The Real Reason for Attacking Iraq

CNSNews.com ^ | April 22, 2003 | David Thibault

[H8DEMS]

I don't have a scintilla of doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. launched its war against Iraq. There also can be no doubt in anyone's mind about the treachery and torture that the evil dictator and his lock-step henchmen exercised on his real and imagined enemies in Iraq.

But, I don't believe either the WMD or human rights abominations were THE reason we attacked Iraq. Let me quickly add that I don't believe it was for the oil either, or the artifacts or anything else natural or man-made that Iraq possesses.

Plain and simple, we attacked Iraq to send the rest of the world a message: You don't mess with Uncle Sam!

Through all the ridiculous prelude that we witnessed with Hans Blix, his merry band of weapons inspectors and the other bureaucrats at the United Nations who couldn't run a lemonade stand, I couldn't help thinking we were fortunate to have a president whose memory bank contained the searing images of the indescribable agony of Sept. 11, 2001.

It's astonishing that so many Americans seemed to forget the pain of that day. Our president did not. His moral clarity would not let him. Sure, he went along with all of the diplomatic buffoonery of the U.N. Security Council, but there was never a doubt -- not the slightest pause in the conscience of George W. Bush. He was going to hit Saddam because failure to do so would invite all of the other insecure tyrants in the world to concoct their own terror blackmail schemes while thumbing their noses at the United States and the United Nations.

Moammar Khadaffy and Fidel Castro are emasculated international terrorists, so it no longer matters what they think. But, Bashar Assad of Syria and Kim Jong Il of North Korea are genuinely dangerous madmen. And right now, they're scared to death. Iraq was the litmus test. If Saddam had called Bush's bluff and the president had been persuaded to back off, Assad and Kim would be dreaming up their attack plans right now. Because Bush kicked Saddam's sorry hindquarters, the Syrian and North Korean despots know they're next in line.

Don't let the misguided anti-war protesters persuade you with their conspiratorial claptrap. The whole scenario is really quite simple. Yes, the Bush doctrine includes preemptively attacking a country that is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. And yes, America is the global policeman when it comes to human rights. But, the Bush doctrine has a bottom line -- based on historical precedence.

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman wouldn't forgive Pearl Harbor. And George Bush won't forgive 9/11. Osama bin Laden may have succeeded once, but he and his lunatic ilk will do it again -- over George W. Bush's dead body.

America -- don't mess with it.

(David Thibault is managing editor of CNSNews.com)

[H8DEMS]

Someone's a Darryl Worley Fan. Put this piece to music and you might have another hit song.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Plain and simple, we attacked Iraq to send the rest of the world a message: You don't mess with Uncle Sam!

Dubya was ready to invace Iraq on September 12, 2001, but unfortunately, Tony Blair talked him into building a "coalition."

Personally, I wish we had gone in the day after the planes crashed.

[vannrox]

Big BUMP for an Excellent Article!

[whattajoke]

I hope Saudi Arabia was part of your 9/12/01 plan as well.

[Sacajaweau]

The United States is on a noble mission. Saddam is not unlike Hitler. Iran and Kuwait was the beginning. The gassing of his own people is an abominable crime. The monies of the Iraqi people were frittered on Palaces. Saddam wanted an empire. The United States became the Umpire.

Peace and security for these people will take time. The history of Saddam contained a never ending threat to World Wide Peace. Brutal dictators capable of mass destruction must not be allowed to reign. It is the lesson of Hitler.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[FryingPan101]

"Plain and simple, we attacked Iraq to send the rest of the world a message: You don't mess with Uncle Sam!"

Good enough for me any day of the week.

[Nonstatist]

we attacked Iraq to send the rest of the world a message: You don't mess with Uncle Sam

It was more than that. Send the world a message , and then start the process that will change the world; or specifically the MidEastern part of the world. Make it into something we can tolerate.

[LS]

Victor Hanson says all this, though much better, in his new book, "The Autumn of War."

[kinghorse]

I've said this all along. Policy is dictated by history and how future historians will write the history of our time. Any time in the past, when the USA was attacked indirectly, she found the sponsor and punished them.

