Saddam's Dangerous Friends

Weekly Standard ^ | 03/24/08 | Stephen F. Hayes

[DFG]

This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

[DFG]

Thanks to the MSM, no amount of evidence will convince liberals that Saddam actively supported al Qaeda before 09/11/01.

[massgopguy]

Not to mention that were were in a state of war with Iraq all through the 90’s. Saddam never surrendered, nor did he observe any of the conditions of the cease fire.

[crazydad]

No news here Move along. As long as the lame stream media has anything to say this is a dead in the water story.

[Senator Goldwater]

Not to mention that were were in a state of war with Iraq all through the 90’s. Saddam never surrendered, nor did he observe any of the conditions of the cease fire.

---

Exactly. This should be etched onto the foreheads of any idiots who proclaim that Iraq never “attacked” America.

Bush wasn’t going to wait around for them to do it.

[LaurenD]

“Not to mention that were were in a state of war with Iraq all through the 90’s. Saddam never surrendered, nor did he observe any of the conditions of the cease fire”.

Which is why we should have used our military power to level Iraq’s defenses while targeting the Sadam regime in 2003, rather to go in by land, sea, and air in a nation building project.

It’s one thing for our troops to die fighting such as when our military landed on the beaches of Normandy. Every loss was tragic but they died fighting. What do the reports say coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Almost always that a humvee was on patrol and hit a roadside bomb and X number died.

I think to myself everytime.....for what? While on patrol? While driving down a road? This isn’t our troops dying in a war, it’s our troops dying in a series of fatal accidents. A long series of intentionally designed fatal accidents. That is what is so freaking frustrating about this. They are killed under conditions where they aren’t even fighting. That doesn’t take away from their bravery or combat skills, it simply makes their deaths senseless.

[arbee4bush]

You are so wrong in so many ways.

Oh, welcome to FR

[numberonepal]

Are you really serious there Newbie? Please let me know so I don’t have to write a whole bunch of stuff to educate you.

[LaurenD]

Okay, call me crazy but I happen to believe that our national defense should be for our national defense. That our military power should be used punitively, not for nation building.

That when you send your troops to go and die, that they should be doing some serious ass kicking, not dying from planted roadside bombs. Dying while in a defensive role all so we can make things better for the people of a country who are planting IEDs and launching grenades and mortars at our guys.

[Thrownatbirth]

Our Airman Daughter KB4W

You gave your daughter a ham radio callsign for a name?

Just kidding. :-)
73's and prayers to her!

[joseph20]

So what would you have done? Let Saddam get away with it all?

[LaurenD]

Go for it? Educate me. I’m sure you’re up to cutting and pasting a bunch of stuff from your word file.

Explain how it is the same when in WWll, our military landed on the beaches of Normandy and while so many lost their lives, they lost their lives while shelling the hell out of the enemy to how our guys day after day in Iraq and Afghanistan are for the most part dying by planted roadside bombs and mortar attacks while not engaging in combat. It’s not that no bad guys are being killed doing it this way, it’s that the way our military is having to go about it is insane. It’s the way a country fights that doesn’t care more about their own troops than they do people of other countries.

[LaurenD]

Hell no. I would have bombed the hell out of his country until his own people overthrew him. I would followed that up with an ultimatum that if they allow Al Qaeda in or become a threat to us in any way ever again, that we will be back to level them again and that while bombing will be targeted, there will no regard for the well being or prosperity of their nation.

[joseph20]

If, after you have “bombed the hell out of his country”, his own people never overthrow him, then what? You’ve enraged the population, sown seeds of hatred against the U.S. for another generation, and still haven’t solved the problem of Saddam’s regime.

Let’s say, after we “bomb the hell out of his country”, they DO overthrow him. They will then form a new government that is still an enemy of the U.S., promotes terrorism, etc.

Either way, the problem is not solved.

[numberonepal]

I’m sure you’re up to cutting and pasting a bunch of stuff from your word file.

Nope, no Word file cut and paste. Where you got that idea from I'll never know. Soldiers are soldiers. When in a combat zone (which is what the entirety of Iraq is by the way) combat is always possible. Just because you aren't firing offensive volleys doesn't mean it's not combat.

[LaurenD]

That is where the ultimatum comes in. You put the new govt on notice that if they do not meet our demands, what the consequences will be.

Plenty of people in Iraq knew where Sadam was when he was in hiding. They knew better than anybody else did where he was. If they want to stop being bombed, they cooperate.

As far as hate, we should be feared and respected around the world, not loved. We will be hated no matter what by certain elements of the world population. Your same argument could have been made to not drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. That future generations would hate us for it. Heck, your line of reasoning could be used to argue against ever using any force against any enemies foreign or domestic.......don’t make them mad at us, they’ll hate us. It’s like the liberal parent that doesn’t punish their children because they don’t want to be hated by them. Or like how the liberals are for being soft on criminals because they don’t want the criminals being even angrier at society. It’s bogus. Pure BS.

