I could use some help please

Genv

[Gvan]

I would like to explain to friends and posters in Wales why we went to war in Iraq. There was a wonderful article last spring that explained how going to war with Iraq would start to set an example for the entire area. I haven't been able to find the article again, it put into words excellent reasons in a way I can't. The people involved in this forum are great people, however they have the BBC as their main news source and they also don't have a high regard for the English, especially Tony Blair. Could someone help me remember who wrote the article last March or April or could someone perhaps explain it in a way that I can use facts to make the point. Your help would be very much appreciated.

[Prodigal Son]

I think some of your list depends upon which perspective a person chooses from which to view the 12 year history. For me, the perspective is very important because depending upon which you choose, it leads to rapidly diverging conclusions. In other words, the initial premise leads one to one's own logical pitfalls or political difficulties.

For example, starting with your number two:

Iraq had threatened Americans and our allies with reprisals even after Gulf War I was over.

In my opinion- there was no Gulf War I. The war never ended. It went from high intensity conflict to a fairly low intensity (from our perspective) siege of Saddam's regime. We were able to accomplish this fairly effortlessly given our huge advantage in military capability over Saddam.

I.e. We could lay siege to Saddam's castle, bomb his defenses with impunity and there was nothing at all he could do about it. But Siege is a form of warfare and it's very important to remember that.

From the American public's perspective, it did not look like war. The media didn't call it war. The media didn't even call it what it was- a siege. Instead, we call it a palatable term: "Sanctions" and "Patroling the no-fly zones". But the fact was, those no-fly zones were still part of Saddam's kingdom and we were occuppying that portion of his kingdom from the air. Kings of old would have been under no illusions that they were at war had they experienced something similar.

When we decided (back in 1991) not to pursue Saddam's army deep into Iraq and remove him from power, we did so for political reasons but there was a great number of people at the time that knew (and said so) that this was merely a job put off for a later date. The political gambit didn't work out. Bush the Elder was not re-elected. Instead, Clinton took over and preferred to work with the status quo. That is: keep the war on the back burner unless something forced him to turn it up on high.

The thing is, Clinton discovered the incredibly useful nature of keeping Iraq a low intensity siege/war. Most of the time, it's business as usual and people hardly thought about Iraq. If, out of political necessity, he needed a nice little distraction, he could always focus people's attention on Saddam. Saddam became a very useful political devise for the American side.

But even under Clinton, the military made moves, prepositioning equipment to the Gulf Region, knowing they were going to have to finish it off one day. A brigade I served in in Germany did this very thing and I participated in that process from the deactivation of our unit right up to taking the vehicles to Antwerp and making sure they were loaded on the big storage ships.

In 1998 Congress began work on the Iraqi Liberation Act which eventually passed and was signed by the President- setting the stage for the end game.

Then came 9/11. The status quo changed.

We no longer had the leisure to deal with Saddam as we had been doing (which to reiterate, was long term siege/warfare). But also into the mix came the realization that the War on Terror was a regional fight and that finishing Saddam had new uses that outweighed the political risks from the 90s. Controlling Iraq would allow us to change the entire dynamic in the Middle East and effect other change elsewhere- perhaps without having to use our military at all. (Witness Lybia)

But note, in my way of viewing this history, President Bush the Current never took us to war. We were always at war with Saddam since 1990. President Bush simply began the end-game for that one long continuous war.

By taking this perspective you avoid many current problems that Dubya is experiencing. In my perspective- the WMD don't even matter. What mattered was bringing an end to a decade's long conflict because we had more important things to do and because ending the war had new and useful benefits that were not important before (regional control of ME in order to fight the larger war on terror).

But the thing is, most people take the view that the war ended in 1991 and that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a new and seperate war when I don't see how it could be in any objective sense of the word "War". Just because we pretend it was not war does not make it so.

If French planes were patrolling American airspace shooting our missile systems if we locked on their fighters, Americans would surely view this as war even if the UN said it was ok for the French to do this. If the French Navy blockaded our coasts and prevented us from exporting our goods except through very strict channels that were controlled by foreign authority- Americans would perceive themselves to be under a state of siege and thus War.

In no objective sense did the war in Iraq ever end but people like to think it did. I'm not sure why this is, but I know for a fact if the situation were reversed, Americans would have viewed it as one long war being waged against them.

If the public had always viewed the situation in its proper context, there would be no controversy nor arguments about whether it was 'right to go to war' because the public would've never been under the impression that any war had ended.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was a campaign to end a war, not the beginning of a new one.

Alas, this is largely a moot point because practically nobody shares this view with me. But if you really stop and honestly ask yourself if you would perceive America to have been at war if it had experienced Iraq's same circumstances for the past 12 years, you will realize this is the correct view. The war was always there, always ongoing.

