Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was the Iraq War Worth It?
American Thinker ^ | June 02, 2008 | Jeff Lukens

Posted on 06/01/2008 11:59:42 PM PDT by neverdem

[Th]ey say if it bleeds, it leads on the nightly news. The recent silence from the mainstream news media on Iraq, however, is speaking volumes. While the war remains unpopular, our success there has been unmistakable. The Iraqi people, with the help of the U.S. led coalition, have succeeded in establishing the world’s first Arab democracy. Their achievement is a milestone in the war on terror and for the cause of liberty.

Beyond the Iraqi Constitution and the elections, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has emerged as the true leader of the governing coalition. He has battled and won against fellow Shiite and problem child Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia. The Sunni, Shiite and Kurd people work together in a national Iraqi Army. Together, they are taking their county back from the foreign insurgents that have invaded their homeland. Iraqi troops took the lead in clearing Basra and Sadr City, and are now finishing off the insurgent remnants.

No one likes to go to war, but even an elective war is sometimes necessary. With all the consternation these past years, President Bush may finally be able to say "Mission Accomplished" to what he originally set out to do.

This we know, Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He even gassed his own Kurd and Shiite populations in the 1980s. What happened to those chemical weapons? Who knows? Whether they buried them in the ground somewhere or trucked off to Syria, we had every reason to believe he had them.

In the months leading up to the war, Saddam acted as if he were hiding a nuclear program by obstructing UN inspectors visiting his installations. We have since concluded that his nuclear program was still in its infancy, but we could not have known that then. Saddam's power was in his bluff, but his bluff was called.

Following 9/11, we had to show we meant business in the fight on terror. Afghanistan fell quickly, but it was a sideshow. Look at any map of the Middle East and smack in the middle of it is Iraq. Think about it, if we could flip Iraq form a dictatorial state that sponsored terrorism to a democratic republic, there would be profound implications throughout the region. When most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, we needed to show Saudi Arabia, as much as anyone, our resolve. Regime change in Iraq was militarily and politically feasible, so Iraq was where Bush chose to make his move.

Saddam fell quickly too, but the subsequent insurgency dragged on for another five years. Though our casualties have been mercifully low, the political angst against Bush has grown virulent. Maybe Bush could have handled the occupation better, and the war should have been over more quickly, but our reason to go there was strategically sound. Bush made the proper decision with the urgency of 9/11 still fresh, and with the information available to him at that time.

In the early years of the Civil War, Lincoln lost battle after battle with a revolving door of generals who could not or would not fight Robert E. Lee. Lincoln finally found his general with Ulysses S. Grant who took after Lee's army and ground it down.

Bush had a similar problem with Donald Rumsfeld and generals who would not adapt to insurgents who did not wear uniforms and hid among the people. Bush finally replaced Rumsfeld and found his Generals in David Petraeus and Ray Odierno. The counterinsurgency strategy they employed made quick work of our enemies in Iraq.

Back in the U.S., however, liberal opposition to the war has at times reached hysterical levels and threatened to unravel all that we sought to achieve. Some things do not change. They have been acting this way since our days in Vietnam. And like our experience there, instead of finding ways to win they sought the worst possible outcome by unilateral surrender.

Liberals have never considered Bush a legitimate president. They have never gotten over the myth that the 2000 election was stolen. For them, Bush's decision to enter into an elective war that took longer than expected was just too much. His presidency is too emotional a subject for them, and reasoning with them about any aspect of it has become nearly impossible. But for anyone who still cares and is willing to listen, what we are seeing in Iraq today is exactly what we set out to accomplish from the beginning -- establish a beachhead for democracy in the Middle East.

Before the war, state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East were Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq. Today, only Iran and Syria remain -- with a democratic Iraq located between them. And in the information age, don't believe for a moment that the infectious seeds of freedom are not being sown in those countries and throughout the region. The promise of freedom for the oppressed is America's greatest strategic weapon in this war. In due time, tyrants in those countries may come to fear their own people more than any army that may threaten them.

We must remember that the struggle in Iraq is only one campaign in the larger global war on terror. History will intimately judge, but yes, early indications are that President Bush's victory was a worthy step in that overall goal.

Radical Islam is at war with the civilized world because of our tolerant values toward women, different lifestyles and different religions. For Americans, understanding the threat posed by this enemy, finding ways to triumph over them, and mobilizing public opinion to support that effort remain as challenges for the years ahead.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: Mr Ramsbotham
Someone’s ass needed to be kicked, and Iraq was the ideal candidate for the role. Large-scale terrorism requires state sponsorship, and if the states are afraid to do the sponsoring, terrorism will take a huge hit.

Nailed it.

21 posted on 06/02/2008 3:41:27 AM PDT by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aria

Iraqi history sure will.


22 posted on 06/02/2008 4:13:20 AM PDT by Impy (Hey Barack, you're ugly and your wife smells.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Wars are fought on both strategic and psychological battlefields. We were attacked on 9-11 not because of an abundance of hatred, but because of a profound lack of respect. The summary sacking of an iconic Arab head of state is the consequence that was required to restore the respect we had lost in the eyes of our enemies. So it's our willingness to attack Iraq, and our willingness to shed blood without fleeing that is the principal reason we haven't been attacked on our soil since, and singularly makes the war "worth it".

