Obama is leaving Iraq under tolerable circumstances since he was opposed to Bush’s Iraq invasion to begin with.

The real question is how long will Bush’s democracy last in Iraq after US withdrawal.

Centripetal forces have been tearing Iraq apart ever since Clinton’s imposition of ‘no fly zones’ in 1990s.

Iran will be the real winner when it moves in to help its sister Shiite Iraqi regime first to suppress the Kurdish rebellion and then Al Qaeda-led Sunni insurgency. That is if Iraq’s so-called Shiite democrats can form a democratic government.

How long can current political impasse without the formation of a government last before security situation so deteriorates that some Iraqi Army General decides to take over to prevent further chaos with Washington‘s blessings?

With that will go Bush’s last justification to democratize Iraq and hence the middle east out the window.

All the man and material sacrifices of US will be seen as ’wasted’ since those US soldiers could not have died for a dictatorial Iraq, similar to that under Saddam Hussein.

Wall Street privatizes gains and dumps losses on the taxpayer. Bush Republicans -- specifically, former officials in the last administration -- claim credit for successes, or at least for non-disastrous events, while talking as little about possible about the many fiascos for which they were responsible. Those got dumped on other people, mostly on those brave troops.

Perhaps I am being uncharitable in noting the coincidence. After all, some hedge funds are associated with Wall Street, and over the last three-odd years a number of hedge funds have failed without saddling taxpayers with any bailout costs at all.

Incidentally, while I stand behind no man in praising the adaptability of the American soldier, the post here elides the distinction between "the troops" and their commanders. Senior Army and Marine generals in Iraq, as a whole, certainly did not perform well for much of the war. They did not adapt successfully to a different type of war, nor did they foresee looming difficulties in time to forestall them. They got outfought by a materially inferior enemy despised by much of Iraq's population.

After American generals in Iraq failed, they got promoted (Casey) or awarded Medals of Freedom (Franks). Some of them pursued book deals (Franks, Sanchez) in an effort to cash in on their service. Contributors on this blog are mostly interested in fighting George Bush's battles, not in military affairs, but it's worth noting also that the strongest opposition to Gen. Petraeus and his approach to the Iraq war in the 2006-07 period came from his fellow generals.

Soldiers deserve honor when they serve. Generals only deserve it when they win. The record of senior American command in the Iraq war is not a record of success. The country will suffer for it if this weakness in the American military system is not addressed. I wish President Obama had thought to make some mention of this subject in his speech last night.

Bush was courageous to push for surge against advice of his military?

Ridiculous.

Recall that Bush did not push for any change until it was clear that there was momentum to impose change on him. At this point Bush could clearly see that the Iraq war - his signature project - was preparing to enter the history books as a debacle.

It was this possibility, and not all that had transpired in the previous 3.5 years, that prompted him to seek an alternative approach.

Far from courageous, Bush's surge was principally an effort to escape immediate judgement for his choices and his previous conduct of the war, with the hope of a better ending, or at least a bad ending on someone else's watch.

Fortunately for Bush, he was not alone in cheerleading for the war, and thus not alone in straining to push a narrative in which he exhibited steadfast and courageous leadership.

By Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010

"Saddam was obsessed with Iran. Imagine the effect on the jolly Iraqi's thinking come 2005 and the rise to stardom of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, publicly mocking the West's efforts to shut his nuclear program and threatening enemies with annihilation. Saddam would have joined the nuclear bad-boys club with Iran and North Korea. This would have incentivized Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan to enter the nuclear marketplace. Pakistan and India would be increasing their nuke-tinged tensions, not trying as now to ease them."