Why We Went to War in Iraq

Front Page Magazine ^ | 06-29-07 | By David Horowitz

[KarlInOhio]

I still hold to the idea that the primary reason for invading Iraq was to put the last block into surrounding Iran because it is the major bad actor in the Islamic world. The Taliban was removed from Afghanistan. Turkey was an ally. Pakistan was nominally an ally. Inroads were being made with the former Soviet republics north of Iran. That left Iraq as Iran's only unguarded border. We expected to have a relatively easy time removing Saddam (check) along with an easy time controlling Iraq afterward (nope). I think the second is because we didn't expect Iran to see this move as threatening them and grossly underestimated their response.

[Lurker]

can be traced to Noam Chomsky and his Marxist screed,

One of these days I'm going to run into Chomsky. He's going to have a very, very bad day.

L

[Jack Black]

awesome

[Just another Joe]

We went into Iraq for both strategic and tactical reasons.

The thing that we didn't think about is that there have been regional conflicts in this land for centuries that Sadham kept buried through the use of force.
What we did not anticipate was that these regional conflicts would break free in such a short time, and we didn't have a government ready to go that would put them down in a hurry.

We are there, we should not be leaving until there is a workable solution to this, and if we do leave we will be leaving a larger, and more dangerous, vacuum than when Sadham was in power.

[StarCMC]

Thank you for the ping, FreedomPoster. An excellent post, MNJohnnie!

Pinging a few friends...this one’s worth your time to read.

[txradioguy]

OUTSTANDING!!!

[rbosque]

My son is returning from Iraq on the 2nd of July. My oldest came back last year. I will always pray for the rest that are still carrying on their mission.

[colorado tanker]

WMD and treaty violations were never the most important reason to me. Terror is used by islamofascist regimes and movements, the strongest and most incorrigible of which at the time was Saddam's. We must take down the states who use and support terror to deprive groups like AQ of their oxygen.

The treaty violations made the war perfectly legal under international law, IMHO, but were never the most important reason to go to war, or, rather fight back, since the islamofascists have been at war with us for decades.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Plains Drifter]

Amen I’ll bet some of the womwn and childern at Waco wish they could hve spent time at Gitmo instead of being barbecued!!!

[MNJohnnie]

This is not a chess game. It’s fixing serious, serious leadership errors during the 1990s

Great post.

[MNJohnnie]

Saddam started 2 regional wars, killed hundred of thousands if not millions and had drawn the USA into an open end military comitment to “Contanin” him.

Saddam was the biggest thread to the worlds political and economic stablity around. Even if we leave today, the world is much much much better off with him gone.

BEST answer is we stay and Iraq emerges as a viable stable democracy. But any answer that removes Saddam is a better answer then leaveing him around to make trouble.

[PerConPat]

The thing that we didn't think about is that there have been regional conflicts in this land for centuries that Sadham kept buried through the use of force. What we did not anticipate was that these regional conflicts would break free in such a short time, and we didn't have a overnment ready to go that would put them down in a hurry.

Well, I actually don't know to what extent these matters were or were not considered, pre-invasion. But, having said that, the concerns that you mention in your post do not, for me, outweigh what I consider to be the correct answers to the following questions.

1. After our nation was viciously attacked, why should Middle East regional conflicts have deterred us from taking quick, strong measures against those entities that our best intelligence indicated were serious threats to produce and/or abet even more serious attacks on the homeland? IMHO, they shouldn't have.

2. How much time did we have to overcome regional dysfunctions and prep standby governments-in-waiting for the day of liberation while our enemies were no doubt seeking access to the WMD that a mass-murdering, US hater of Saddam’s ilk gave every indication of holding/developing? IMHO, there was no time to waste trying to untangle the religio-political mess in the region.

As far as I'm concerned, more variety in the possible answers to these questions is perhaps understandable six or so years down the road; but things were much less flexible back at he starting point—9/11/’01.

We are there, we should not be leaving until there is a workable solution to this, and if we do leave we will be leaving a larger, and more dangerous, vacuum than when Sadham was in power.

We are in complete agreement on this point.

[MNJohnnie]

I still hold to the idea that the primary reason for invading Iraq was to put the last block into surrounding Iran because it is the major bad actor in the Islamic world

Makes a lot of sense to me.

[Young Werther]

Clintoon should have been hung for roasting those kids and doing so with Georgia National Guard troops which is a direct violation of "posse comitatus". Reno accepted responsibility for the "oops" and went on here merry way with the catch phrase, "can't we just move on?"

I grew up in a Democratic family and looked forward to my first vote in '64. JFK was my hero and it took the likes of Johnson and the lies and licentiousness that was to follw to convince me that Regean and Republicanism was the way to go.

Recent Democrap droppings, A Sexual Predator, a lame brained polluter, and a Traitor have solidified my feelings that the party of Truman and Kennedy is long gone and in need of replacement. Replacement of parties is nothing new in US politics. The Whigs, Green Party and No Nothings are parties of the past and will soon be joined by the party of Peeloslow, Reedie and Hiltlerbilk.

[MNJohnnie]

Not strategically however

Look at a map. Where is Iraq? Stategically he who holds Iraq holds the ME. You lever apart the two major baddies, Iran and Syria plus open up another axis of attack into Syria, Iran or Saudia Arabia as needed. Plus it gives you a chance to deal with the long term instablity caused by the Kurdish Nationalists in Turkey. Strategically going into Iraq was the only option open to the USA after Afganistan.

[MNJohnnie]

You two military intellectuals will love this article.

[Just another Joe]

Just my opinion, if you plan to invade a country, ANY country, you better play it out for the years following before you invade.

Otherwise it's just flying by the seat of your pants, and I don't like my countries leaders flying by the seat of their pants.

When you fly by the seat of your pants it tends to leave your bare bottom hanging out the window.

[MNJohnnie]

Hey my Babbeling Baghdad Buddy, you will like this one.

[pissant]

Thanks for the ping. Bookmarked.