The Need for the Iraq War (Spelled Out Plain and Simple)

With all the uproar about the war the reasons why we're there have been all but forgotten. Unfortunately, even a cursory view of the situation, the way it is and without the hype, shows the necessity of the operation, not only because we're there, but mainly because this operation was needed all along. This is proven by a rudimentary analysis of cold hard facts, something missing in almost all discussions.

To begin with, UN weapons reports documented every weapon owned by Saddam in the 90s as well as as all that had been seized or destroyed to date. Based on these reports Saddam controlled thousands upon thousands of tons of weapons that could have done serious harm. By their own admission, the previous regime had stockpiles of VX, Sarin, Anthrax and Mustard Gas. Many of these items were found, as were 500 tons of more or less unenriched uranium, I say "more or less" because the anti-war at all costs paper, the New York Times, found evidence that Saddam had begun to enrich this stockpile, reporting on May 22, 2004 that 1.8 tons had already been transformed to low-enriched uranium.

Opponents of the war originally asked: What about Iran and North Korea? But they fail to realize two things. Unlike Iran and North Korea, Iraq had been given 12 years and warning upon warning to comply with destruction of their weapons piles. Had we still failed to act the threat of sanction have been rendered meaningless and there would have been no hope of a diplomatic solution with Iran or North Korea. Furthermore, concentrating first on Iran and North Korea fails to take into account the very nature of the threats posed by each. Iran and North Korea have one goal, to become nuclear and will not attack us beforehand. They have their eye on the ball. As such, we had a window of time in which to try several non-military options. This cannot be said of Saddam's Iraq. He was content with trying to off a former US President and would have been equally content to organize or support smaller, non-nuclear attacks against us. Stopping him was therefore an immediate priority for the security of our nation.

Keep the conversation to facts. President Bush did not "lie." His reports were based on international intel and the operation was extremely necessary if we were to preserve the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts and send a message that potential dangers would be acted upon. He acted in the best interests of the nation and all congressional leaders, in both parties, who had access to the same international intel that the President and CIA did - some of it coming from French and UN sources, were in agreement at the time.

There's also a humanitarian aspect to the invasion that detractors on the left ignore. Until we entered Iraq the main criticism of our policy was that sanctions were harming the populace while doing nothing to harm Saddam. This was true and needed to be corrected. Iraqis suffered because of a lack of food and an inability to clean up the chemical damage left from the Iran-Iraq War and the first Gulf War and Americans were wrongly, but nevertheless seen as the reason for this. Removing Saddam was therefore the compassionate thing to do.

This also goes to the criticism that fighting the insurgency breeds more hatred. It is true that when fighting any enemy, the enemy will gather supporters and will feel a sense of emboldenment. But not fighting an enemy that poses a risk to you will only allow the enemy to grow and strengthen, less emboldened than when war is declared against it, but in a way that it poses a much greater danger when it's finally ready to attack - on its terms, not ours, as we'll have let it grow out of control. But as we see above, they did not need the Iraq War to hate us. Many hated us before precisely because we did not get rid of Saddam but instead imposed sanctions on the populace. Doing nothing was also not an option, as that would have clearly enabled the unfettered growth of Saddam.

Some like to criticize the President for not sending enough troops. Surprisingly, this argument is sometimes advanced by the anti-war critics themselves. It seems that any criticism of the war is popular, no matter what that criticism might be. It doesn't matter if one says "Bush sent too many troops," "Bush sent too few troops," "Bush lied" "Bush doesn't know the facts." Any criticism of the President, no matter from what angle or even if it's wholly contradictory to other criticism, is all lauded and applauded by the same group. But it's also all wrong and ignores pertinent facts.

Too few troops would have made the war ineffective. But too many would have turned the civilians against us and served as proof in their eyes that the insurgents' claims of an American takeover were founded. This would have also greatly weakened the current Iraqi Government, who would simply be seen as US puppets and enablers of the "takeover."

This also needs to be pointed out: Contrary to the believe that the President has a "go it alone philosophy," he is in fact one of the few who have actually listened to the generals and military strategists on the field. It is the detractors, both those who call for a withdrawal and those who call for more troops, who are "going it alone" and who are truly ignoring the advice of on the ground military experts. It is they who can cause real harm, both with their calls for a premature exit and with their calls for an intensified number of troops.

This is similar to the criticism John Kerry tried to launch against the President for not "getting Bin Laden." Kerry argued that had he "been President" he would have sent many more troops into Afghanistan and not allowed the Northern Alliance to lead the battle. Yet it's precisely because we allowed the Northern Alliance to take a lead role that the population cooperated and didn't treat us as intruders. When the war started, a former Soviet officer who had long since defected told me that while he's very supportive of American efforts, he was in Afghanistan and can attest that the population is so weary of occupiers that when the Soviets were there they trained their small children to shoot at soldiers. This former officer felt that they would see us as occupiers as well and therefore warned of a long struggle. That may well have happened had John Kerry "been President." This President fortunately had the wherewithal to listen to military experts and continues to do so. And he's being blamed for it.

To be sure, a withdrawal would only embolden the fanatics and those who wish us harm around the world. Is there any other reason why the insurgents fought especially hard before the elections, hoping to secure a change in course? It's to the great credit of this President that he is not switching course. Had the media done the same in World War 2 - asking why we're "attacking" Germany when it was Japan who attacked us, blaming Roosevelt for military failures - of which there were plenty in every battle, as is the nature of war - you can be sure that public opinion may have forced us to abandon our mission, only to have to face a stronger and harder to defeat Germany a few years later.

