[BenLurkin]

You mean WAS Iraq worth it?

We're just about out of there.

[glockmeister40]

Is Iraq worth it? Yes. It gives us a base to attack the larger enemy, which is Iran.

[Enterprise]

"However, Iraq is another {major} Islamist front, on the ground of Bush’s choosing, and yes it's worth it."

Iraq is a convenient launching point for the coming invasion of Iran.

[Jackson Brown]

In the section "Link to Terrorists", the Senate Intel report covers Iraq links to terrorists in general and especially Al Qaeda -- 66 pages worth -- showing that Iraq trained them in chemical, biological, NUCLEAR, and bomb making from "1990 to present".

In addition, the report also covers Iraq having 100s of terrorist training camps for home grown Iraqi terrorist from "1996 to present" specifically dedicated to training to hit US and US interests.

As far as I'm concerned, no additional activity by Saddam -- than what this report validates -- is required in to make a valid case that Saddam was a clear and undeniable threat to the US!

[rintense]

In a word, yes.

[WhiteGuy]

Is Iraq Worth it?

Worth it for whom?

The president?

The taxpayers?

The defense industry?

The innocent American civilians?

[claudiustg]

How do you split a log? You drive a wedge into it. Iraq serves as a wedge between Syria and Iran. Afganistan serves as a wedge between Pakistan and Iran. If Israel can isolate the Palestinians, the Middle East will be pacified. The free floating kind of terror that we've witnessed these many years will simply not be possible.

[LifeTrek]

From my "The Fronts in This War" Post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1176898/posts

Amazingly even after the attack on Pearl Harbor people failed to realize that we had been brought into a WORLD WAR. Unfortunately there are still those out there that fail to understand that this has happened again (including the amazing Mr. Kerry who feels the term war is too harsh.)

Was it part of the war on Japan to invade Africa? How can people with a straight face try to separate Iraq from the overall war?

The War on Terror involves many fronts, the most prominent of which are: - The Economic Homefront - the 9/11 attacks cost the US nearly 1 trillion. The agressive action by the administration turned the recession around (see Alan Greenspan comments 7/21/2004 for confirmation). - Afganistan - the agressive action by the administration has liberated millions and disrupted terrorist command and control (see the 9/11 report.) - Iraq - the agressive action by the administration has liberated millions and made the US safer (see the 9/11 commission report) as well as caused a vaccuum drawing many terrorists in to fight on our terms rather then on our soil. - Reformation of our traditional alliances, trusting those who share our interests rather then those who would rather sell out for their oil vouchers. - Continious strengthing of our homeland security.

Then there is the clandestine front that we will probably never hear about. People wonder why Tenant was allowed to stay as long as he did - my reply, there are probably many victories that we will never know about.
DKK





DKK

[Grey Ghost II]

However, Iraq is another {major} Islamist front

so's Detroit and that's in our back yard. What's the solution to that one?

[xzins]

Serbia responded by reverting to tactics used by their own Nazi occupiers in the 1940's by systematically wiping out Muslim communities

If this is true, then what happened to all of the mass graves that supposedly would be found?

[PatriotGirl827]

bump

[Billthedrill]

Good heavens, yes. The principal benefit is the breakup of a well-funded and well-organized international effort to produce nuclear weapons and disperse them among the participants: Iraq, North Korea, Libya for sure, and Lord knows who else. The second was to remove major state support for organized terror organizations, Afghanistan being the first effort in that direction and Syria, Iran, and yes, Saudi Arabia being put on notice that we've had enough games.

But the real value is medium- and long-term, and that is the foundation of genuinely representative, elective governments where before ruled the iron fist and secret policeman's truncheon. This, in my view, is the most powerful and subversive reply possible to a rich, violent, and self-righteous cult of murderers, and although our putative "allies" refuse to recognize that fact, the murderers certainly do, and are suicidally desperate to stop it. Hence Iraq.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I see Iraq as worth it, and just another front vs the Islamists along with Kosovo, Chechnya, Morocco {damn French lost that one}, Afghanistan {80's & post 9/11}, Philippines ect. In a vacuum, if GW2 was just about WMDs & Saddam, then no, it was not worth it.

"Just about Saddam" ignores a big issue.

The choice before us, realistically, was this:

1. Take out Saddam (invasion)

2. Saddam survives, sanctions are lifted as he gains fair amount of independence, he goes nuclear within 10-year timeframe

There is no 3.

A lot of people speak about Saddam as if the status quo - a "contained" Saddam who we could "contain" and prevent from going nuclear because of this magical thing "containment" (which, uh, was being cheated on left and right) - was something that could be kept going for all eternity. Just keep doing it! On and on! Throughout the Hussein dynasty, as Hussein passes power to his kids, them to their kids, etc! (The year is 3872, and the United States... has bases in Kuwait from which pilots daily get up and patrol the "no-fly zone", because it's JUST TOO COSTLY to take Saddam's great^50'th grandson out of power....)

This is fricking ridiculous. How long were we supposed to keep the Hussein dynasty in power anyway? (That is what we were doing. Calling a ceasefire and preserving a protracted standoff with a dictator, in which you initiate economic warfare on that dictator's country, whatever else it does, keeps that dictator in power. It prevents his people from being able to overthrow him, so he will stay in power (unless YOU choose to overthrow him), thus you're keeping him in power.)