[risk]

That's a lot to digest at once, but thanks much for your comments. I agree with you and already held the belief that GW1 wasn't completely over and GW2 finished (is finishing) it. For the sake of our readers in Wales, I want to point out that WWII taught us that preemption can prevent massive suffering. Preemption infers some sort of discretionary element to the decision to escalate a war like GW1/GW2. We had moral clarity and the defense of western democracy in mind when we finished this war to eliminate Iraq's threat to the west.

[Prodigal Son]

That's a lot to digest at once

Well, LOL, it was a lot to type too.

Something's on my mind, sometimes I just have to get it out though, you know? ;-)

That premise is very important though. Once you really wrap your mind around it, all this current controversy just becomes so much worthless political BS and all the 'was it right to go to war' hair-splitting ceases to mean much.

[Prodigal Son]

Also, as a side note, in my way of viewing it- we didn't 'pre-empt' Saddam. If the war was already an on-going affair it would be impossible to 'pre-empt' by ending it.

[risk]

What do you think about the way the Bush administration has been explaining the war to the world? I've been of the opinion that the cognitive dissonance involved is responsible for at least 20% of the acrimony. I'm supportive of their overall strategy but I wish they could be more direct about it. It seems we'd gain support from people on the fence who matter and have less to explain to our detractors.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Just cause.

 

  Proud to Have Liberated Iraq 

(click above pic ~ updated daily, scroll down for previous news, proof of early press misreporting, primary news source links, highlights).

---

CPA-Iraqi commission set up to locate the missing and protect the mass graves:

8 Mass Graves of Iraq: Uncovering Atrocities ~ Coalition Provisional Authority | 1/05/04

Eyewitness testimony:

8 THE CRUELEST COVER-UP ~ Tales of Saddam's Brutality ~ White House | Various

8 Graphic proof from Saddam's Killing Fields ~ http://www.9neesan.com | 1/12/04 | the dead of Iraq

[risk]

I'm so glad you dropped in, thanks!

[Indy Pendance]

A document to review is the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, which was unanimously passed by all 15 council members.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may...

11. The credibility of the U.S. (and U.N.) to negotiate for disarmament in Libya, N. Korea, Iran, etc. requires that threatened military intervention be taken seriously.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

Immediately after the 1st plane hit Tower 1 on Sept. 11th...

...RICK RESCORLA started getting everybody out of Tower 2.

...Knowing all would be coming down on him...

...RICK RESCORLA went back up for stragglers, just like he did after the 1993 Bombing of the World Trade Center Bombing when he became the last man out.

...NOT this time.

To sign our U.S. 7th Cavalry's Petition for President BUSH to posthumously award lifetime lifesaving hero RICK RESCORLA the
Presidential Medal of Freedom...


See.. http://www.lzxray.com

.

[Prodigal Son]

What do you think about the way the Bush administration has been explaining the war to the world?

Personally, I think the administration is on its heels right now for a number of reasons: opposition politics, election season, the impatience of the American people etc.

But I think one of the worst dangers for the administration is they are dealing with a society at large- I mean the entire Western world- that is largely dysfunctional. In this day and age, people would rather see a person like Saddam in power than not.

I don't believe the administration has truly grasped that fact. Which is understandable because it is a hard fact to grasp. I think the administration is relying upon people to have a little common sense and look at the situation, weigh it up and see that in the end, the positives outweigh the negatives and even without the WMD, this was the right thing to do and this was the time to do it.

I'm not sure this is such a good thing to rely upon- the good judgement of modern Western minds.

I think the administration has to keep selling the positives. That's all they can do. Sell the positives and produce more positives- like capturing Osama or finding a rogue nuke somewhere. They've sort of locked themselves into a certain game plan and they're going to have to stick with it and hope for the best.

[Palladin]

What a wonderful article!

I'd love to personally ram it down John Kerry's throat...or up Al Gore's ass.

Thanks for reviving this article.

[Palladin]

Rick Rescorla...who could ever forget him, and the hundreds of heroes who died that day?

Remembering my cousin, Mike Lynch, FDNY. Died September 11, 2001, in an attempt to rescue those in the stricken buildings.

[KangarooJacqui]

Very sorry for your loss. I didn't lose anyone that day, but I dealt with the aftereffects - such as counselling an EMT worker who'd been at the towers that day, and whose best friend (also an EMT) had suicided a couple of months after 9/11, unable to take the guilt of being a survivor. I wonder how many more of them there were... all victims of 9/11, sooner or later...

Post 32 had me laughing though. The mental image of you ramming that article up a certain orifice of Al Gore's... (may I help with that, if you ever do it?)

[BroncosFan]

RR is honored in places that you never would suspect. God, he died well.