Why I was wrong about Iraq

Times Online ^ | January 14, 2005 | John Maples

[Prost1]

Chaos will flourish in the Middle East if President Bush’s policy continues unchanged

EVEN DONALD RUMSFELD, in his more private moments, must wonder if the invasion of Iraq was really such a good idea. It has become obvious to almost everyone else, including many such as myself who originally supported the war, that it has been a huge mistake. My support was based solely on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), on which the intelligence was exaggerated and which Washington has just admitted it is no longer looking for. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda. I believe that the real reason for the war, at least in the US, was to create a reasonably democratic, free-market Iraq to act as both a beacon and a rebuke to other countries in the region. That possibility looks more and more remote. The forthcoming elections look unlikely to produce a government with real authority and legitimacy, or to stop the violence, but they must go ahead; let us hope that they prove a step on the road to normality. Despite the bombing of the UN headquarters in August 2003, the current appalling level of violence did not begin until March 2004, a year after the invasion. It might have been more easily contained if the postwar administration had not made so many early mistakes.

[John Lenin]

I don't have the patience and writing skills to go into it here but there were all kinds of reason to go into Iraq. All thos illegal contracts Saddam signed was one of them, maybe you can figure out the rest on your own, but I doubt it.

[WOSG]

"However, I don't see many optimistic signs for the future, and think it might be time to cut our losses. "

Ah, I see your problem... you swallowing the bilge from the defeatist media.

Just at the moment when Iraq is about to have its first election in decades - A HISTORIC STEP FORWARD that will be the final nail in the coffin to the terrorist 'insurgency' - ... and you "don't see many optimistic signs for the future".

My goodness, talk about dancing around the elephant.

WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ.

[EternalVigilance]

The Geneva Conventions have very little to do with unleashing our capabilities.

The Iranians and the Syrains are quite aware of what we can do to them if we so desire. That knowledge is reining them in greatly already.

[lentulusgracchus]

Anything offensive or threatening could have been eliminated so easily, without any invasion.

Not true. Remember the Scud's? Very tough to find, tough to intercept.

And we still haven't found Dr. Taha's files that were videotaped standing in and outside her office a month before the war. Nor her lab equipment.

My suggestion for Bush? Open Saddams cell door, put a bullet in his head, declare victory, and leave that POS country.

No, sorry, but there's no instant gratification this time. This is the price we pay for bugging out on the Viets and Cambodians, leaving them to be slaughtered at the discretion of the enemy. If we do that again, nobody will ever believe anything we say, and will wait out everything we do, from now until the end of time.

Gotta suck it up and make it work for the Iraqis who have taken a chance to work with us and the new government. You just don't walk away from people like that. Not with the whole world watching. That's why the Left crapweasels want us to leave -- that's their big payday.

[WOSG]

"On the contrary, I see Iraq as a small part to a much bigger picture."

That is your other error (aside from buying the MSM defeatist garbage on our progress in Iraq). On January 30th, it will become the largest Arab Muslim democracy in the world today. This is bigger, much bigger, deal than catching Bin Laden in ending the Arab experiement with terrorism.

It will eclipse every other country in the region if they can put together a decent Government.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

"The Geneva Conventions have very little to do with unleashing our capabilities. "

Did you miss the Marine who shot the wounded terrorist and the uproar from the limpwristed media/Democrats?

Half of the country and most of the world want us to lose.

[Raycpa]

Only an idiot can miss the importance of controling this real estate. Pull out a map and look and see what area holds the most militarily strategic location and you find Iraq.

Everything else is potentially nice outcomes. It will be nice if the get democracy, it will be nice that the bad guys are out of rule, it will be nice if we stop them from making future weapons.

The reality is location, location, location.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

" it will become the largest Arab Muslim democracy in the world today."

" if they can put together a decent Government. "

Which is it? How long are you prepared to stay there waiting for this "democracy" to take hold?

[WOSG]

"No, sorry, but there's no instant gratification this time. This is the price we pay for bugging out on the Viets and Cambodians, leaving them to be slaughtered at the discretion of the enemy. If we do that again, nobody will ever believe anything we say, and will wait out everything we do, from now until the end of time.

