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-

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

Suggest away. See where it goes. If there's interest, it will succeed. If not, we're not ready to return to the way it once was.

[expatpat]

Don't say that! The DUngeon folks will split a gut.

[CatAtomic]

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....

Thanks for hot tip.

[IceAge]

Notice your tagline. I have two great-grandsons and feel they are worth the battle of keeping our nation strong. We "must" preserve this nation's principles for future generations.

Their father is from Australia....he is much more militant against these terrorists than most who were born here. Even though he has to go through a lot with immigration. It has cost those kids a lot of $$$ for him to prove the marriage is not one of convenience even with two children.

[PMCarey]

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

Hard to say. The downside was that we twiddled our thumbs working through the UN. The upside was that either the UN could prove to be useful in the battle against Iraq or they could be shown to be at best useless and at worse co-conspirators with Saddam. The latter has shown to be the case and the country is better off for having a realistic appraisal of UN which it didn't have before.

[IceAge]

I know, isn't it fun to give them something more to worry about? HAHAHA!

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"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."

My feelings on this subject as well. Personally? I, too, thought the WMD argument was lame. And thanks to the UN, we had to leave Saddam in power after ODS. A big, big mistake that eventually festered and burst, costing us what we're involved in today.

I have no problem whatsoever with the US having a stronghold in that part of the world. As the last remaining Super Power, the bad guys MUST fear us and those countries in dire straights MUST know we will help them out when needed. It's a heavy burden to bear, but we're up to the task when the socialists aren't thwarting us at every turn.

Thank you for the book recommendation. I'm on it!

[elbucko]

Iraq is a battle in a campaign in a war.

Well said. When this fact is made manifest to the rest of America, we'll be on our way to winning the "war".

[IceAge]

Yes, good point. Many folks have wanted us to get out of the UN for years. This has given them more ammunition and maybe more will jump on that bandwagon.

A weakened UN will not be as big a prize for WJC when he plans his take-over of the world. Heehee.

[shield]

interesting....

[marron]

I occasionally hear the president's critics reminding him that Iran, not Iraq, is the real enemy.

When I hear that, I always think "look at the map, silly".

We have taken up positions on all sides of Iran. I don't think war with Iran would be any cake walk, and I don't think that is where we are headed. But we are perfectly positioned to have a serious conversation with them.

The other issue is Saudi Arabia. We were tied to them by our need to contain Saddam. The containment strategy required Saudi bases and Saudi support, which put them in position to dictate our policies. Removing Saddam removes Saudi Arabia's hold on us, and sure enough, we have cut the cord that tied us to them.

Bush has freed us of them. We no longer need them, and they know it. We have little need now even to talk to them. That completely changes the dynamic of the middle east.

[VOA]

Additional book recommendation (heard the author on two radio interviews):

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260522/qid=1101495829/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-2419384-7684661

"Shadow War" by Richard Miniter

[beezdotcom]

Exactly. WMD (which WILL be found) were merely a convenient public reason for justifying Saddam's overthrow. The strategery of a US presence in Iraq is a far more compelling reason - but not very palatable to the world body politic.

[txhurl]

Stratfor's here in Austin.

[txhurl]

Of all places.

[joebuck]

"Iraq is a battle in a campaign in a war"...

Exactly! If you look at it from the perspective that middle east extremism is the enemy, then go look at a map of the middle east, one should have no trouble figuring out why we are fighting in Iraq.

[sanchmo]

This view is only partly right.

First, the concept that WMD is really not that important in the WOT is not realistic. Of course, the probability is not very high, compared to the probability of the lower-intensity attacks we've already seen, but the results would be catastrophic on many levels. Basic risk management dictates it's a threat you take seriously.

Second, he sees the war in Iraq as surrounding Saudi. This is only partly true. Sure, it surrounds the Saudis, but more importantly...
* It surrounds Iran.
* It puts us in a position to threaten Iran & Syria, and to demand unfettered access to the Gulf, and to respond quickly to events in Saudi.
* If handled successfully, it encourages reforminsts in Iran & Saudi.
* It cuts off much funding to the PA terrorists, and gives us in tel.

We can take on Saudi at any time - and capture its oil fields & keep it productive. But the long-term strategy we're following - just like in Pakistan - is to move the existing government into a position where it controls the elements within it that are working against us. In Pakistan it's more urgent because of the nukes.

This is not restricted to Saudi Arabia. It covers an entire area of the world:

* Pakistan - stabilize a government that keeps nukes out of the Islamists hands, and prevents proliferation to rouge regimes.
* Afghanistan - get rid of the Taliban for good & crush alQaeda's base.
* Iran - first, prevent their access to nukes with whatever means necessary. Second, regime change, primarily through support for pro-western revolutionaries.
* Iraq - get rid of the Baathists, install a modern government, establish US access to the entire area.
* Syria - permanently stop their support for terrorism & hunger for WMD, first via threats & concessions, but if necessary by military means.
* Libya - already surrendered. Now we have to ensure a true end to WMD & support for terrorism.

The trickiest is North Korea, who uses nukes for blackmail and for $$ - by selling the technology to our enemies. This is trickiest because dealing with NK means dealing with China. China is using NK and diplomatic support for our enemies as a means to weaken us. They don't want a powerful Islamists threatening them, but they are betting that since we'll ultimately win this war anyway, they can triangulate themselves in NK & the WOT to keep us a little off balance, win some concessions in Taiwan and the Pacific Rim, and finish up well ahead when this whole thing is over.

[RaceBannon]

Good proposition, however, I feel that Iraq was not just a morale building war as this article implies the book says, it was done to surround Iran.

We are on their East, West, South,and have access to airfields in the North.

[Wolfstar]

We have surrounded Saudi Arabia without openly provoking them.

We have also surrounded Iran. Afghanistan on one side and Iraq on the other.

[kjenerette]

Good post. It's called 'US boots on the ground' and we don't have top ask anyones permission to 'cross' over if necessary into Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria....

Brilliant plan. The region is now ours. Painful to hold but a critical shift in our favor...