That Iraq War

Bush was right and at least justified in going to war. One thing needs to become clear. WMD stockpiles were not the major justification of the war. The Resolution for the use of Force in Iraq was passed by majorities of both parties. It contained 22 clauses, with only 2 mentioning stockpiles of WMDs, and the bulk, at 12, concerning UN resolutions and Iraq’s violation of them. The emphasis was rather on Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs and its refusal to destroy its previous ones. Of course this has certainly been justified. Sarin bombs have been found, indicating that Iraq had not destroyed all of its weapons as it claimed. It seems most people have forgotten about this, which is distressing. David Kay has said this: "I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." And this: That Iraqi scientists were "actively working to produce a biological weapon using the poison ricin." This is exactly what the war was about. The threat of WMDs, which was a threat clearly exhibited by Iraq. After all, if you are going to invade a country because of massive WMD stockpiles, you are going to do it secretly, striking all at once, with as little warning as possible. "If one country is afraid that another country has WMD and might use them, you don’t start threatening them with war months before you are ready and wage a very public countdown to a proposed attack date. If you really believe a country has WMD, you say nothing and make no threats until you are ready to strike." (268-269, America's Secret War)

Even if you're still hung up on the whole "no WMD" bull, the case isn't exactly closed yet. Consider these statements by Duelfer: "On November 17, 2004, Duelfer told the House International Relations Committee that a lot was moved by Saddam's people from Iraq into Syria and no one knows whether or not the WMD were among the shipments to Syria: 'I can't confirm anything one way or the other. What we do know is that a lot of stuff was crossing the border before the war. Trucks, but you don't know what was in them. So that's -- you know, I would like to be able to state definitively one way or the other an answer to that. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to.'" [...] "...But what I can tell you that I believe we know is a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say." Hmm.....facinating.

Hans Blix has said that he was against the war under all circumstances. Nevertheless, in his book he states that resolution 1441 was diplomatic language for an ultimatum for war. The deadline for compliance came, and Saddam submitted a 12,000 page report that Blix calls smoke and mirrors, that the information submitted was from deceptive reports that Saddam had submitted in the past, that thousands of weapons were unaccounted for, and that it did not in fact fulfill the requirements the Security Council had laid down. Whatever one may think of the war, it was not illegal or unjustified.

Iraq was most definitely a danger to the United States. Just ask Vladamir Putin. Iraq was certainly a threat for numerous reasons, and even Russia, opposed to the war, knew it.

There were other equally important reasons for invading Iraq. Iraq is the key to the entire region strategically. In the war on terrorism and Al Qaida, Iraq was a threat to the US, but so was Saudi Arabia. The United States did not want to overthrow the Saudi Royal Family, as this would not solve any problems. From the beginning, the Saudis had not been helpful to the US. They had neither endorsed Al Qaida, but neither had they done anything to stop it. They had played a game, bending whichever way the wind blew, and expecting the US to agree to most, if not all of its demands. They did not expect the US would do anything about it, and did not think them capable of it. The invasion of Iraq completely dispelled these myths, and put nonporous pressure on Saudi Arabia:: "the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes..." "The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: ‘Not a single regime has fallen to al-Qa'ida . . . There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking . . . At this point the US is winning . . . The war goes on.’" See also.

It also without doubt took the war to the enemy. The terrorists have been reeling, and what seemed likely just a few years ago, that there would be major attacks in US cities by terrorists, has not happened. Not only has it not happened, but the focus of al Qaida has been shifted. Osama is making videos, not bombs, and terrorists are expending nearly all of their energy fighting in Iraq, where it is possible to fight them. There is almost no real way to combat terrorism within the United States. It was therefore absolutely essential to take the fight to the enemy. Which in itself is sound military doctrine.

Now, no doubt some hate George Bush and therefore feel the Iraq war is wrong, but there has been ample justification for it. The whole stockpiles issue is old and tired, gaining credibility through tautology. The war in Iraq is an integral part in the war on terror.