The other outcomes of the Iraq war; the installation of a functioning democracy, the freeing of 26 million from the boot heel of a murderous tyrant, and the subsequent attraction and dispatch of al-Qaida, are all wonderful developments, and will add permanence to the respect factor, but the attack itself has been under-rated in my opinion, resulting in the fact that the question "was the war worth it?" could even be asked.

23 posted on 06/02/2008 4:19:09 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It will most likely take decades to truly know.....whatever we see today, both positive and negative, will likely be dwarfed by how this war impacts the reshaping of the region.....and we will only know that outcome down the road.....

IMHO.....yes, change was needed....the status quo would have probably led to a much wider and more deadly conflict.....that still may occur....but now there is at least some hope.....based on realism....
24 posted on 06/02/2008 4:30:45 AM PDT by PigRigger (Donate to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org - The Troops have our front covered, let's guard their backs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Was South Korea worth it?

30,000 US deaths in 30 months under Truman.


25 posted on 06/02/2008 4:37:38 AM PDT by syriacus (30,000 US deaths in Korea in 2 1/2 years, because Truman too hastily withdrew troops in 1949.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Turn it around. What price would be worth it?

The price is too high? Certainly to a family that's lost a loved one. So what price would make the list above palatable. Or a bargain?

26 posted on 06/02/2008 5:21:14 AM PDT by Dilbert56 (Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

mark


27 posted on 06/02/2008 6:15:43 AM PDT by Christian4Bush ("In Israel, the President hit the nail on the head. The nails are complaining loudly." - John Bolton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56

Very well put.

After 9/11 did we have any other choice but to answer in full force - I don’t think so.

They asked for this war - we chose to have it in a desert instead of the mountains of Afghanistan that defeated the Soviets.

When the liberals have moved on to another cause to scream about I think our strategy will be vindicated.


28 posted on 06/02/2008 11:24:34 AM PDT by Aria (NO RAPIST ENABLER FOR PRESIDENT!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yes it was worth it. Between the choice of having Al Queda have tons of resources to attack American soft targets vs. sending suicide squads into Iraq against our capable military is the only correct choice. President Bush got handed the biggest *hit sandwich since Lincoln’s day. His weakness was his own cabinet choices, specifically Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Both are liberals. You can’t polish a turd :)


29 posted on 06/02/2008 11:43:43 AM PDT by quant5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txflake

The President pushed hard for alternative energy as well. His own party was too self-absorbed to present an energy independence bill that the President wanted. Pity, this decision helped lose the House and made the President’s job that much harder. The President doesn’t fit into Washington these days, he attempts to do more then lip service for the American people.


30 posted on 06/02/2008 11:49:50 AM PDT by quant5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: quant5

i agree - plus he tried to address the social security problem.

Democrats who put party before country and spineless Republicans ruined chances to get anything done. They ought to all be term limited outta there.


31 posted on 06/02/2008 4:03:01 PM PDT by Aria (NO RAPIST ENABLER FOR PRESIDENT!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Aria

You betcha. Strange how powerful our media is to make this President the lone voice of dissent on energy independence, social security, the dangers of radical Islam etc.

The President has probably learned the hard way to keep your Administration neocons, hire a good speechwriter, have controlled media events and back up the speeches with numbers to the American people as to why certain choices are being made. When the President has retired, I will request a dinner with him in Maine, I live a few minutes away. I helped the President recently and would love to hear about his experiences first-hand.


32 posted on 06/03/2008 2:59:41 PM PDT by quant5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: quant5

You could get a dinnner with W? I’m impressed. I’d love to talk to him.

I’m beginning to wonder if any halfway conservative will ever get a fair shake from the MSM - probably not. The self-hatred for what made us great is astounding.


33 posted on 06/03/2008 3:05:28 PM PDT by Aria (NO RAPIST ENABLER FOR PRESIDENT!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Aria

I never had qualms as a business owner and Patriot contributing to our national interests. It is this that allows communication with people like W. I give the credit to the Lord Jesus Christ whom polishes a person’s humility and abilities to act as a true public servant and it is indeed true that those whom act last and simply serve the greater need are the ones promoted first.

Other reasons to visit, I am running for Congress in 2012. The families’ insights into politics are research for and support party lines. I feel it’s important to convey that many of us in America understood his personal sacrifice for this nation in overwhelming circumstances. That some of us are proud he strapped the boots back on even though half the nation have been brainwashed to hate him and act disrespectfully.


34 posted on 06/03/2008 3:16:19 PM PDT by quant5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: quant5

I’ve said this before and will say it again - I believe any true history will look very kindly on W. Other than immigration I have remained a W fan throughout - I met him at the Portland airport when he was first running - I was certain he’d be President. I don’t disagree with the war (not that I like it) but we have been kept safe while proving that there are severe consequences to murdering over 3k of our innocent citizens.

Good luck to you in 2012!


35 posted on 06/03/2008 3:49:50 PM PDT by Aria (NO RAPIST ENABLER FOR PRESIDENT!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Aria

Thank you Aria, keep me in your prayers. I am going to need it for the snake pit on the hill :)


36 posted on 06/04/2008 4:57:51 PM PDT by quant5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson