTACKS FROM THE LEFT/DEM/DOVES.
  
• THE FIRST ELECTION IS A HUGE SUCCESS.
• AS ARE THE ONES WHICH FOLLOWED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR ---
• BUT IT TAKES SIx MONTHS FOR A NEW GOVERNMENT TO BE FORMED

BUSH HAD TO WAIT FOR THIS TO HAPPEN - for these elections and government-forming elections to play out. He could not act unilaterally. To give the new Iraqi giovernment he hasd to wait and get their input. The Iraqis deserved this and it also necessary becasue democratization of Iraq was a central part of the overall strategy.

2006: IN FEBRUARY, AL QAEDA - SEEKING TO START A SECTARIAN WAR - BLOWS UP THE SHIA SHRINE, THE GOLDEN DOME IN SAMARRA. THE TACTIC WORKS, AND A SECTARIAN WAR BEGINS.

2006:

• IN NOVEMBER, BUSH AND THE GOP LOSE CONGRESS, AND BUSH REASSESSES.
• HE FIRES RUMSFELD AND - AS BROOKS RELATES - IGNORES CASEY, ABIZAID AND BAKER-HAMILTON AND THE CHORUS OF APPEASERS AND ORDERS THE SURGE.
• IT TAKES TIME TO BUILD UP THE FORCE AND EMPLOY THE NEW TACTICS.

• AND AFTER A YEAR, THE RESULTS OF THE SURGE ARE IN: WE WON THE SECOND WAR IN IRAQ - A WAR STARTED BY AL QAEDA AND INVOLVING CENTURIES OLD SECTARIAN STRIFE.

The only time ANYONE can possibly rationally argue was wasted was the time between February 2006 and November 2006 - 9 months... NINE MOTHS IN WHICH BUSH GAVE CASEY AND ABIZAID A CHANCE.

They failed. Then Bush acted.

OKAY OKAY OKAY: hindsight is 20-20. And Brooks and other critics of Bush on this count are looking at things through THEIR HINDS!

from 2004 till now, Bush acted in a reasonable way considering the changes on the ground and what he knew at the time. Considering the changes on the ground he acted correctly. And as a result, history will record the two Iraq Wars as ones fought brilliantly and gallantly and honorably in comparison to all other wars we've fought.

I would have done things differently: I would have nuked Tora Bora in 2001, and after toppling Iraq I would have put mines along the border of Syria and Saudi Arabia and patrolled them with drones. (Them again: this would've prevented the FLYPAPER STRATEGY from working.)

And I would have demanded that Afghanistan and Iraq use constitutions modeled on our own.

But other than that, I applaud Bush - and especially our TROOPS!

God Bless Them and their Families!