What was it all for . . . ?

With the official end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq, a weary-looking President Obama tried to put the best face on things, even finding something good to say about George W. Bush -- his support for the U.S. troops and his love for our country.

It angered Republicans that he did not give Bush credit for the surge that arguably helped bring things to an end. But, as Margaret Carlson wrote for Bloomberg:

"there would have been no surge had there been no decision to go to war in the first place. You don’t get credit for improvements made necessary by catastrophes you create."

A writer in the British Guardian put it well:

^{Mission accomplished? The Iraq war did more than anything to alienate the Atlantic powers from the rest of the world . . . . Iraqis are marginally freer than in 2003, and considerably less secure. Two million remain abroad as refugees from seven years of anarchy, with another 2 million internally displaced. Ironically, almost all Iraqi Christians have had to flee. Under western rule, production of oil – Iraq’s staple product – is still below its pre-invasion level, and homes enjoy fewer hours of electricity. This is dreadful.}

^{Some 100,000 civilians are estimated to have lost their lives from occupation-related violence. The country has no stable government, minimal reconstruction, and daily deaths and kidnappings. Endemic corruption is fuelled by unaudited aid. Increasing Islamist rule leaves most women less, not more, liberated. All this is the result of a mind-boggling $751bn of US expenditure, surely the worst value for money in the history of modern diplomacy.}

^{Thanks to Mickey Nardo for both of the quotes. I recommend going to his blog and reading his Sept. 1 post on summing up Iraq: 1boringoldman.com}

Ralph