As I made my morning commute I listened to the news and was kind of surprised that not once was Iraq mentioned. I guess I shouldn't have been that surprised as the war, or whatever one may call it, is old news. No one wants to hear about an old conflict that has little seeming effect on their dwindling savings accounts.
I started to ponder how history will remember the fall of the Ba'ath party, or if it will at all. Even successful wars, for lack of a better term, have a way of nary a mention in mass media. Even conflicts as recent as Korea and Panama have a way of escaping the collective conscious for reasons that may be obvious, but Iraq is of a different sort.
No military engagement since Vietnam was as polarizing as the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. This was largely a fault of our incompetent President as it was obvious then as it is now that they lied about evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Our national values were compromised through torture and humiliation of POWs, our intelligence department and it's key players were dragged through the mud, and our key informants found themselves exposed to the forces we were fighting. It was a large mess, but supporters and non were passionate about defending their stance.
Now that things have seemed to calm down in Iraq and the country's parliament is keeping control of the region as best they can no one seems to pay story any mind. Just a few years ago everyone had a strong opinion about Iraq, but now it's of little consequence. Given all this, will history prove Christopher Hitchens correct? Will Bush not be remembered for running one of the most incompetent administrations in recent memory?
We are doomed to repeat this...
"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that." - Donald Rumsfeld