Gotta suck it up and make it work for the Iraqis who have taken a chance to work with us and the new government. You just don't walk away from people like that. Not with the whole world watching. That's why the Left crapweasels want us to leave -- that's their big payday."

That's a good way to put it.

Finish the job and win now, so we dont have the cr*pweasels using it mock and diminish us over the next 30 years, and so we make it clear to the next group of thugs that if they go up against us, their death and destruction is inevitable.

[WOSG]

" it will become the largest Arab Muslim democracy in the world today."

" if they can put together a decent Government. "

Which is it? How long are you prepared to stay there waiting for this "democracy" to take hold?

----

Um, why do you put "democracy" in quotes? ... They will have a better election this Jan 30th than Washington state got for their Governor!!

The country WILL be a democracy. That is certain. What remains to be seen are the economic and social policies that may make Iraq the regional power, or conversely lead to slower development. That's what I meant by "decent govt", a halfway decent Government + 2nd largest oil reserves in the world = AN IMPORTANT COUNTRY.

[John Lenin]

Iraq was hugh, we blew theem all out of the water, the French, the Russians, the whole middle east, it was a coup de teat and America is holding the cards. Deal with it.

[WOSG]

Half of the country and most of the world want us to lose."

Are you in that crowd?
If not, why pay attention to their venting spleen?

We treat prisoners well not to be limpwristed but because in the long run that is in our best interest. Abu Graib only gave PR points to the terrorists, and fed the enemy-friendly media a story to chew on. So dont do that - we dont need to do that to win in Iraq.

[jwpjr]

re: Who was Zarqawi before we showed up there?

I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting that each and every bad person in the war on terror has to be directly linked to Iraq before we acted to put an end to the regime there? For all I know he was operating one of the plastic shredding machines that were used to kill (feet first) opponents of the regime, but only after they had been forced to watch as their wife and daughters were raped repeatedly and their sons had their throats slit. Or maybe he was one of the guys seen in the video tape pushing prisoners, blindfolded and bound hand and foot, off the roof of three-story buildings. Or perhaps he was helping hold down one of the merchants who had his had amputated, without the benefit of anesthesia, for being reported as possessing foreign currency. Wherever he was, you can bet he was up to no good. If it's OK by you that he can be up to no good as long as he visits his sickness and depravity on his own people then you and I have different opinions and ideas of what we should do with the freedom and immense power God has given us as a nation for over 200 years. Is it your Belvia that Zarqawi was just another peaceful citizen, minding his own business, until we moved against Iraq? I have a grandson, a son-in-law and a nephew that are in, or have recently been in, Iraq. Each of them tells me the same thing and that is that what we are doing there is working and having seen it first hand they feel it is important enough to risk their lives doing it. A quick Yahoo search on his name indicates "Jordan tried him in absentia and sentenced him to death for allegedly plotting attacks on American and Israeli tourists" and "Ten years ago, fellow inmates remember, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi emerged as the tough-guy captain of his cellblock" and "Well before 9/11, he had already concocted a plot to kill Israeli and American tourists in Jordan. His label is on terrorist groups and attacks on four continents. (Weekly Standard, 24 May 2004)". Who was Zarqawi before we showed up there? He was the same worthless piece of excrement that he is today.

[Texas Songwriter]