[numberonepal]

That our military power should be used punitively, not for nation building.

Why not? Did it not work in Japan? It is indeed in our national interest for these countries to be stable. Iraq is an excellent opportunity for us to be and stay a force of good to be reckoned with in the Middle East. Let's also not not forget (throwing off all the PC guises) that we have some solid military infrastructure of our own right smack dab in the heart of the Middle East. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the war against Islam is anywhere near over. It is just getting started.

Let's also not forget that freedom is contagious. A free Iraq will be a shining example to the rest of the 7th century minded region. Heck, even parts of Africa may come into the light. It is in our national interest (and some might say obligation) to spread freedom throughout a world full of tyranny and oppression. And least ye not forget: freedom ain't free; it's a hefty f***in' fee.

[joseph20]

"That is where the ultimatum comes in. You put the new govt on notice that if they do not meet our demands, what the consequences will be."

What would our demands be?

And why don't we behave this way toward other countries? If they don't submit to our demands, we just bomb them into the stone age.

Sounds like an excellent foreign policy.

"As far as hate, we should be feared and respected around the world, not loved."

In WWII, we shouldn't have started the Marshall Plan. We should have just told the German population and all the Nazi insurgents to comply with our demands or we would continue bombing their country into smithereens. Great idea! Wonder what modern day Europe would look like if we had followed that line of reasoning...

[LaurenD]

“When in a combat zone (which is what the entirety of Iraq is by the way) combat is always possible. Just because you aren’t firing offensive volleys doesn’t mean it’s not combat”.

The troops in combat today are just as brave and more skilled than past generations of soldiers. But they are by and large dying needlessly because of the liberalism that has so infected our collective mindset. The mindset that says that when an enemy combatant can be taken out but doing so will kill 4 civilians so you let him go and he later leads an ambush that takes out 4 of our own. The mindset that no longer uses our military power punitively but as some sort of international relief society, at a huge cost to ourselves in both lives and treasure.

I see things a certain way and until I’m convinced otherwise, this is the way I view it. That countries like Iraq have deep rooted tribes and sects that are in opposition to its govt. We have groups in the U.S. that are in opposition to law and order and they are called gangs which have the same sort of tribal mentality. Fortunately for us and while they do inflict suffering on innocents, they make up a small fraction of our population. If however, they represented 30-40% of our population, our law enforcement would be in big trouble. They would have to resort to the type of brutality that our military is not allowed to use.

Because of these deep rooted tribes and sects that are not a small fraction of the people, the only chance for a stable Iraq after we leave, is for it to have a strong central govt that rules with an iron fist. The longer we are in Iraq, the longer we delay the inevitable while we sacrifice our own in the process.

I’ve been told I am wrong because all of humanity is basically the same. That we all want the same things. Well, we all want to be rich but not everybody is willing to do what it takes to be rich. We all want to be healthy, yet some people still take drugs, smoke, over-eat, etc. And we all have certain principles that we believe in so strongly that we are willing to die so that our kids will live under them. We in our culture believe so strongly in things like Freedom of speech, a free press, etc.....that we are willing to die so that our kids will live under those values.

Well, in muslim countries, people believe so strongly in their values that they are willing to die so that their kids will live under those same values. They may not all be fundamentalists and radical, but enough of them are that only a strong central govt that instills fear into their populations can control all those tribes and sects. We are not going to change the values of the Muslim world in a year, in 10 years, or 100 years and even if we could......at what cost to ourselves? This is why I say that it is not the job of our military to make our country loved around the world. It is their job to commit violence against those that threaten or harm us. The role of a military is to defend its population. Hence the term.....national defense.

[LaurenD]

Look, terrible things happen in war. It is beyond any of our ability to even understand how terrible it is unless we have been there. This is why you don’t go to war unless your national security is at risk by not going. Once that decision is made, then you do not have mercy on your enemy until they have met all your demands and you should make those demands very clear from the outset. There should be no confusion about what it is they are to do.

In the case of Iraq, we should have laid out what it is we expected of their leadership.

1) comply with UN resolutions and cease firing at our patrols.
2) allow unconditional and unlimited searches for WMD.
3) Do not threaten its neighbors.
4) Do not support or fund terrorism.

Obviously, there are people out there who can make those points using much better language and speaking skills. Heck, if advisors to our politicians can take meaningless platitudes and turn them into good speeches for every election, then they can take the points I listed and turn them into good speeches. I could if I wanted to spend a few days preparing one but why would I? I’m not a speech writer for anybody.

[numberonepal]

I might also add that the oh so politically incorrect Fly Paper Method (thank goodness for Rummy) is working like a charm.