Musing on Iraq's (No) News

From the AP, on a report that the US and Iraq have made a deal to have US troops out of the country in three years:

The war has claimed more than 4,200 American lives and killed a far greater, untold number of Iraqis, consumed huge reserves of money and resources and eroded the global stature of the United States, even among its closest allies.

I wonder if that last bit is true? Bush and the US stuck it out when all seemed lost. Now Iraqis are living good lives, voting in free elections, and are unafraid to speak their minds in a parliament made by the people for the people. These are the reasons you haven't seen Iraq in the news for months, and why this latest 3-year-deal isn't making headlines. Bush and Iraq never receive good press. What is good news for a president? No news. Iraq has become a bore.

We take it for granted that the stature of the United States has eroded because of this war. It's repeated endlessly, like a mantra. It's burned into our brains. "Bush failed. Iraq was a disaster. The global reputation of the US is in tatters."

I'm not so sure. If anything, Iraq has proved that the United States will not cut and run. It showed America's enemies that it will attack, stand, and fight.

That has to mean something positive to somebody. Vietnam gave the US a reputation of not seeing things through, not going for the throat, and of leaving people in the lurch when times got tough. The first Iraq war only confirmed it. That reputation has now been erased. Whether two, five, or twenty years from now, if a country needs US support but questions America's stomach, a president can point to Iraq and say, "We didn't leave them. We won't leave you."

In terms of stature, that has to carry some weight. Doesn't it?