by Lance Thompson

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gave Barack Obama a boost last week by meeting with the Democrat presidential nominee and endorsing Obama’s plan for a troop pullout in the German magazine Der Spiegel. Such profound gratitude has not been shown since the Brits voted out Winston Churchill after leading his nation safely through World War II.

Now that President Bush and General Petraeus have done the heavy lifting of knocking off Saddam Hussein, putting down insurrection, and fighting al-Qaeda and Iraqi Quds Force terrorists, al-Maliki is evidently anxious to get rid of his country’s saviors. "Here’s your hat–what’s your hurry?" is a phrase that comes to mind.

Maybe President Bush deserves no thanks for freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, despite intense political pressure to cut and run and the abject defeatism embodied by the Democrats. Maybe our armed forces deserve no appreciation for defending Iraqis from their enemies, both foreign and domestic, and rebuilding the country from electrical grids to schools and hospitals. Maybe John McCain deserves no credit for backing a vastly unpopular troop surge last year that resulted in the relatively safe and thriving Iraq that Obama breezed through on his very tardy visit to the central front on terror. But at least al-Maliki could have remained neutral in the American presidential election, rather than hosting and endorsing the plans of the candidate who fought against the Iraq war from the very beginning (until Obama realized we were winning).

Maybe al-Maliki thinks Obama has the election clinched, and wants to buddy up with the new Commander-in-Chief. But the slight was no accident–it was a deliberate slap in the face of the people who made it possible for al-Maliki to rise to his position of leadership of an emerging democracy.

In a similar exhibition of inexcusable ingratitude, the American people seem anxious to see the end of the Bush administration. With approval polls below 30%, Bush is one of the least popular presidents in recent history. Certainly, Bush has made many mistakes. He’s soft on illegal immigration, he championed the immensely expensive prescription drug bill, and he kept his veto pen in the drawer while the Republican congress spent like drunken Democrats.

But in the war against the Islamic jihadists that hit our shores on 11 September 2001, President Bush has been resolute and steadfast. Previously, terrorist attacks were treated as crimes. Bush rightly recognized that it was a war, and set the course of our nation to wage that war and win it. The political will was behind him only briefly, but the Democrats soon turned to opposition as they realized it was going to be a long, hard struggle. Typically, they cast their lot with the other side. As George Bush struggled mightily to bar the door against the terrorists, the Democrats castigated him for using an illegal lock.

Bush paid a heavy political price to prosecute the war, and was almost alone in insisting upon the surge (John McCain was one of a very few who supported it.) Now, we have the upper hand in Iraq, we have an oil-producing democracy in the Middle East for the first time since Carter pulled the rug out on the Shah, and we have not had another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/01. On the most urgent issue of our time, George Bush has been a stalwart champion. Yet less than 30% of Americans approve.

This November, Americans will choose a successor to George Bush. And on 20 January 2009, he will leave the Oval Office in the hands of a new president. Let us hope by then Americans will demonstrate the class and good manners that al-Maliki could not muster, and say goodbye to the Commander-in-Chief with respect for his determination and at least some gratitude for keeping us safe.