If Florida's former governor Jeb Bush had not staked his claim on the Republican nomination, Iraq would still have figured in next year's US presidential campaign. In that case, the Obama administration would have been the target of attacks.



The neocons say that it was President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw US troops in December 2011 that prevented the emergence of a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.” By not putting sufficient pressure on Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki to keep a robust US force in Iraq, the argument runs, Obama threw away the victory achieved by 2007's troop “surge” and allowed Iraq to be lost.



However, Jeb Bush's entry has fundamentally changed the nature of the Iraq debate. Now the focus is on the beginning of the war or its preparations, not the troop withdrawal in 2011. This is for two reasons. Jeb is the brother of George W. Bush who invaded Iraq. Secondly, he has surrounded himself by the same group of advisers who shaped or unduly influenced the former president's defense and foreign policies. The group includes Bush's Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who argued that America would not have to spend anything on the war because Iraq “swims on a sea of oil.” He also said that the Iraqis would “welcome us as liberators.”



Jeb Bush's trouble started with a question over Iraq that Megan Kelly first posed to him on Fox News. Knowing what we know now, Kelly asked him, would he have authorized the invasion of Iraq. Yes, Bush said the first time. Then a day later, he said he had not properly understood the question. Speaking at another event, Jeb said harping on “hypotheticals does a disservice to a lot of people who sacrificed a lot.” Finally, he admitted that in hindsight he would not have ordered the war.



Bush’s inability to give a clear answer to Kelly's question the first time it was posed may be attributed to an unwillingness to let his brother down or lack of skills or experience at handling the media. But it has infuriated the neocons who sold the war to the American people on the false pretext of preventing Saddam Hussein from building weapons of mass destruction. For one thing, Jeb may force the rest of the Republican presidential field to say that knowing what we know now, invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was a mistake. What is more, he has unwittingly allowed himself to be used by those who never miss an opportunity to insult the former president. Worse still, Jeb Bush's prevarication has allowed Obama to escape blame for “not finishing the job” in Iraq.



But could Obama have “finished the job” even if he secured the best terms for a status of forces agreement? More important, could Obama, a war opponent, have secured better terms from Al-Maliki for a status of forces agreement than Bush who put Al-Maliki in office? The fact is that Americans were so unpopular in Iraq that neither Al-Maliki nor President Jalal Talabani turned up for the departure ceremony for US soldiers held in a makeshift parade ground in a corner of Baghdad airport. The name tags attached to two empty chairs in the front row told what even those Iraqis who benefited most from the war thought of their American liberators.



Jeb Bush's stumbling on the Iraq war may cost him the party's nomination. But his brother's preemptive invasion has cost countless numbers of Iraqis their lives, livelihoods, homes and sense of personal security.



Unfortunately, some American politicians still think that the only way they can prove their national security credentials is by undermining the security of other countries.