Democrat Ignorance: Why Iraq is Part of the WOT.

With the recently thwarted terrorist attacks, Democrats are once again attacking Bush for the war in Iraq...not only calling it a distraction, but blaming Bush for creating even more terrorism. This is nonsense! It's past time for those who are well-informed to remind people of the threat Saddam posed "regardless" of WMDs. It's also time to point out that Iraq didn't just become a terorist state as a result of the Iraq War as Democrats claim; it already was. In fact, the war in Afghanistan...all by itself, pretty much guranteed that Iraq would eventually become an even greater threat, regardless of what we did to Saddam. What many so-called liberals want us to ignore is that, even "before" 9/11, Al Qaeda and Al-Zarqawi were courting the Arabs and Kurds in N. Iraq in an effort to create AQs new affilate...Ansar al-Islam.

In August of 2001--a full month before the 9/11 attack, leaders of several Kurdish Islamist factions reportedly visited the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan with the goal of creating an alternate base for the organization in northern Iraq. It was shortly after this that Ansar al-Islam was created using $600,000 in al-Qaeda seed money, with even perhaps as much as $35,000 donated directly from the Mukhabarat branch of Iraqi Intelligence Service. In other words, before the Iraq War, before the Afghanistan War...and even before 9/11, certain groups of Arabs and Kurds were colluding with Al-Qaeda and Zarqawi in an attempt to establish a new AQ affiliate in N. Iraq.

This collaboration was further substantiated during the Afghanistan War, when a document found in an al-Qaeda guest house by the NY Times discussed the creation of an "Iraqi Kurdistan Islamic Brigade" which vowed to "expel those Jews and Christians from Kurdistan and join the way of Jihad, [and] rule every piece of land...with the Islamic Shari'a rule." This alliance meant the creation of another Taliban-like organization within the borders of Iraq...with similar ties to AQ that the Taliban had in Afghainstan. After witnessing the devestating results of the Taliban/AQ alliance in Afghanistan, this just wasn't a proposition we could take a chance on seeing repeat itself in the far more dangerous, Iraq.

As the Afghanistan War continued on, it wasn't a coincidence that many remnants from the Taliban and AQ began to turn up within this newly created "affiliate." Human Rights Watch confirmed this when they visited the region and reported that hundreds of foreign fighters from Afghanistan were joining up with Ansar...some from as early as September 2001 (even before the WTC attack). Adding further evidence to this collaboration was HRW's own interviews of Ansar al-Islam members in PUK custody, who according to them, "described in credible detail training in al-Qa'ida camps in Afghanistan."

After Abu Musab Zarqawi was wounded by US forces in Afghanistan (before the war in Iraq even began) he found refuge in Iraq, and was treated in a Baghdad hospital owned by one of Saddam's son...after which he left with his Egyptian Islamic Jihad brethren, and later met up with Ansar al Islam already operating in Iraq. This action completely contradicts the claims of those who said Saddam would never ally himself with these "radical" Islamic groups for fear of being overthrown. If that were true, Zarqawi woud've never left Baghdad alive--and certainly would not have been treated in a Baghdad hospital!

In fact, this Saddam/Ansar/AQ alliance was quite reasonable...not just because of their shared hatred of America, but because Ansar was doing something for Saddam that Saddam could no longer do for himself: Ansar was attacking the two largest Kurdish factions (PUK and KDP) in N. Iraq...which Saddam could no longer do thanks to the No-Fly Zones. With this alliance Saddam could kill two birds with one stone; he could remove the Kurdish thorns in his side...and help finance this new AQ affiliate in his efforts to attack the West. Evidence suggests that the very creation of Ansar al-Islam was for the purpose of establishing a secondary base of operation should America succeed in ousting the Taliban and AQ from Afghanistan.

This was important because after the destruction of the terrorists camps in Afghanistan, the sanctuaries for these terrorists were running thin. Over the prior decade, AQ and their more radical elements had been getting kicked out of their own homelands and host countries--from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Lebanon to Jordan. Even terror-sponsors like Syria and Libya no longer wanted these groups operating from within their borders. With Sudan offering up bin Laden, and Musharif in Pakistan joining the WOT, there were fewer places left for AQ to coalesce, especially after 9/11 and the retribution America was seeking. No one wanted these groups for fear the US would make their state the next target in the WOT.

