Obama’s policy has been “demolition by neglect.”

Obama’s policy has been “demolition by neglect.”

Gates’ book exposes Obama’s ‘demolition by neglect’ of our ally Iraq

The new book by former defense secretary Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War exposes the folly of President Barack Obama’s handling of our war in Iraq just in time.

Iraq is back in the headlines as we harvest the fruits of our abandonment of the Iraqi people and the functioning democracy there that was treated like a true secret by the American press.

There is no issue more responsible for the election in 2008 of President Barack Obama than Iraq.



Throughout his primary fight with Hillary R. Clinton, he rhetorically bludgeoned her lack of judgment because as a New York senator she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Now in Gates’ book we learn that during a three-way conversation between Obama, Clinton and himself that the then-secretary of state confessed to the president that her opposition to the Surge in Iraq was purely political because of his criticism.

Then, as if Gates, a holdover from the administration of George W. Bush, who led the Pentagon during the Surge, Obama confessed that he actually also opposed the Surge for political considerations.



It seems the only reason Gates was surprised was that he was a statesman from the old school, not an operator in the new politics mastered by Clinton and Obama.

Back in 2006, before the Surge was launched, Clinton actually complained that Bush did not have enough troops in Iraq. Then, the calculation was that as the country spun out of control Bush would have no choice but to cut-and-run. Betting that Bush would retreat, Clinton called for a new offensive, leaving her as the blameless hawk with 2008 came around.

But, when Bush doubled-down, he put the war back on track for victory and blew up the Clinton’s calculations.

Despite her opposition to the Surge, Obama painted Iraq as a crazy war born of lies and conducted as an evil crusade by George W. Bush—and thus his partner, Clinton.

Because Clinton had no adequate response, Obama kept banging away as if he was correct.

After he beat Clinton, Obama claimed to support a continued troop presence.

Upon taking office, Obama made it his steadfast goal to withdraw American combat troops from our Iraq ally.

All American troops were out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011—but, Obama promised a “Diplomatic Surge” that would pick up the torch from the Army’s “advise and assist” mission that began in 2009 as the last surge-surge troops rotated home.

But, let’s be honest, there was no diplomatic surge, and while there was some commerce, the security situation has been unraveling ever since.

Iraq in 2010 was on the glide path to becoming South Korea or a similar client state. Although there was slippage in 2011, when it became clear that Obama intending to cut-and-run, all it was still a stable relatively peaceful regime.

In 2011, there were no firefights and the IED threat had become less dire. There were still rocket attacks, but this was closer to vandalism than warfare.

Economically, there was a burst of activity as the American and Iraq forces cleared out insurgents from its population clusters. But, the real pop was going to come from the upgrade of the port city of Um Qasr and its linkup with a rebuilt railroad network.

Once Um Qasr, the country’s only ocean port, was certified—a project of the U.S. Coast Guard, shippers could insure their Iraqi-bound freight. Insurance significantly reduces the cost of goods and combined with modern facilities and rail system the cost of feed and seed would collapse.

This collapse in the price of feed and seed would have been the equivalent of the Big Bang. The subsequent drop in the price to raise crops and livestock would simultaneously bolster the agriculture sector and make possible a well-fed urban workforce.

All of these steps were stopped cold when Obama abandoned the Iraqis. Without the backstop of American military mentorship and troops, the Iraqis devolved.
Now, in 2014 Iraq is falling apart at the seams.

Instead of supporting Iraq and honoring the sacrifice of the men and women killed in a war meant to set Iraq on the right course, Obama’s policy has been “demolition by neglect.”

Despite of the swells and fancies who dismissed Iraq’s geo-political and economic importance, there could come a day soon when American servicemen return to the New Iraq.

The truth is that Iraq is so important that our war there was actually justified simple by that importance.

The shame is what it will cost in blood and treasure to make up for the progress Obama threw away—not for any rational consideration, but for spite.