Posted on 08/13/2006 4:18:43 PM PDT by cwb
Saudi Arabia is the homeland of the Islamic Faith, while Iran is its first Islamic Republic. This means that any preemptive attack on either of these countries would've been viewed as a direct attack on Islam. For those concerned about the perception of a Holy War, that perception would've become a reality as these countries would've rallied Muslims from around the world to battle the New Crusaders. This is not to say that these countries don't need change, but to listen to these suddenly "hawkish" democrats single out the two most fundamental governments in the ME is rather amusing when they don't even have the fortitude to stay the course in the most secular nation.
Not to mention that unlike Iraq, none of these nations ever gave us (or the UN) the overt reasons for war the way Saddam had. Between the Iraq/Iran War, Saddam's Kuwaiti adventure, violations of the Gulf War cease-fire and numerous UN Resolutions, Saddam gave the world plenty of reasons to remove him from power. Ironically, I'm beginning to think Iraq may be part of the larger plan to get to Iran. Since the war in Iraq, Iran has become even more bellligerant in recent years. Looking at the map one FReeper posted of American flags surrounding Iran, I think Iran is literally seeing and feeling this pinch...and is responding in kind. The old Iran that operated quietly in the shadows is now being drawn-out as they become even more billegerant, exposing them for the real threat they are.
Iraq is just one battle in a war that will be fought on many fronts. And what makes Iraq one of the most important possession in the WOT is its geo-political postion within the region. From the political perspective, Iraq is a more secular society, meaning any claims of this being a Holy War or Crusade have less validity, especially with Saddam's own treatment of Muslims over the decades. From the geographical perspective our occupation of Iraq, combined with our current presence in Afghanistan and the surounding 'stans, gives us a strategic advantage which would not have been possible without Iraq. By starting in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have now literally surrounded Iran should it be necessary to direct our attentions their way.
Iran may very well be the primary target in the WOT...but without first securing our flanks (especially with a belligerant Saddam still in power) and establishing interior bases from which to operate, any attack or war against Iran would be extremely difficult and costly. And let's not forget that by taking Iraq we have physically divided Iran from their terrorist partner...Syria. Because of our presence in Iraq, we have literally split this alliance, not only removing Saddam from the equation, but also isolating each nation. We have strategically positioned ourselves to confront these threats from a more advantageous military position.
Like a good chess player...or military tactician, Bush is dividing, conquering and positioning his assets to where they can be most effective in case of an upcoming conflict. While others berate Bush for failing to construct the appropriate coalitions, and/or alienating our traditional allies--i.e. the French and Germans, they've completely ignored those alliances Bush has formed with such untraditional partners like Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan, etc. In fact, behind the scenes, the Bush administration has worked hard with many of the old Soviet satellites, which when viewed from a geographical perspectice, shows just how much more important these alliances will be in relation to a war with Iran.
Iraq was the perfect choice to begin the WOT...as it not only allowed us to remove a destabilizing threat to the rest of the world, it has also allowed us to strategically position ourselves to deal with any of these other threats when that time comes. And I say "when" not "if"...because it is only a matter of time before we are going to have to deal with radical Islam. To wait, as some have suggested would've only allowed this threat to grow and become further entrenched. The difference Iraq made is that we now have a strategic advantage from which to operate from, something we didn't have before taking out Saddam. To abandon Iraq as Democrats suggest would not only create another haven for terrorists to operate...forging an even closer relationship with Iran, it would also surrender our strategic advantage in the region.
I agree about the WMDs. This was just to make the case w/out WMDs since most the mediacrats are dismissing that claim out of hand.
Wonderful piece. Wonderful.
"our flanks" Iraq and Afghanistan. Exactly.
bttt
I absolutely agree. The terrorists know exactly how important Iraq is. By staying on offense, we have committed them to defending a territory they can't afford to lose. While they will still attempt attacks on our soil, those attempts will most likely be far and fewer between since they are fighting in the ME. Heck, how many stories have we seen of terorists leaving this country to go fight over there. The Democrats are right...Iraq is a distraction; a distraction for the terrorists and their plans to attack us.
One thing that noone ever says is that we have been training troops to fight alongside our men. Unlike some Europeans who have neglected to keep their armies up-to-date, we have interoperability with the Iraqi and Afghan armies.
Yep and to that point, the terrorists have been having issues recruiting the young and dumb ones to give up their lives for Allah.
It's been that way since I was in Iraq as a contractor in 2004. Once we kicked the crap out of Z-Man in Fallujah and especially once we took back the Mosque in Najaf, things got better.
We should never refer to either by any term other than campaign
Excellent, cwb. However, one note.....IMHO, with or without WMD's and even if 9/11 had never happend, Saddam needed to be taken down. I will say this until my dying day, "Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified when based only on the fact that Saddam refused to comply with the UN Resolutions that ended the first Gulf war and allowed him to stay in power." The deaths of all of our military men and women in the Gulf War had been in vain, until Saddam was held accountable for his defiance of the UN Resolutions. The fact that he had WMD's and was a terrorist supporter were excellent, additional reasons for war.
I agree. The moment Saddam started violating the No-Fly zones and shooting at our pilots should've been enough to rescind the cease-fire. Combined with his continual non-adherence to UN weapons inspector demands (especially in 1998) should've wrought severe consequences.
What's so disgusing about the Democrats is that 2-days after Bush's Inauguration, William Cohen wrote an editorial for the NY Times (in conjunction with the Carnegie Endowment for Peace) warning Bush about Saddam's reconstitution of WMDs.
In the editorial Cohen even sites how Clinton's 1998 bombing failed to remove the threat since his intel showed many of these facitilities being rebuilt...especially the one at Fullujah. I always laugh when I hear Clinton claim his 1998 bombing removed the WMD threat...when his own Sec. of Defense said something completely different.
Agree. Well said.
Exactly! Yet we still have republican pundits on TV and radio when 'put on the spot' by a lefty crying out "where are the WMD?" whose response is something like "We freed 25 million Iraqis" or "Are we better off now with Saddam Hussein out of power?"
Both are good points but also appear to be concessions that the lefty is correct when claiming there were no WMD.
I will also add that aside from the WMD found there were also many UN banned weapons including missiles found in Iraq before and during the war in Iraq.
ping
Thanks, cwb. As the mother of a soldier who served in Iraq from the very beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and stood vigil before and after with the news on 24/7, I find it appalling how so many "talking heads" of the MSM, and others as well, seem to never mention the first, and foremost reason we and our allies went into Iraq. The MSM and the Dems managed to change the subject once the war started, and even Fox News let them get away with it! We didn't have to prove a damn thing with regards to WMD or Saddam's relationship with terrorists in order to justify Operation Iraq Freedom!
As for Cohen, Clinton and the rest of the liars.....well, I can't say what I really want to say, but suffice to say, "bite me you lying bastards".
LOL...I couldn't have said it better myself. I can't imagine the grief that you and other parents most go through having to listen to these liars. Bless you and yours for both your service.
Thanks, cwb. Yes, there were (and are still) times that I just want to scream my head off at the comments I hear in the MSM and the Dem's party of self-serving, America-bashing, liberal loving, two-faced cretins. Phew, glad I got THAT off my chest. LOL
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.