Logic of war to oust Saddam unassailable

London Free Press (London Ontario) ^ | 2004-07-07 | Salim Mansur

[Clive]

MONTREAL - The appearance of Saddam Hussein in a Baghdad court last week should lay to rest skepticism about the justness of the Iraq war.

International politics in our time was reconfigured by 9/11. There are precedents for such sudden changes. One happened following the attack on Poland by Hitler's Third Reich in September 1939, another when the former Soviet Union became a nuclear power in 1949.

Among competing issues demanding attention in international politics, such as inequities in resource distribution and income, the issue of security takes precedence.

Security is the plinth on which is built the life of a city, a nation, a civilization, the international order.

Undermine security and, as the Irish poet William Butler Yeats wrote, "anarchy is loosed upon the world."

Security is indispensable for freedom and the flourishing of a culture. Providing security consistent with the requirements of freedom is the supreme task of political practice and the perennial dilemma of political philosophy.

Sept. 11 removed any doubt among those who have seriously pondered the security dilemma about the extent to which Muslim fascism is the plague of our time requiring containment and, if possible, elimination.

While most nations agreed on the need to contain and eliminate international terror following 9/11, there emerged differences over the means.

Without the resolve of the Bush administration to take the war on terror to its Middle Eastern heartland, the architects of 9/11 and their allies would still be a present menace rather than fugitives on the run.

Afghanistan under the Taliban regime of Mullah Omar had become the citadel of Osama bin Laden and his thuggish organization of al-Qaida terrorists. From the mountain fastness of this unruly country brutalized by occupying forces of the Soviet Union, bin Laden and the transnational network of Muslim fascists threatened the world with impunity for nearly a decade.

Iraq under Saddam, a psychopathic mass murderer, was one of the most tyrannical police states in the world, and unquestionably the most heinous in the Middle East. Saddam's Iraq represented the sickness of a strain of Arab nationalism gone rabid, as did German nationalism under the Nazis. It profited out of the Cold War logic of playing one side against the other, and became a haven for terrorists.

The demolition of the Taliban's Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq was an essential prerequisite for eventually suffocating the brand of terrorism that planned and executed 9/11. This would not have occurred with repeated, but unenforced, United Nations Security Council resolutions, or with and diplomatic pieties.

It became clear that tyranny in the Arab-Muslim world was not going to implode internally, as communist regimes had in Eastern Europe. An external force was required if a tyranny imperilling international security, such as Saddam's Iraq, was to be dismantled and its people given freedom.

What could have been done before 9/11 remains a matter of speculation. After 9/11, what needed to be done was put into effect. Whether it could have been done better will be debated for a long time.

But those who doubt the justness of the war that demolished Saddam's Iraq need only hear majority of Iraqis speaking freely.

[AlbionGirl]

They were no more a grave and gathering threat than Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc.

[AlbionGirl]

Go to NRO and search Frum's latest pieces, or Bill Buckley's piece of a few days ago.

[rudypoot]

Conviction? Like the 17 UN resolutions? Do you need a lawyer and a judge to convince you of Saddam's WMD history?

[WOSG]

"We didn't go there to free Iraqis. "

Well that is exactly what we did. Free Iraqis. And yes, that *was* part of the *prewar* justification for taking out Saddam. It was expressed by Bush at his March 2, 2003 AEI speech. He said we would liberate Iraq and that is what we did.

There is this bizarre logic that seems to think the only good that could come from war is the most narrow of results, like we are prosecuting a criminal not a war.
Gee, why did we attack all those poor widdle japanese soldier who had *nothing to do* with Pearl Harbor?
We didnt declare war against Japan and Germany just as payback for a single military attack. We decided we needed to *destroy* them!

Why are we allowing the anti-war fever to overtake logic instead of treating this like the war that it is? Bush declared war on *TERRORISM* and Saddam was smack dab in the middle of it, and the ONE way to kill terrorism and make sure it doesnt come back is to drain the swamps of anti-western dictatorships and replace it with freedom and democracy.

Liberating Iraq is not some added bonus, it is *central* to defeating terrorism. The terrorists know it, that is why they are fighting so hard there.

Our interests and our ideals are perfectly aligned: Expand freedom in the muslim and arab world and islamic global terrorism will be eliminated.

[Valin]

Yes, but so are Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc., etc., and maybe even Saudia Arabia. We didn't go there. Why? Because Saddam was easy pickings,


So in other words, because we don't do "A" means we shouldn't do "B"?
As for him bein "easy pickings" you say that like it's a bad thing.

Saudia Arabia
Remember what OBL and his ilk are saying that we are at war with Islam and what to destory it. Invading Saudia Arabia would have allowed him to say YOU SEE YOU SEE(!), and 10' of millions would of flocked to fight alongside him.

