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.

[Cooter]

Parole follows conviction, it doesn't preceed it.

Gulf War I resulted in conviction. The cease-fire was parole.

[WOSG]

NutCrackerBoy had a great insight:
"Who wouldn't do things more effectively with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight? "

We seem to see only the glass half empty here and not notice the many *positive* impacts that we didnt anticipate. Those positive impacts (eg like getting Libya out of the 'rogue regime' business) are totally discounted.

"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."

1) We found nuclear weapons program materials in a Baghdad garden, thousands of pages of technical material, and centrifuges, hidden from UN inspectors, etc.
2) We just flew out several tons of enriched uranium that saddam had in his possession.
3) Libya gave up their WMD program as a result.
4) The Iraq war helped lead Libya to 'fess up' which in turn busted the Pakistani / North Korea nuclear link - we now know how RPNK and Iran are learning about nukes: From Pakistan (who I beleive got it from the Chinese).
5) Saddam in the 1990s gave al qaeda training in explosives etc, and chemical weapons. He could have given them material, even just uranium for 'dirty bomb' use, even if he didnt have a nuclear device.

I think it is quite clear that liberating Iraq has reduced the risk of nuclear proliferation and terrorist attacks.

[MainFrame65]

I believe that our real reason for going to war was both more subtle and more important than either WMD or freeing the Iraqi people - we went there to change the strategic situation in the war, to move the fight to the Middle East instead of in our back yard. Whether that was stated explicitly or not is unimportant - just another piece of the strategery.

[rudypoot]

And I'm not convinced that our Intelligence is up to snuff concerning who can or cannot deliver another body blow to the US.

Name one country that thought Iraq didn't possess WMDs before the war (not including Iraq of course).

Our only disagreement here is what kind of threat he really was. I believe he was a threat and you don't. The US made the right choice at the time. We gave Saddam a demand to come clean. It was Saddam's opportunity to prove us wrong. He had 3 months to do it. He chose war instead.

[MainFrame65]

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

True, but none of those other countries were the subject of multiple UN resolutions that provided the rationale for invasion. The threat from Iraq differed from the others only in degree, not in intent. And the threat level from both Pakistan and Syria has been substantially reduced since our action in Iraq. Yes, individuals and small groups still make a lot of noise, but no longer with overt support of their governments.

[AlbionGirl]

I didn't say I didn't think he was a threat, I said I thought he was no greater or graver a threat than Iran, Syria, etc., hence the applicability of the solid case for the invasion.

And just because all other intelligence organizations were thrown off the proper scent, doesn't mean our own Intelligence did the best it could. We relied on technology a lot, as did probably all other Intel groups that were wrong. We're very, very late in devolping our Arabic language skills, which is unbelievable to me. I'm not putting the responsiblity for this on President Bush, but the responsibility to begin fixing it is his.

[thoughtomator]

I think that it is self-evident that removing Saddam Hussein lessens the threat of an anonymous WMD attack on the US, if no more than to deny to the enemy the enormous resources of the Iraqi state. We know he had no problem at all with terrorism, and a major, ongoing grudge against the United States. On 9/11 we were still patrolling the no-fly zone - the only such zone in the world, IIRC. We've blown the cover on the underground nuclear trade, as well as caused Libya to capitulate, things that may not have happened, had we not gone into Iraq and gained the intelligence we did from Saddam's files.

The positive reasons and results for the invasion of Iraq are legion. The few drawbacks are cynically overhyped for naked partisan - and IMO treasonous - purposes.

[thoughtomator]

We went into Iraq rather than Iran (which I agree was the larger of the two threats) because Iran, unlike Iraq, has a healthy internal opposition to the regime - quite a strong one. Thus, while Iran had (and still has) prospects for positive change without US military intervention, Iraq did not. Saddam, being the more firmly entrenched, had no check on his activities other than what was imposed on him by force.

And there's no doubt that invading a geographically-flat Iraq was 10x easier than invading the much larger and heavily mountainous Iran.

[PersonalLiberties]

For that matter why are we not securing our borders and keeping track of visa holders

[AlbionGirl]

You're right. And God forbid another attack has it's genesis in a border crossing. I don't know how good or bad a job border patrol does, 'cause I'm just not that up to speed on the issue, but I don't think I'm too far off assuming that our borders, both N and S are porous to a frightening degree.

[rudypoot]

I agree. Our intelligence also dropped the ball with respect to Libya's weapons programs. They were far more advanced than we expected. This intelligence failure took years to manifest and a war to expose it. It's going to take years to get our abilities to where they should be. But you're right, it's up to Bush to fix it.

[Diamond]

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, and we needed to establish a presence there. I understand all that, but we still weren't sold the War effort with that rationale, we were told that Iraq was a grave and gathering threat. They were no more grave and/or gathering than Iran.

That's a little like complaining that we didn't invade all of Germany at once in WWII, but only a few beaches in France.