The simple fact is the war in Afghanistan made Iraq a natural choice for these groups...even well before the war in Iraq began. Before GW Bush became President, ABC News and other media outlets were continually reporting that Saddam had offered santuary to OBL. Saddam already demonstrated a propensity for harboring wanted terrorists. He had provided safe-haven to both Abu Abass and Abu Nidal...two of the world's most wanted terrorists. A brief history of Nidal shows that he and his group were responsible for the killings of over 900 people in over 20 countries. Nidal was a leader in the PLO...and after leaving them, formed his own group, the Abu Nidal Organization, which operated at an even more violent level.

Nidal was once America's most wanted terrorist and a 1989 State Department report called his organization the most dangerous terrorist group in the world. In a headline from Jan. 8, 1999, Reuters reported that the "Guerrilla Abu Nidal Flees to Iraq." This wasn't necessarily a secret since intelligence had reported that Nidal may have entered Iraq 10 days before Bill Clinton's Dec 16, 1998 bombing of Iraq. Since the 9/11 attack, it was learned that two of the hijackers...Mohamed Atta and Ziad Jarrah, had very close relations with Abu Nidal...which may explain his untimely death in Iraq.

Further confirmation of these alliances may be found in the fact that after the first 1993 WTC attack, Abdul Rahman Yasin, the man convicted of mixing the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad, recieving both a home and a salary. Coincidence? Not if you believe this and what others have said about Ramsey Yousif being a former Iraqi Intelligence officer. Yousif not only helped plan the first WTC attack, he also entered the US on an Iraq passport.

The same was also true for Abu Abass. This "convicted" Palestinian terrorist...and the mastermind behind the Achille Lauro hijacking, had been calling Baghdad his home since 1994...under Saddam's personal protection. Abbas was the leader of another Palestinian terror organization (PLF) which, after leaving Tunisia, set up shop in Iraq. Saddam's relationship with Abass (and Nidal) was very convenient, as Saddam became one of the largest providers of finanical and material support to Palestinian suicide bombers, offering up to $25,000 to the families of these killers. Abbas became an intermediary between Saddam and the Palestinians, were both financal and material support flowed directly from Saddam to the blood-filled streets of Israel...with the PLF setting up terrorist training camps directly in Iraq.

Between the two Abu's...and the material support flowing between them from Saddam...and Hamas and Hezbullah, Iraq was already one of the largest terrorist havens in the world, complete with a terrorist training center at Salman Pak. For those who truly seek peace in the Middle East, especially between Israel and the Palestinians, that peace would never have had a chance with Saddam in power. According to a State Department report, the terrorists whom Hussein backed had killed or injured more than 3,500 civilians outside Iraq. This reason alone, made the ouster of Saddam a legitimate cause, especially since Saddam was prohibited by the Gulf War Cease Fire and following UN resolutions from associating with terrorists. (U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 paragraph 32).

The idea that Saddam and Iraq were some how disconnected from terrorists and terrorism before the Iraq War is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on the American people. Saddam's continuing propensity for harboring and financing terrorists was well documented. Ansar's cooperative relationship with Al-Qaeda began "before" 9/11...and was only growing stronger. With the collapse of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq with Saddam in charge was guaranteed to become an even greater threat; made even more dangerous by billions of dollars in diverted "Oil for Food" money...dollars still being spent for weapons while Iraqi children went hungry; dollars that were being doled out to numerous terrorists and their organizations both in and out of Iraq.

Putting aside the WMD argument, these terrorist connections were the most significant reason that Saddam had to be removed. And for those who still aren't convinced of this alliance, you don't have to look any further than Clinton's own DOJ that unveiled a sealed indictment of UBL in 1998. The indictment, unsealed later that same year, stated among other things that "Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development." These reasons alone...regardless of WMDs, made the removal of Saddam Hussein an immediate priority. Contrary to what Democrats claim, Iraq was and is very much apart of the War on Terror.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5571 (Ansar, AQ and Al-Zarqawi)

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html (1998 Usama Bin Laden Indictment)

Democrats continue to try and seperate Iraq from the WOT. So ludicrous are their condemnations, that some even argue that Iran should've been the first target for the WOT. This coming from the same party were the majority of its members wouldn't even support GH Bush prior to the first Gulf War. Besides the obvious terrorists ties that have been well documented, there is also another important reason why Saddam's Iraq became the logical choice to begin this WOT: Saddam's Iraq was one of the most secular governments in the Mid-East. While there are legitimate arguments to be made for the deposition of the leadership in Iran and Saudi Arabia...because of their terrorists ties (ironically made by some of these same Democrats), these two countries are still the most religiously fundamental in the region.

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.

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.