Iran,
We don't really have to invade Iran, we just need to offer support to the vast majority of Iranians who hate the Mullahs in Tehran.

Pakistan,
The Musharraf is working closly with America on the "War on Terror". He's also doing what he can to root out the radicals.

[thoughtomator]

We're not in all those places at once in part because we haven't the resources to do so alone without resorting to nukes. Each of the problem countries is a unique puzzle to take apart; Iraq needed to be solved militarily since the nature of Saddam's reign made all other avenues to deposing him impossible.

However, Iran has a burgeoning democracy movement that could at any time overthrow the government there; Saudi Arabia has in its ruling family quite a number of people who are sincerely on our side against terror (for their own self-preservation, of course, but on our side nevertheless), and thus we can and are turning the factions there against each other; Syria and Lebanon can be kept cooped up by Israel until we are ready to deal with them militarily - since they are quite weak it is least risky to save them for later.

Personally, I am certain Saddam was up to his ears in 9/11. He had every reason to do so, a pattern of behavior that would clearly permit such a thing, and there is plenty of evidence showing he assisted AQ, and also that he knew of 9/11 months before it happened. However, during the middle of the war, it would be dangerously irresponsible for the US government to tell everything it knows, because that compromises intelligence assets - if the enemy knows what we know, they can figure out how we know it, and eliminate the people who are feeding us information. So while it might work on a domestic political level to spill all the beans, that can only be done at the cost of the lives of people who have taken mortal risks to help us.

[P-Marlowe]

They were no more a grave and gathering threat than Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc.

Iraq had positioned itself as a grave and gathering threat. You should thank God that Saddam had everyone in the world fooled, or we would be looking at about 10,000 body bags. Let us hope that Iran and Syria are equally as puffed up about their military prowress as Iraq was, since eventually we will need to either reform them from the outside or defeat them on the battlefield.

I hate to tell you this, but the war on terrorism has been effectively moved from Afghanistan to Iraq because we kicked the pants off the Taliban. The reason we are losing troops right now is not because we did not accomplish out objectives in Iraq, but because the terrorists are flocking into Iraq from all over the world in order to attack America and Americans. Our enemy in Iraq is Al Queda.

Thank God we are fighting them there and not here.

[AlbionGirl]

We didn't go in when President Bush first came into office? Why is that? Did President Bush talk about the danger that Iraq posed prior to 911, presumably the danger was the same. If 911 wouldn't have occurred we wouldn't be there no matter how many infractions of UN Resolutions Hussein was guilty of.

My point remains: we were told that Iraq was a grave and gathering threat, but it turns out that they were no more grave and no more gathering than many of the surrounding countries. We didn't go into those countries because the risks would have been much, much greater.

Iraq may turn out to be a grand effort if it in fact does realign the region, but for the last time many of us who supported the War did so because we believed that Iraq was a grave and gathering threat. And I'm not convinced that our Intelligence is up to snuff concerning who can or cannot deliver another body blow to the US.

[wayoverontheright]

Remember when the Left's alternative to the war was the pleading that the terror problem "had to be dealt with at its roots?

Democracy in Iraq is going to be like the most powerful weed killer sprayed on the entire Middle East's garden. The roots of terror are composed of their thirteenth century economic and political systems, almost as much as the cultural paralysis bequeathed to them by Islam.

There simply is no scenario whereby terrorism can be said to have been dealt with AT ITS ROOTS which doesn't include the implantation of democracy in Iraq, IMHO.

[cwb]

"Afghanistan under the Taliban regime of Mullah Omar had become the citadel of Osama bin Laden and his thuggish organization of al-Qaida terrorists. From the mountain fastness of this unruly country brutalized by occupying forces of the Soviet Union, bin Laden and the transnational network of Muslim fascists threatened the world with impunity for nearly a decade."

---

And this was the one of the reasons why Saddam had to be removed, immediately. When we took down the Taliban and AQ's camps in Afghanistan, it was obvious that the terrorists were going to need somewhere else to coalesce. With Musharif (seemingly) joining the US in the WOT, Pakistan was a little too hot for "all" these leftovers, as some began dispersing throughout the region.

While many of these terrorists did find there way into Iran, which was right next store...American pressure and the threat of Iran becoming the next target, forced the Iranians to expel a majority of them. In fact, this was right around the time when al-Zarqawi, who fought in the Afghan War with AQ, left Iran and ended up in Baghdad for a couple months, with a few of his Egyptian Islamic Jihad brothers.