Let us pray that the same doesn't happen here. This President definitely deserves credit for realizing what all of us should. It is also important that the entire case be laid out repeatedly to the public, so that we do not make any dire mistakes.

Aside from the risk to national security, there are many other serious issues that both the right and the left should concentrate on. There are issues affecting everyday Americans such as reform of the justice system so that we stop making career criminals out of non-violent offenders and change that system to make it both more humane and more effective, access to alternative medicine and a parent's right to choose a medical strategy for their children, tax reform, how to overhaul Social Security and Medicare and what further steps should be taken to effectively ensure national security and how to balance this with, and indeed promote, civil liberties. But all this goes by the wayside as we concentrate on blaming the President for a war he would have been derelict in duty not to have entered.

Not going to get it from the Bush Administration. Iraq to them and our rules of engagement is nothing more than a pink bonnet. I really thought Bush was going to be hard on terrorist, fat chance of that. Iraq and our rules of engagement is a political nightmare. We are seeking peaceful political solution with al-qaeda thugs who openly roam the streets of ramadi and anbar province, not to mention the iranian/hezbollah backed shiite militias and their leader muqtada al-sadr who have free reign in shiite neighborhoods. What is the deal? There has to be a political solution but only after our enemies have realized they have been defeated militarily and any means of resistance will be counter productive. What a joke. take the damn gloves off.

Nice analysis. To many forget that freedom is not free. Had we not gone to war in Iraq, we would just be leaving the problem for later, when it could be much worse. The fact that the "insurgency" is tougher than we expected means only that the problem would have been that much tougher had we left it for later. In other words, the fact that we are having so many problems now is evidence that we should have gone in now rather than later.

500 tons of more or less unenriched uranium, I say "more or less" because the anti-war at all costs paper, the New York Times, found evidence that Saddam had begun to enrich this stockpile, reporting on May 22, 2004 that 1.8 tons had already been transformed to low-enriched uranium

Worth remembering...

Problem is - the way I see it - that too quick and too fast may permanently alienate allies while setting us back. A steady, steadfast and progressing strategy seems to work best. We will defeat them if we just have the resolve to see this through.

Another problem is the media. If they want to remind us of the death of each soldier (something that would have had the public up in arms against Rooseveltin WW2 because it would have taken us off the reasons for the war) and find another so-called "expert" who's never set foot in the region to criticize the war from every angle (we could have criticised much about D-Day too) and do this daily, then by darnit we need to state the case for the need of this war every day.

We can definitely debate strategy but the purpose of the media attacking this at every angle is to shore up anti-Vietnam type opposition. For some of them it's reliving their hippie glory days. For others it's part of a greater strategy to attack Republicans or conservatives in general. But whatever the case it's dangerous for the nation.

Russian followed your unlimited ROE dogma in Afghanistan during the 1980s. How did that work out for them?

Counter Insurgency is a much different mission then Total War. The Freeper Arm Chair Generals need to quit trying to force their Conventional Military dogmas onto an Asymmetrical Warfare problem.

Try actually learning something about Iraq rather then just repeat as fact the nonsense psuedo Conservative Radio Talk Show hosts with no military background scream at you.

Simply no excuse for this level of ignorant to be still being expressed on Iraq. Considering how may lies and half truths the Junk Media have told Conservatives over the years, why do Conservatives still cling mindlessly to the notion that ONLY the Junk Media is telling the truth on Iraq while everyone else is "drinking the kool-aid"?

How many propaganda lies have to be pointed out? How may Iraqi stringers for AP have to be arrested before the Dincons quit drinking the Junk Media poison?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Force

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspxs

No this is good as is. Need to put Iraq in context of the times not in context of the latest PR spin. There will be lots of time to go after McCain on Iraq. Actually better to work it up as a series of articles rather then shoot all the bullets in one PR blast.

Agreed - There's much on McCain. The man thinks he knows everything and would is quick to launch into tirades against anyone who disagrees. That's a recipe for disaster. Nixon tried to go solo on economic policy and led to a recession. McCain could do worse.

The media portrays the Pres. as someone who doesn't take advice but there couldn't be anything farther from the truth. He's surrounded himself with a more competent group of people than just about any of his predecessors have. A McCain presidency may have certain good points as anything he wants he fights for tooth and nail. But overall it would most likely be a disaster in which poorly thought out policy, popular in the short run, makes for disaster after disaster. He'd be a poll based president with nothing stopping him when he's wrong, and that's when he's not red in the face screaming at his Sec. of the Treasury for not doing something that would cripple the economy but earn him kudos from Tim Russert.

Iraq to them and our rules of engagement is nothing more than a pink bonnet. I really thought Bush was going to be hard on terrorist, fat chance of that. Iraq and our rules of engagement is a political nightmare.

They are only a political nightmare to those who don't understand the kind of battle/war Iraq is. It's a guerrilla war. Guerrilla wars are the hardest kind of war for a democracy to fight. They are long, messy, and don't involve great victories, what passes for a great victory is a well being dug, 10 terrorist killed, a school being built, a bridge not blown up. It requires patience on our part, and (cue the ominous music) nation building, hearts and minds.

What a joke. take the damn gloves off.

I keep seeing this kind of statement. What exactly does it mean.

I would add to the article's points: 1) Iraq and Saddam were our ENEMIES and it was totally correct for Bush to pre-empt them at any time. 2) War is about geography. By taking Iraq, we have surrounded Syria and Iran. They are two of the ultimate objectives in the WOT. Sooner or later, those two countries need new regimes friendly the USA and hostile to terrorists. The war is not over until the terrorists have no bases, no friendly countries for safe haven, and every country hunts them down.

I think former chief inspector David Kay put it even shorter and sweeter.

David Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."

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.