The U.N. was compromised before Bush even thought about going there and reasoning with them. Moreover, the security council was compromised. Mr. Bush had zero chance of coopting their assistance by rational,reasoned admonishements because, unknown to him, was the Oil-for-food confidence game that Kofi Annan was running. They ran their shell game for 12 years and 17 U.N. resolutions...sound and fury signifying nothing because the very people who might have done something to prevent this necessary war were a very large part of the cause of the war. Think about it. If the Secretary General had not been stealing food from the mouths of children and had been attending to his buisness in the sober way that would have legitimized the U.N. this war would never have materialized. If the U.N. had not coopted Hussein, Chirac,Putin,et.al. and they had actually worked to feed these people rather than steal from them, then the people themselves may have risen up, perhaps with outside help, and done what we are forced to do now. At any rate, their theft and, at my most generous, Clintons turning a blind eye if not a participant, created and cultured this enormous contempt in Hussein. He felt he could continue his reign of terror because the U.N., and other world leaders, once they got a taste of money in their personal bank accounts, were subject to Hussein blackmailing them. So now, in rides an honest man in George Bush. His core values will not allow his country to remain at risk. He is looking at a madman, which his intelligence community and other countries intelligence, tells him represent a clear and present danger to the U.S.A. He is not going to sit by and act reflexly like his predessor did. Before we are attacked, he will remove the source of danger.
We certainly do not know what has been prevented by this action. We do not know if islamofascists around the world are planning to attack easier targets than the U.S.A. This war is necessary today because the U.N. officials did not do their jobs. They were dishonest and vile and lacking in any honor. Now they take Mr.Bush to taske for dealing with problems of their creation, even to the point of trying to intervene in a national election. The U.N. is worse than a ship adrift. It is oriented against the United States, and has member states who would act to destroy us if they thought they could get away with it. I know that President Bush must have a visceral hatred for these people anytime an American is harmed or killed. He knows that if we leave now it will become a breeding ground for terrorrists and should they come to power, would then have an established nation-state from which to export their terror, not to mention the money from oil which would allow production of WMD, but without compuction against using them. Our leaving would result in a much wider war. The American people, if the late 60's and early 70's prove the model, may back off support. This would have catastrophic repercussions, not just for the U.S. but the entire world.

[Giant Conservative]

Would you have the U.S. conquer them all?

[jwpjr]

re: occupy and attempt to control every country on earth that might harbor people who have antipathy toward us?

Sorry, you've addressed this to the wrong guy! I am on your side, we should serve notice on them that one more attack on us will be viewed as a direct declaration of war and we will respond by destroying every 'holy' site they claim to revere in this world. They are playing the "us or them" game with us, and the only way to win that game is by doing it to them before they do it to you. If we win this war on terror, and that's a huge 'if', it will be because we finally realized that they intend to wipe us from the face of the earth and the only way to stop them is with overwhelming force. I will sacrifice every single Muslim in this world to save a single American life. They brought this war to us!

[Edit35]

The neo-cons refuse to face the facts that the TRUE conservatives who opposed this disaster were right

Didn't realize we were in the presence of such omnicience.

If you have a few spare minutes, can you please provide US policy makers with the definitive solution on how to handle Iran, which will likely have nuclear weapons within a year or so.

After that, if you have some spare time, please tell us what to do about North Korea, which has been providing rogue Muslim nations with missile technology and will likely begin exporting nuclear technology in about a year or so.

After that, can you please solve the Palestian-Israeli conflict.

And then there's that pesky rift between Pakistan and India, both of whom have nuclear weapons pointed at each other.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

"Are you in that crowd? "

I get it, in your mind any disagreement with Bush = a leftist, America hater.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

[Edit35]

Saddam was never a threat to the United States.

Those who argue that Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat to the US have wrongly implied that that the administration claimed we were on the verge of being attacked by Iraq.

I dont recall that every being implied, directly or indirectly by the Bush administration.

The real threat was how Iraq harbored and covertly supported networks of terrorists, including many cells which were killed or arrested or broken up in the leadup and aftermath of the US nvasion.

Furthermore, think back to the years BEFORE 9/11, and the months just after the WTC attacks.

The Middle East radical Muslim countries were a bubbling caldroun of anti-Americanism, fueled by the bravado brought on by the successful attacks on 9/11.

If the US were to have done NOTHING in the wake of those attacks, I am certain our inaction would have emboldened the radical terror states such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and to some extent Yemen elements, Sudan, etc.

We HAD to take down somebody, if not to "pop the boil" of radical Islamofascists, then to show the Arab world that the US was not to be trifled with.

[Joe Hadenuf]

My suggestion for Bush? Open Saddams cell door, put a bullet in his head, declare victory, and leave that POS country.

And to hell with the Iraqi people, right?

To hell with them? Well, they can go where they please.

The American people owe them nothing. You however are free to give your life saving to them, and go live there if you wish.

Yeah, like New York City. And this time with a nuke.

Uh, and how is that possible? From the Iraqi Air Force? The Iraqi Navy? Or large holes in our immigration policies?

Glad this country's safety isn't dependent on your level of strategic thinking.

Tell me, with the billions we spend on our nuclear sub fleet that's roaming the 7 seas, and all of our other defenses, how is Iraq a threat to New York? If you could be specific.