The fact is, al-Qaeda and the terrorists choices for santuary were running extremely thin after the Afghanistan War. They had already been kicked out of places like Saudi and Egypt...with no one wanting to take them in after 9/11. Even terrorist-listed states like Libya and Sudan weren't eager to help as US embargoes were taking a toll on these countries...and after 9/11 no one wanted to feel the US's wrath. While Iran is a big sponsor of terrorism, they too, didn't want to give the US any excuse to target them next.

Saddam has always provided safe-haven to terrorists, whether it was Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal...or later, al-Zarqawi. With the PLF/PLO camps operating out of Iraq...and the new AQ affiliate, Ansar al-Islam, establising itself in N. Iraq just a month before 9/11, it was obvious that Iraq was becoming the next Afghanistan...complete with full resources and funding supplied by Saddam. Better to hit them now, than let them get settled in.

[AlbionGirl]

No, it seems to me that the other Countries pose a greater threat than Iraq ever did, that's all.

Listen you're happy with the War, that's fine, I'm not trying to disuade you from your point of view. Mine differs (and I think I've made a fairly good argument as to why), so we'll just have to agree to disagree, there's no point in going 'round and 'round.

[SoCal Pubbie]

"if I knew then what I know now, I would have said no."

This is a meaningless statement. As I posted on a similar discussion, one could just as easily say "If I had known on January 1 that I would have no auto accidents this year, I would have canceled my car insurance". But you did not know, and even though you do now you still go ahead and keep that insurance the next year.

The United States and other nations invaded Iraq because in a post 911 world it was unacceptable to allow a country that had a track record of developing and using WMD, and a known policy of aiding terrorists, to continue to refuse to provide a full accounting of its WMD programs per its Gulf War I agreements. As another poster wrote, it was not up to the U.S. to determine that status, it was the responsibility of Saddam and Iraq.

Anyone who thinks that Hussein would not have resumed WMD production, regardless of their status just prior to our going in, is kidding themselves. An argument such as yours could have been made about Germany in 1936 when they violated the Locarno Pact and the Treaty of Versailles by reoccupying the Rhineland. Their weapons programs, and their military preparedness, did not reach their peak until 1939 and later. Yet I was always taught that the French and the British could avoided the slaughter of WWII with minimal cost by moving before "the threat became imminent".

Beware Monday morning quarterbacking, or drawing false conclusions in hindsight.

[AlbionGirl]

Personally, I am certain Saddam was up to his ears in 9/11.

You can believe anything you want, but in order to make it work in a debate, it has to amount to more than a 'belief.'

But that being said, as I posted to Valin, I'm fine with your agreement with the War. My view differs, and we'll just have to leave it there because I've made my case as to why, and I don't think it's a poorly thought out or frivolous one. Good people can disagree on this issue.

[WOSG]

"Yes, but so are Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc., etc., and maybe even Saudia Arabia. We didn't go there. Why?"

Huh?!?!? We are already *in* Pakistan and saudi Arabia, and both Pakistani and SA govts are on our side fighting the terrorists in their midst. Sure, they have jihadist supporters even in the govts, but they have gotten the message - the pakistani army has been fighting al qaeda and the saudis last week killed off the al quaeda leader in SA.

Can we trust them fully? We did worse in the past - in World War II we allied with that SOB Stalin in the USSR.

As for Iran .... who said the war on Terror was *over*???

"we were told that Iraq was a grave and gathering threat."

Which they were.

" They were no more grave and/or gathering than Iran."

Dont you remember the 'axis of evil' where Bush named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea back in 2002? Bush pegged it exactly right. Those were the 3 biggest threats to us.
#4 is Syria, #5 was Libya, which, thanks to the war in Iraq, saw the writing on the wall and decided to get out of the terrorist and WMD-sponsoing business.

Calling saddam 'easy pickings' is a bit harsh on our soldiers who lost their lives there. The real reason is that of the three only Iraq posed a problem that required a military solution - regime change and encorcement of already ignored ceasefire and UN resolutions. We were *already* in a state of war with Saddam, with our no-fly zones and sanctions.

RPNK govt should be overthrown but our strategy is not to start a war with them, but destroy their exporting activities and pursuit of nukes, diplomatically and otherwise. We have already intercepted missile shipments and the diplomacy is constrained by South Korea's desire for engagement. A military solution initiated by US is unthinkable at this time.

Michael Ledeen has said that Iran doesnt need a 'military' solution. We just need to support democracy in Iran. Liberating Iraq is the best way to do that, as Iran will soon have a border with *2* newly democratic emerging states. The economy in Iraq is booming, and thousands of shiite pilgrims see what those changes are creating each day. Iran will require political and other pressure and support of internal forces that reform or overthrow the mullah dictatorship. Rather than helping, direct military attack on Iran could hurt this process. In any case, we may well attack Iran's nuke plants in the future if they dont back down.

"As I said this effort could turn out to be a boon for all,"

You dont need a caveat here. It already *is* a boon for all.
We have gone about 2/3rds of the way to victory in Iraq and have *already* reshaped the Arab world for the better. Removing Saddam just by itself is a huge advance for liberty.

"But I'm still worried about the awful state of our Intelligence"

Any nation that makes a hit out of a Michael Moore movie has a serious Intelligence problem.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Who wouldn't do things more effectively with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight? Who knows what that would be exactly? Still, what we have done with our sacrifice is more than just nudging freedom along for 25 million souls.

Remember what the threats are: WMDs in the hands of Islamist terrorists. It is not just stockpiles of WMDs that we must eliminate, but the ongoing actions of rogue states (like Libya and Iran). The coalition invasion of Iraq has made it clear that there is a limit and an ultimate price to pay for dilly-dallying. We have created a powerful deterrence to which Libya has clearly succumbed. Over the next decades, as a result of our stern actions with Iraq, these rogue states know the danger of their weapons programs, collaborations with terrorists, dealings in the WMD black market.

The growing freedom in Iraq will also do what the neocons have counted on it doing, weaken the hold of Baathists in Syria and mullahs in Iran, etc., as those people demand freedoms.

This is all good. If we had known then what we seem to know now (actually I am not so sure we know it), that WMDs and WMD programs in Iraq were in total disarray, and not much of a threat, then possibly the CIC would have taken the next steps in the War on Terror somewhere else. And we would probably be involved in endless debates over that move. This enemy is shadowy and clever enough to play on our limited resolve no matter what we do.

[AlbionGirl]

If we had known then what we seem to know now (actually I am not so sure we know it), that WMDs and WMD programs in Iraq were in total disarray, and not much of a threat, then possibly the CIC would have taken the next steps in the War on Terror somewhere else. And we would probably be involved in endless debates over that move. This enemy is shadowy and clever enough to play on our limited resolve no matter what we do.

So excellent, it bears repeating.

[thoughtomator]

Even without sharing my belief that Saddam was a sponsor of 9/11, the fact remains that on 9/11 the possibility of WMD terrorism was laid bare for us to deal with. Given that possibility, a hostile but remote threat like Saddam was no longer remote.

Ask yourself this question: What do you think will happen if a nuke goes off in Washington DC, and nobody claims responsibility?

[Valin]

Still, what we have done with our sacrifice is more than just nudging freedom along for 25 million souls.

A lot more. If Iraq becomes any kind of stable democracy then the whole mideast/arab world changes. And IMO is the real reason we went into Iraq.

[WOSG]

"No Iraqis attacked us on 911. "

Did we fight world war II only against those who attacked us at Pearl Harbor?

This is a war on terror, not the war against the 9/11 perps (many of whom are now dead anyway).

"As I said, we went there to establish a presence and Hussein was the easiest to eliminate without enflaming the whole region. I know that, but we weren't sold the War on that premise. And now, the premise that we were sold the War on has taken a huge body-blow, "

Ahem, there is a rewriting of history. the premises were wider than you presume, and the positive outcome is wider than you acknowledge. Go read old FR postings, the reasons you talk about now, *and the reason of liberating Iraq to change the political dynamic of the region* was discussed here. In full. It was also mentioned that liberating Iraq and introducing democracy would be critical to defeating terrorism.

Bush said it:
" The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html


The fact that Iraq was a threat has been *proven*.
Links to numerous terrorist groups including Al Qaeda have been verified* ... If anything the reasons for the war are *stronger now than they we knew about before the war*.

We found missile developments we didnt know about.
We found oil-for-food corruption and payoffs to terrorists that we didnt know about.
We found a terrorist training camp that we didnt know about.
We found that Iraq's secret police had a 'fedayeen' ready to be a terrorist organization, and has acted as such in the past 13 months.

And sure Saddam didnt have anything to do with 9/11 ... but how may pics of Saddam in front of burning WTC building do you need to understand that his interests were in our destruction -- and vice versa?

[AlbionGirl]

Ask yourself this question: What do you think will happen if a nuke goes off in Washington DC, and nobody claims responsibility?

No need to ask myself the question; I've done so many times even before 911. But even with the invasion of Iraq a nuke in our lap still could occur. Don't know if our invasion of Iraq reduced the likelihood (sp?) of it or not, and don't think any one else can say for sure either.

The biggest beneficiaries of this War so far, IMO, are the Iraqis, who got someone else to depose a vicious, vicious dictator for them, and now they have a chance to remake themselves into a decent Society, and God speed to them.