Posted on 08/27/2004 3:09:27 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
By William Rusher
© 2004 Newspaper Enterprise Assn.
From the beginning, there has always been a nagging little hiccup of disconnect between Sept. 11 and its aftermath on one hand, and the invasion of Iraq on the other. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were clearly the work of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, who were based in Afghanistan. President Bush, therefore, had the whole country behind him when he ordered our forces into Afghanistan, ousted the Taliban regime, and sent bin Laden and his supporters fleeing for their lives into the mountain wilderness of Afghanistan's border with Pakistan.
But then, announcing that the war against terror was now entering its second phase, Bush opened first a diplomatic and then a military offensive against ... Iraq.
Why Iraq? Bush, like the rest of the world, believed that Saddam Hussein had both chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, and that he was trying hard to develop nuclear weapons. That, if true, certainly qualified him for a preemptive strike, since waiting for him to smuggle a nuclear bomb into an American city and detonate it, or threaten to, would plainly be folly.
But Iran was also known to be trying to develop a nuclear capability, and North Korea was believed to have one already – and a couple of bombs, to boot. The president identified all three as an "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union address to Congress in January 2002, but he subsequently singled out Iraq for invasion and regime change. Once again, why?
The conventional wisdom has it that a small band of "neoconservatives" in Washington was responsible. This clique (so the theory goes), consisted of certain second-rank figures in the administration such as Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams and Douglas Feith, plus a few influential outsiders like William Kristol of the Weekly Standard. They had long wanted the United States to impose its military will on the Middle East in general (perhaps in aid of Israel, of which they are supposedly fond), and saw the American people's grim determination to punish al-Qaida as a matchless excuse for doing so. They won President Bush to their cause, and singled out Iraq as the loosest brick in the wall. Adroitly billing Saddam's overthrow as simply the obvious next step in the war on terrorism, Bush ordered the invasion.
On this theory (which the Democrats have eagerly endorsed), the American public was simply tricked into regarding the attack on Iraq as part of the "war on terror," when in fact it was a distraction from that war, and a thoroughly unnecessary one at that.
But I have never found it easy to believe that this little clutch of "neoconservatives" could have pushed around such major figures of the administration as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice – let alone George W. Bush. There does indeed seem to have been some new and different impulse at work in the sudden shift of emphasis, in 2002, from killing or capturing Osama bin Laden to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But what was it?
The clue, I think, is in the "Axis of Evil" expression. From the outset of his administration, Bush knew that those three nations – Iraq, Iran and North Korea – represented a deadly threat to the United States because they were believed to be on the verge of acquiring the ability to inflict nuclear damage on us. North Korea, which was in some ways the greatest danger because it actually already possessed one or two nuclear weapons, had to be dealt with diplomatically, if possible, because it lay at the center of a nest of major powers – China, Russia and Japan – whose interests would have to be consulted. Iran was unstable, with powerful internal pressures for reform. Iraq was vulnerable militarily, but only if the American people could be aroused to the necessity for action.
The events of Sept. 11 provided the necessary stimulus – and then some. Having disposed of the Taliban and embarked on the long job of disrupting and destroying al-Qaida, Bush turned to the larger problem of the Axis of Evil. Relying on the unanimous belief of the world's intelligence agencies as to Saddam's nuclear ambitions and capabilities, Bush identified Iraq as "a grave and gathering threat" to the United States. The American public concurred, and the attack was launched. The rest is history.
The author has been sleeping at the wheel.
In other news, General Francissimo Franco is still dead.
You're being far too kind.
I think Bush believes Iraq is the key to change in the Middle East.
That without a cultural change in the Middle East there is no winning the war on terror, that instead it will be never ending.
So instead of accepting terrorism as the norm he set his sights on actually winning the war against it.
I don't know that it can be done, at least in the current state of the Arab world. But were going to give it a try.
Bingo.
I bet five years from now people will sigh with relief that we toppled an unpredictable and mentally imbalanced dictator. I hope that we destroy N. korea next, should Bush be re-elected. We should not feel safe just because the Butcher was deposed. We should go after the other butcher on the other side of the Pacific as well.
The guy's title suggests an earth shattering revelation. Duh! Mr Rusher, glad to see you out of your coma.
Also, with troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is pretty much an American Military sandwich. Everytime they start puffing out their chests in one of their defiant little rants, I keep thinking how stupid it is...like they can't see how easily the vise could be tightened.
Cindie
I think it was useful to defeat the world's fourth largest army in a week with minimal casulties.
It was useful to defeat a megalomaniac who had killed millions of people in senseless wars, developed chemical and biological weapons and used them, and attempted to develop nukes.
It was useful to defeat a country that had launched missiles agains an ally of ours and paid Palestinian families to send their retarded children into Isreal attached to bombs.
It was useful to defeat a country that tried to grab the oil delivery ports for much of the middle east.
It was useful to defeat a country that provided technical assistance and safe harbor to terrorists.
Aside from these things it was completely unjustified.
Actually it's easier to deal with Iran. Their society is imploding, even if slowly. A few decades hence and those young people will only remembr the brutality of the mullahs. They wil not dare use their nukes for fear that their own people will turn against them after the expected MASSIVE retaliation( by us or by the Israelis).
I have always thought that besides the fact that Saddam was a murdering despot and besides the fact he would do what he could to hurt or help someone else hurt America, there are also other good reasons to take him out. Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslem, 80% of which are Wahhabi sect which is determined to bring the US down. Since 9/11 it has been more apparent that the Saudi Royal Family is on shaky ground with these people not only for their own corruption but also for their dealings with the evil infidels by selling us oil to fuel our evil infidel world. I have noticed a major sucking up to the US lately from the Saudi Royals. I imagine they know that they will be up sh!ts creek without a paddle should they have a popular uprising against them. I imagine people smarter than I am have already figured out that the world will be up sh!ts creek right along with them without their oil.
Hence, it is only MHO that establishing a stable government in Iraq that is cooperative with the world and ready to make themselves some money would save the world from total economic collapse if the Saudis get taken down. It would also be a great base of operation to deal with worrisome Arab countries.
It is also MHO that we would already be through in Iraq if it weren't for the succubus democrats that won't STFU with their bashing and demeaning of our efforts. They have done more to help Al Qaeda and embolden the insurgents than the terrorists have.
1 1/2 years later and he just came up with this? Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons!
Kind of like a vise, isn't it?.
We'll see in the 2nd Bush administration if he is the man I think he is, because if I'm right, we will have a war with Iran on our hands before too long---one that is overdue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.