But never mind, he was "just Saddam".

This ignores: the cost of patrolling the "no-fly zones", the need to have bases in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait from which to do it, Saddam firing at our patrols, the fact that "oil for food" was a big scam some of the money which was channeled to terrorists (!), the AQ Khan outsourced nuke network, and the political momentum against the "sanctions" regime (remember how the sanctions were "killing 500000 Iraqi babies"???).

The truth is that we should have finished the job in 1991. Take out Saddam, help the rebels against him. Yes our generals weighed the cost of that, and it looked huge.

But the cost of not doing that has arguably been huger. Suppose we had gone to Baghdad.

No "sanctions", no whining about our killing the perennial 500000 Iraqi babies, no patrolling "no fly zones", no need for our troops (infidels!!) in Saudi Arabia....

Heck, when you look at the grievances which Bin Laden was publishing prior to 9/11, 99% of them seem to boil down to things the US had to do as a direct result of not taking out Saddam in the first damn place.

IMHO you can toss 9/11, every last casualty, into the "cost of not finishing the job in '91" column.

So, the choice is somewhat different than you present. Saddam was not some faraway person with whom we had no relationship. He was a declared enemy - who had killed Americans - with whom we had a ceasefire, which was costing us (or "blowing back" on us, if you will) quite a bit in terms of increased terrorism against us. (Whether he was directing it, or not, really doesn't matter in this analysis.)

The point is we were being charged a semi regular fee in order not to go to Baghdad. We paid that fee with the USS Cole. We paid it even more on 9/11. To say that we should have kept up the "sanctions"/"containment" is to say that we should have kept on paying that fee. That's a difficult sell, to me.

It also ignores the high likelihood that the "sanctions" were going to go bye-bye. One more (D) administration, one more propaganda push about the dead Iraqi babies... remember that (I think it was) France proposed to the UN to drop the sanctions after 9/11!!

Iraq was a strategic choice. It was a strategic choice made by our administration to win the Gulf War rather than lose it. (In this sense, anyway, I think the Bush haters have a point: Bush was "finishing what his daddy started". I'm glad for it.) This choice prevented the emergence of a newly strong (for "standing up to" the U.S.), nuclear-armed (again - all estimates put this on a 10-year time frame; Joe Wilson's BS doesn't set that timetable back at all), oil-rich Iraq headed by Saddam Hussein (and his descendants), its wealth at his disposal for his Saladin ambitions.

Because, make no mistake, that WAS the alternative.

I've yet to see a single convincing argument why that alternative ought to be considered preferable by any American.

[Cultural Jihad]

Is selflessly bringing democracy and human rights to millions of hitherto oppressed and brutalized people worth it? Is our national security worth it? Let me think about that for a while. Okay, they are.

[Brilliant]

The simple answer is "No." The more complicated answer is that we aren't there because of Iraq. We're there because of America. We were attacked on 9/11. The attack was brought about by the failure of American leadership to deal with unchecked terrorism. We can argue about whether this was the best way to deal with it, but it's clear that by attacking Iraq, the US attacked al Qaeda. The more complicated answer, then, is "Yes."

[tarator]

What are you talking about? The US was on the side of the islamists in Afghanistan(in the 80s), in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia more recently. It is only when the dog we fed bit us on the ass that we turned against it.

[Ben Chad]

It's too soon to judge. History will tell.

[drq]

Read this--->Secretary of Defense Message to Troops on Why We Fight in Iraq

[WOSG]

Yes, fighting and winning in Iraq is WELL WORTH IT. No question. We have done many things to help us win the war on terror and make the US safe:

1. We have indeed removed a threat. Saddam's links to
terrorism are legion. 9/11 commission reports that Saddam offered Bin Laden sanctuary in 1998. had bin laden
2. the threat did extend to WMD programs as well. Even though we didnt find sotckpiles, the technology, desire and effort was there.
3. Saddam was a brutal dictator. removing him and creating democracy in Iraq is a new model for the Middle East, that will turn that culture away from Wahhabist extremism.
4. The 'flypaper' effect of bringing terrorists into Iraq makes life hard in the short-term but is a long-term positive. Now Iraqis themselves have witnessed and suffered an equivalent of 9/11; now they know that Bush's 'are you with us or against us' was no threat, but an accurate description of what the fight against terrorism requires.
Many Iraqis may not want to be in that fight, but they dont want terrorism.
5. By replacing dictatorship with democracy, we are showing the positive sideof American intervention.
6. We are dramatically improving the lives of Iraqis who lived under repression and dictatorship. We have let the mas graves get reopened and have brought the killer of countless Iraqis - Saddam Hussein - come to justice.


If you doubt it, go to these links:
My blog on liberating Iraq
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

John Alt on answering Qs on Iraq:
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/alt/04/troops.html

Iraq the Model - the best Iraqi blog:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

[PigRigger]

"Is Iraq worth it?"

Yes.

That will become all to apparent if, and when, the IslamoNazi's seriously attempt to overthrow the house of Saud.

Sit back and buckle up; we are only in the first inning of an nine inning game.