WMDs Camouflage Real Reasons Behind Iraq Invasion

The Australian ^ | November 26, 2004 | Frank Devine

[quidnunc]

Why are we in Iraq? It is not, as some ranters claim, because George Bush is stupid and bloodthirsty and John Howard a spineless crawler. Nor is it because the US has regressed to Wilsonian imperialism.

For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a seriously interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, a private, subscription-financed global intelligence service, which I find consistently well-informed. Friedman writes of the struggle in Iraq in relentlessly Realpolitik terms.

-snip-

From this fortress headquarters, Friedman writes, al-Qa'ida ("the Base" in English) pressed its grand design for an Islamist world federation, a new Caliphate, which would ultimately match, if not dominate, other superpowers. Global terrorism would be the means. Al-Qa'ida's opening moves — attacks on American embassies and other establishments abroad — were aimed, in Friedman's opinion, less at damaging the US than provoking it to a reckless assault on Islam.

-snip-

The invasion and speedy subjugation of Afghanistan staggered the jihadists. But the US, having succeeded only in dispersing al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, rather than eliminating them, believed it needed to strike another heavy blow.

-snip-

[yldstrk]

Thank you. It's best to be informed. Knowledge is power. I'm getting the book.

[jdege]

I wholeheartedly recommend the book.

[lt.america]

I think we would have been much better off had we never went to the UN with Powell and tried to make the case to go to war over WMD. We had no way to secure the weapons sites to ensure that nothing left and we never went into Iraq quietly so Saddam would have been idiotic to leave any trace of his weapons when we kicked in the door.

For me it boiled down to two things:

1. They tried to assassinate a former US president (As much as I do not care for Carter, had Syria put a hit out on him, I would expect us to make a strike and decapitate that country's leadership).

2. They were the only sovereign nation to formally congratulate the Taliban and Al Quada after 9/11.

When liberals try to make sell me that Saddam should have been in power after I inform them of may stance with the facts above, I have to look at them and laugh, or QUESTION THEIR PATRIOTISM (I love when they get their panties in a wad over that one).

[Publius6961]

Interesting analysis and explanation, until a better one comes along...

[SSG USA]

And make no mistake, WMD do exist. Read this book and see for yourself. I met this man while in Iraq. He told some very enlightening (though very disturbing) stories. About $11 on Amazon....

[IceAge]

Very interesting story.
How fortunate this nation is to have GW in the WH making the calls instead of a weak-kneed liberal skunk like Clinton or sKerry. For that I give thanks to God everyday.

It was obvious that Pres. Bush felt we "had" to take the war over to Iraq as part of the war on terror or else all was lost. The WMD was a ploy to get the UN to stay out of our way.

We have surrounded Saudi Arabia without openly provoking them.
The royal family would rather take their chances with the USA than with Al Quida, imho.
If they had been taken over like Afghanistan by the Taliban, the "royals" would have been beheaded one-by-one in public to scare the rest of the nation into submission. And they know what would have happened.

[sully777]

I think we would have been much better off had we never went to the UN with Powell and tried to make the case to go to war over WMD. We had no way to secure the weapons sites to ensure that nothing left and we never went into Iraq quietly so Saddam would have been idiotic to leave any trace of his weapons when we kicked in the door.

---

On the other hand, the WMDs that exist (!) would have been used on our troops if they were not spirited away to Syria, Libya, and Iran. The pressure to hide them overthrew the pressure to use them in last minute desperation.

I never underestimate the strategy employed by the Bush Administration. Although I disagree with President Bush's defense of Islam as a religion of peace, I must applaud the strategic importance of his statement to disarm emotionally a portion of the world that could take offense to our WOT as a War on Islam.

[molonlabe123]

Doesn't matter.
"From a purely military view," Friedman adds, "Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran."

I have said this from day one. We were losing our presence in the middle east. The people against bush seem to think he got up one day and decided to kick Sadam’s butt. It doesn’t work that way. The pentagon was in on the planning and there will be a end game.

[rang1995]

Iraq is a battle in a campaign in a war

[XBob]

1 - good summary, quidnuc

KD - post your space pings like this, with meaningful excerpts.

[IceAge]

You are so right! That's one reason it was so important to re-elect this team so they can finish what they started and let the next Pres. be forced into following up with what needs to be done.

After 4 more years, I think it will be evident to all what was at stake and wouldn't be surprised if they didn't try to change the constitution so he could run again instead of changing it for Arnold.

[SSG USA]

Which is why I believe the US will never leave Iraq entirely, at least not it he foreseeable future. We left to come this past February from Balad Airbase, about 30 or so miles NW of Baghdad . A lotmoney was being spent rebuilding that place and turning it into what sure looked to me like a permanent base.

I believe Iraq will become a Middle East "Germany" only on a much smaller scale. As you pointed out, Iraq borders numerous Middle East countries. For that purpose alone it becomes a very important stategic objective.

[Lancey Howard]

"From a purely military view," Friedman adds, "Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran."

So the US struck, with consequences unfolding nightly on our TV screens. Friedman believes the US-jihadist war hangs in the balance. However, the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes.

The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: "Not a single regime has fallen to al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The war goes on."

Very interesting analysis. Bookmarked.

[spodefly]

BTTT

[Mitchell]

Stratfor seems to miss the mark sometimes, but I think there's an interesting perspective here: that the Iraq war is, among other things, a war with a tactical aim of surrounding Saudi Arabia.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

If we're so bent on changing something, we would be so much better off changing the Constitution to allow GWB to be reelected than to allow foreign born persons, such as Ahnald!, to run for the Presidency.

[gridlock]

Well, duh!

[elbucko]

I think we would have been much better off had we never went to the UN....

I disagree, but only in a fundamental way. The US, since the Declaration of Independence has always held that, "..a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them...".

I do agree that Powell's presentation was too detailed and pleading, rather than simply stating that Iraq would soon have WMD's and the present regime, Saddam Hussein's , is disposed to provide access to these weapons to Al Qaeda. That Iraq had been hostile to the US to the point of assassination and were corrupting America's European alliances through international organizations. I would not have mentioned France, Germany and the "oil-for-food" scheme with the UN. Powell should have concluded with invoking the Monroe Doctrine as being the interference in the Western Hemisphere by a foreign power in regards to the attacks of 911. No other details need have been offered.

After the above, those who asked the US for "Badges", should have been met with the response that after 911: "We don't need no stinking badges!"

[IceAge]

Aha! Shall we be the first to suggest such a move?
Actually, he has put up with so much, I doubt he or his family could endure another 4 years. I appreciate their sacrifice along with the sacrifice of our troops and their families.