“Ninety percent of Iraqis supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, greeted American troops as liberators with flowers and candy,” said a local journalist, whose office I was sharing while I was reporting this week. “Now, 90 percent feel the same way as al-Zaidi.”

“Thanks to you, the Iraq we’re standing in today is dramatically freer, dramatically safer and dramatically better than the Iraq we found eight years ago,” the Los Angeles Times quoted Bush during his visit.

But besting Saddam Hussein shouldn’t have been this hard.

“The work hasn’t been easy, but it’s been necessary,” Bush said after meeting Iraq’s Presidency Council. He called the buildup of U.S. troops in 2007 “one of the greatest successes in the history of the United States military” and the Status of Forces Agreement, which he and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki symbolically signed, “a reminder of our friendship and as a way forward to help the Iraqi people realize the blessings of a free society.”

If this were the case, if there was hope on the streets and feasible plans for the future, Iraqis wouldn’t throw shoes at the president of the United States.

But Bush, in his final month in office, is painting Iraq as a success, progress after tough times, nearing victory after tough battles. The reality is: it’s not. Iraq does not yet wear American-made designer shoes; it wears a pair of thin, worn and hole-pocked hand-me-down shoes after years of going barefoot. Violence is down, but only low compared to the days in 2006 and 2007, when bodies were found daily. The demographic map of Baghdad now is evidence of ethnic cleansing, Shiite and Sunni, if they’ve returned to the country, relegated to “their neighborhoods.” This after Saddam Hussein’s time — unquestionably brutal and genocidal in his own right — of intermarrying and protection from religious fundamentalism.

There are neighborhoods unsafe for an Iraqi to go through, let alone an American. A suicide bombing outside a Baghdad checkpoint Monday killed three people, according to McClatchy’s daily roundup of violence, which is seldom blank. Four days earlier, a restaurant in the northern city of Kirkuk exploded, killing 55 and wounding more than 100.

The Overseas Security Advisory Council, a federal advisory committee coordinating security intelligence between the U.S. government and American business overseas, said in the first week of December, al-Qaida in Iraq “demonstrated its continued capability to launch deadly attacks, perpetrating a series of successful attacks against both Iraqi security forces and Iraqi government targets.” At least 54 Iraqis died and hundreds were injured in attacks throughout the country as AQI “demonstrated its ability to adapt to Iraq’s changing security situations.”

Political disputes over provincial and national elections, a referendum on disputed territories and creating an autonomous region in oil-rich Basra province will be rough going for average Iraqis, fodder for militias and armed political groups, most of who were not run off in “The Surge,” but took a break.
And if President-elect Barak Obama doesn’t dispel this myth of Bush winning Iraq, let alone allow his Iraq policy advisers to believe it, he’s in for a swift kick when the Sunni insurgents-turned-security face-off against the Shiite government, when Kurdish-Arab disputes continue to stall government operations, and when Iraqis en masse throw shoes in frustration of the outstanding need to basic services that human rights demand, after six years of losing loved ones.

Much blame can be laid on the Iraqi government: many have played politics while the citizens want. But the political infrastructure and the power struggles in Parliament are a creation of the U.S. experiment in Iraq. And when Congress asks why the United States should spend more money on reconstruction, a look at the SIGIR report unveils the cynicism of the question: the U.S. government wasted, not spent, most of the money the taxpayers sent here.

The Democratic Party on a national level — most recent election withstanding — has woken up each day, tied its shoelaces together and wondered why it tripped in getting its message out. Dems either approved or didn’t articulate the strategic faults of the Bush operation in Iraq, and the result is Iraqis and the world will suffer as consequence. Its electoral losses at the start of the Bush presidency and slight gains since are more a result of voter reaction to the Bush policies than acceptance of Democratic promise.

When Iraq’s violence escalates, President Obama better not be caught on his heels when he’s blamed for losing Bush’s win here. Neither he nor the Democratic Party will be able to duck their opponents’ flying shoes as easily as Bush. AlterNet/Posted byBulatlat.com

 Save as PDF