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)

[Ramzi]

"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."


Reagan was known as the Great Communicator; perhaps Bush will be known as the Great Liberator. First Afghanistan, then Iraq. Next I think will be either Syria or France. Seriously, though, some of these counries may be liberated without direct intervention form the U.S., i.e. Iran and Saudi Arabia, but it will be the direct result of U.S. efforts in other places. I believe it will be crucial that we end up with stable governments in Iraq and Afghanistan that respect freedom and the rule of law. If that happens, dictators in Iran, Syria and elsewhere will continue to get very nervous.

[Ancesthntr]

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.

I agree with your conclusions, but I think that you are confusing the Barbary Pirates episode (circa 1803) with the Spanish-American War (1898).

The results in both cases, as with Iraq in the present day, give the same lesson: don't mess with Uncle Sam.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

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

Me too. With all the adrenaline going through America we could've have kicked anyone's ass.

[Ancesthntr]

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.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a big rock. GWB found the Rock of Gibralter and dropped it on Insane Hussein. I am sure that similarly situated tyrants will learn this lesson. Those that won't will face similar consequences.

[ladyinred]

You know what! I hope this is true, because if it is, then my already great respect for President Bush will be elevated even more. He took an oath to defend this country, and defend it he has. God Bless him, I hope he continues in spite of the rhetoric from the left, AND from some on the right! I will not forget 911, and their blood will not be on my hands.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

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.

Excellent!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Tamzee]

[MissAmericanPie]

Like a glass parking lot? I think it is far too soon to stop draining the swamp. While we are in the neighborhood we may as well take care of business Middle East wide.

It might take six months, but hey. These Islamics must be made to understand that they need to wipe the presense of Israel from their minds forever more, if they want to survive.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Agreed, and as another poster on this thread pointed out, not only do we have to think about Syria, Iran, Saudi, and North Korea, there is also the ticking time bomb that is Pakistan. If Musharaff loses control, or if the political equation there changes things could get very tense in that particular corner of the world.

[Sonny M]

I believe in a good quote, "let them hate us, so long as they fear us". Its a wise policy, that seems to work wonders, and the world, has realized that a sleeping giant has been awakened, and the giant, is very very grumpy.

[geedee]

[Victoria Delsoul]

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!

True, and WMD and human rights as well. I don't think we went there with just only one mission in mind. We have demonstrated that we can accomplish quite a few goals at the same time, and still be able to say: You don't mess with US!

[EaglesUpForever]

I think the author forgets the real justification - that the terms of the end of the Gulf War had not been met by Iraq. 12 years of deception and trickery on Iraq's part, and 12 years of the "international community" being suckered and/or bribed into going along with Saddam.

There are many reasons that the war vs. Iraq was a great thing, but the fundamental pretext to me is that they had obviously not followed the terms under which we ended Gulf War I. We would have been completely justified going after them September 12, 2001 or earlier, though obviously we needed some time to get forces over there. After Clinton's assault on our country and our military it was also helpful to let the slime that he left in Washington to decay a bit...

It's a shame that we tried so hard to go after the brain dead "international community" for the sake of those who suffered under the regime during all the time we were "negotiating," but on the other hand we really gave france, russia, and germany a chance to show their true colors.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

but on the other hand we really gave france, russia, and germany a chance to show their true colors.

And they showed them real good!

[Billthedrill]

This was not a "message." There was nothing subtle about it. I believed beforehand and I believe now that it was a direct assault on a nation whose leadership was deliberately and implacably supporting a myriad of terrorist organizations and would certainly not have stopped at supplying them with whatever weapons he thought would be least traceable, and had active programs to identify and develop those weapons. People throw up "oil" and "WMD" and "9/11" and all sorts of other (and usually derisive) oversimplifications when the reason I mentioned is perfectly simple enough, demonstrably true beforehand and demonstrated a dozen times over by now.

Bush's 9/11 speech was a "message." Afghanistan was a demonstration. This is a campaign. It will end when the threat is considered by command to be manageable by lesser means. That may be now, or it may not. In part it will be up to others to see that a "message" is returned to the President that convinces him that it is manageable by lesser means.

[sarasmom]

Toby Keith = Donald Rumsfeld
Darryl Worley = Colin Powell
We're an American Band" = George Bush
I think we have it covered.
I am not a Bush-bot.There are several serious issues I find myself in the opposition too, under his leadership.
National defense is not one of them.
Why does he not advocate controlling our borders?
Why does he want to curtail my right to self defense?
I need answers to these questions.

[A CA Guy]

I thought the real reason was so Democrats could have access to those torture rooms to see if their tactics were up to date.

[DougF]

Great article.

The funny thing is that it is SO clear that the Arab worlds respond to one thing, and one thing only. Power and will.

Oh, I guess that's two things.

Does anyone remember Libya? The were being REALLY bad, and all the left was SO scared when we bombed them. "Oh no, they are going to be mad -they will hurt us!" And what happened? They dropped off the map for 10 years.

I've also come to realize that the rest of the world has no understanding how Americans think. Even with all the mamby pamby wimpy liberal encroachment, we have ALWAYS responded to clear threats. We are slow to respond - to make up our minds and to come to general consensus - but then we are devastating.

Sometimes the world needs a reminder.

I believe that we are on the beginning of a new era. It is going to be painful and it is going to take a long time and it is going to take resolve. But it is coming, and 9/11 will provide the focus.

It is time to stop asking the world what we shoud do, and instead let them know what we are going to do. And invite the "willing" along for the ride (Goodbye France - hello Eastern Europe!).

[lainde]

bttt

[Darksheare]

Kim Jong Il = CH-CH-CH-CHIA!