Barbary Pirates is the closest thing to 9-11 cum Saddam's downfall. The Barbary pirates were "encouraged" by Spain to board American ships and enslave American sailors. Spain thought she could hide behind state-less terrorists. She found out otherwise when the USA pre-empted the threat and chased the Spanish Fleet back to Spanish ports and out of places as far flung as Puerto Rico and the Phillipines. History doesn't dwell on the disconnect. History makes the connection and demands American action to uphold her honor and prestige. Someone had to pay for 9-11.

The real enemy, the hidden enemy surely knows the next state-less terror attack will mark them as doomed men. Hence no more attacks. Genius.

[stuartcr]

All your reasons are valid, but do not be mistaken...no one spends as much as we did or will, for anything other that that which will generate revenue, ie, natural resources.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Nice analysis. I've always thought that it's like we're in a bar or a parking lot and 10 guys want to take us on. The only way to handle the situation is to take out one guy, then the next, then the next, until all the others get scared and run away. Only point being is that you have got to start somewhere. You can't just sit there and do nothing, paralyzed with fear. And you can't fight everyone all at once. So you have to line 'em up and start taking them out, one by one by one. Afghanistan got to be first, Iraq got to be second, I guess we'll see who wants to be next, maybe Syria, maybe North Korea, maybe Saudi. I think the overriding message is however, is you have got to start somewhere, and you've got to take them on one by one by one. Don't think it matters *that* much what the order is, you've just got to take out the trash in calm, deliberate, methodical way. And that's what we are doing, and the world is already a safer place because of it.

[tlrugit]

All part of the demolition of the worldwide terror network.

[Valin]

I would not wish to fight the United States — either militarily, politically, or culturally. For every threat, our history teaches us that Americans offer not just a rejoinder, but the specter of a devastating answer of a magnitude almost inconceivable to those now chanting and threatening in the streets of the Middle East.
Do they have any idea of what sort of dangerous people we really are? Do they understand the history of the names of those ships now off their coasts, like the USS Peleliu or Enterprise, or the pedigree of the 82nd or 101st Airborne?
Victor Davis Hanson

[js1138]

Personally, I wish we had gone in the day after the planes crashed.

Not me. I think the plan was brilliant, and saved tens of thousands of lives, many of them American. I also believe the plan included tricking Iraq into hiding their chemical weapons so the wouldn't be available against us.

That makes it harder to find them, but more of our soldiers will live to raise their children. And the apparent ease with which it was done has to be more frightening to potential enemies.

[LS]

That's the one. We smile and shake our heads at these "protest marches" in Iraq. "Freedom of speech" we say.

But let them get out of hand, or in any way appear to be "with the terrorists," and they, too, will learn the history of those names.

[LS]

Yours is one of the most insightful, to-the-point analyses I have ever read. I never really thought of the Spanish-American War in that regard, but you are exactly right.

They key is, "When we are threatened." Americans must a) perceive that the threat is serious, and immediate, and b) decide that there is a real origin to the threat.

If this comes down to it with these crowds marching in Iraq, I wonder, where we will identify the threat?

[TopQuark]

we attacked Iraq to send the rest of the world a message: You don't mess with Uncle Sam!

THat is absolutely correct

And what a great place we have chosen for it: right in the middle of the Middle EAst. Just look at the map. Iran now has American troops on BOTH sides; I don't think they will be speaking of the American Satan too loudly now. Syria has the Sea on one side and American troops on the other; ISrael to the south and Turkey to the north: isolated thus. The Soudis now know that they should be careful too. Pakistan, too, has American troops on one side (Afghanistan, and India on the other.

That was the best place to make a point.

The only people that did not get it was the French: Paris is too far from Baghdad. They will, in time...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Good points, but I personally feel the Islamofascists are so ineffectual and deluded that we would have gone through them like a hot knife through butter either way.

But all is well that ends well.

[728b]

I was talking with a friend last week. He was frustrated and did not like our saber rattling with Syria.

I reminded him that saber rattling works really well after you have taken the saber out of the sheath and the head of your opponent is rolling around on the floor.

Somehow I feel Bush can saber rattle now, and be effective, as opposed to Clinton's rattling that only enabled and encouraged our enemies.