Cordially,

[cwb]

Exactly! When I hear people asking why we didn't invade Iran or Saudi...the reasons are rather obvious. While the Saudi's have been less than forthcoming in all matters, they are in a very precurious situation. Unlike the student-led Democratic movement in Iran, the Saudi's...not only being home to the Islamic faith, are home to some of the most extreme elements of radicalism, including the Whabbi sect.

Not only would a US invasion of Saudi invoke claims of a new Crusade...as we literally attack the home of the Islamic faith, there is also the probability that such a war would weaken the Royal Family, replacing them with the more extreme elements. As much as some despise the Royals, they are the moderates in their own country.

Much the same is true for Iran. While a democratic movement is growing within the country, a US led invasion would be a very risky proposition. Iran is still a declared "Islamic Republic"...and while we may have the support of the students "within" Iran, a US invasion would be presented as the infidel attacking Islam...with a call to arms going out to all Muslims, world wide.

This is actually what made Iraq the perfect choice, since they were the most secular of the Mid-East nations. With our strategic positions in Iraq and Afghanistan...along with Israel, we now have a certain amount of leverage (including economic--Iraq's oil) in this region that we never had...from which we can negotiate. Because of Iraq, war may not be necessary anywhere else. I actually believe this was a brilliant move.

[AlbionGirl]

Ok, I'll play along. If Iraq is France, which ME (or terrorist sponsoring) Nation is Germany?

[wayoverontheright]

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.

Absolutely. Consequences.

This war will not end with a tossing of the white flag or a formal treaty, it may well be over before any announcement or event signifying our enemy's capitulation. They will continue to talk long after they have lost the will to strike through fear of consequences if not the knowledge that our lack of resolve no longer invites them. Our enemy's recent abandonment of martyr missions for cowardly snatch-and-behead and remote detonation events is indication of weakening resolve ON THEIR PART, not just a strategic choice, IMHO.

Not one missive from Osama failed to mention the fact that their power lied in their willingness to die for the cause. The best indication that he is dead is that no one is imploring them to stop their current anger-inducing, instead of fear producing modus-operandi. We may have already defeated our foreign enemy if not for the Fifth column within, foolishly and dangerously posturing to revive them.

[driftless]

You forgot UN resolution 1441 which gave us legal justification. Hussein violated practically every directive openly and contemptuously flouting the agreements. If international agreements are to have any teeth, they must be enforced. Hussein should have deposed in the first gulf war. I'm not arguing that the others deserve to be overthrown, especially Iran, but legally we couldn't do it. Iran may fall from within shortly something that would not have happened with Iraq. In my mind Iraq was always a grave threat as long as Hussein and his sons had power.

[VOA]

bump

[AFPhys]

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.

President Bush NEVER made a statement that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. President Bush NEVER made any statements that Iraq had hoards of WMDs stockpiled, although the administration did, admittedly, believe that there were strong indications of that. Kay's report puts to rest once and for all that Hussein had the capability to initiate and reconstitute such a program within WEEKS of sanctions being lifted, and he most certainly did not come close to complying with UN resolutions and the '91 cease fire agreement. Personally, I believe the reports and indications that large amounts of chem/bio munitions were moved to Syria's Bakaa Valley.

In President Bush's 2003 SOTU speech he lays out clearly the reasons for taking out Hussein. He did not lie, or oversell, the reasons for doing so. I agree with you that Syria and Iran are important to take out, too. If the Demodogs and Fraudcasters had not sabotaged this president, I think we would already have taken care of Syria. North Korea will be dealt with by China/Japan/Russia. Iran, I believe, will be able to free itself, with the help we are covertly giving now, and requires a different strategy. Iraq was incapable of doing so, and the impotent UN proved useless. Anyway, there is no need to launch attacks in every direction at once here, though some of us would like to do so.

As you said, too, developing our intel/ arabic linguist ability has to be done before doing much more in this realm.

What has been done so far is clearly beneficial to the world community. More clearly needs to be done, but our failure to do it thus far does not negate the importance of our deposing Hussein.

This War against Terrorism and the Islamofacists will take at least thirty years. The president made that clear immediately after 9/11, and it is no less true now. Getting rid of the terrorist states in Iraq and Afghanistan were important first steps in our victory, but it is important to realize that they are only FIRST steps.
.

[AFPhys]

... Libya's weapons programs. They were far more advanced than we expected.

From the "between the lines" reading I've done, it appears that Libya's nuclear program was actually where Hussein's nuclear program was being conducted - and for that reason the "Libya" program was more advanced, and the "Iraq" program was not as prominent.

[o_zarkman44]

but there have been WMD's found although not in the quantity intelligence indicated. I believe there will be more wmd found, and evidence is pointing to the fact that wmd's were moved to syria and possibly iran because Saddam knew that without evidence, it would make America look bad. I find it utterly astounding that every intelligence service, including the UN could have been wrong.

The war on terror is not just a war to protect America either. There are 3 billion humans on Earth and close to 1/4 live in fear and terror every day from the barbarian threat.