Was Iraq Worth It?

Ten years ago today, U.S. air, sea and land forces attacked Iraq. And the great goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Destroy the chemical and biological weapons Saddam Hussein had amassed to use on us or transfer to al-Qaida for use against the U.S. homeland.

Exact retribution for Saddam's complicity in 9/11 after we learned his agents had met secretly in Prague with Mohamed Atta.

Create a flourishing democracy in Baghdad that would serve as a catalyst for a miraculous transformation of the Middle East from a land of despots into a region of democracies that looked West.

Not all agreed on the wisdom of this war. Gen. Bill Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, thought George W. Bush & Co. had lost their minds: "The Iraq War may turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history."

Yet, a few weeks of "shock and awe," and U.S. forces had taken Baghdad and dethroned Saddam, who had fled but was soon found in a rat hole and prosecuted and hanged, as were his associates, "the deck of cards," some of whom met the same fate.

Soon, however, America found herself in a new, unanticipated war, and by 2006, we were, astonishingly, on the precipice of defeat, caught in a Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict produced by our having disbanded the Iraqi army and presided over the empowerment of the first Shia regime in the nation's history.

Only a "surge" of U.S. troops led by Gen. David Petraeus rescued the United States from a strategic debacle to rival the fall of Saigon.

But the surge could not rescue the Republican Party, which had lusted for this war, from repudiation by a nation that believed itself to have been misled, deceived and lied into war. In 2006, the party lost both houses of Congress, and the Pentagon architect of the war, Don Rumsfeld, was cashiered by the commander in chief.

Two years later, disillusionment with Iraq would contribute to the rout of Republican uber-hawk John McCain by a freshman senator from Illinois who had opposed the war.

So, how now does the ledger read, 10 years on? What is history's present verdict on what history has come to call Bush's war?

Of the three goals of the war, none was achieved. No weapon of mass destruction was found. While Saddam and his sons paid for their sins, they had had nothing at all to do with 9/11. Nothing. That had all been mendacious propaganda.

Where there had been no al-Qaida in Iraq while Saddam ruled, al-Qaida is crawling all over Iraq now. Where Iraq had been an Arab Sunni bulwark confronting Iran in 2003, a decade later, Iraq is tilting away from the Sunni camp toward the Shia crescent of Iran and Hezbollah.

What was the cost in blood and treasure of our Mesopotamian misadventure? Four thousand five hundred U.S. dead, 35,000 wounded and this summary of war costs from Friday's Wall Street Journal:

"The decade-long (Iraq) effort cost $1.7 trillion, according to a study ... by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Fighting over the past 10 years has killed 134,000 Iraqi civilians ... . Meanwhile, the nearly $500 billion in unpaid benefits to U.S. veterans of the Iraq war could balloon to $6 trillion" over the next 40 years.

As for those 134,000 Iraqi civilian dead, that translates into 500,000 Iraqi widows and orphans. What must they think of us?

According to the latest Gallup poll, by 2-to-1, Iraqis believe they are more secure -- now that the Americans are gone from their country.

Left behind, however, is our once-sterling reputation. Never before has America been held in lower esteem by the Arab peoples or the Islamic world. As for the reputation of the U.S. military, how many years will it be before our armed forces are no longer automatically associated with such terms as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, renditions and waterboarding?

As for the Chaldean and Assyrian Christian communities of Iraq who looked to America, they have been ravaged and abandoned, with many having fled their ancient homes forever.

We are not known as a reflective people. But a question has to weigh upon us. If Saddam had no WMD, had no role in 9/11, did not attack us, did not threaten us, and did not want war with us, was our unprovoked attack on that country a truly just and moral war?

What makes the question more than academic is that the tub-thumpers for war on Iraq a decade ago are now clamoring for war on Iran. Goal: Strip Iran of weapons of mass destruction all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies say Iran does not have and has no program to build.

This generation is eyewitness to how a Great Power declines and falls. And to borrow from old King Pyrrhus, one more such victory as Iraq, and we are undone.

No argument there, and I have posted this many times....

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
—President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
—President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
—Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
—Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...”
— Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Buchanan would be unable to point his finger and say “Nyaah, nyaah!” if the traitor rats had not succeeded in their goals of delegitimizing the war effort, handicapping our forces in theatre and destroying the post-war abilities of American oil companies to do business in Iraq. These points are important, and are evidence of outright treason, yet Buchanan’s essay is meaningless without them. His thesis rests on the actions of others unmentioned.

It has long been settled that WMD were indeed found in Iraq. Massive quantities of items were shipped out before the opening offensive, plenty of dumps of nerve toxins were uncovered (and labeled as ‘pesticide’) and tons of yellowcake were removed. But, the rats and their Media chorus repeat that “No WMD was found! Bush lied!” Through this information control, the first of the rats objectives were secured.

Once the Iraqi Army was neutralized and the chain of command reduced, effective resistance pretty much died off. That is, until semi-organized terror elements entered the fray and Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Iranian logistical support began. IEDs of advanced design, shaped charges of very sophisticated design began to be fielded. Actions to interdict this logistical supply were forbidden, and many Americans and many, many Iraqis died due to this inaction. The second of the rats objectives were secured: A constant stream of casualties to parade through their Media chorus every evening, with no end in sight.

In the aftermath of the war, bids were opened up for development of Iraqi oil, of which there was plenty. The rats effectively forbid American companies to enter bids for the development contracts, effectively turning the economy of the Iraqis to China and other unfriendly powers. The last portion of the rat strategy was acheived: a hostile nation they could point to as a reason to never use American power.

Disgusting.

A most compelling argument in Buchanan's favor is that the neocons over at the Four Seasons--- sipping chilled Cristal and munching on room temperature imported Brie---despise Buchanan.

You remember the neocons---Bush installed them in the Officer of Special Ops where they connived (using our tax dollars) to get the US to invade Iraq. Puke-duped Bush actually believed the pukeneos when they said said that would bring peace.

The Middle East is in turmoil 10 years after the pukeneos duped Bush into invading Iraq. A horrendous foreign policy decision devised by the pukeneos on the backs of the 2300 killed on 9/11.

Let's be clear---Iraq's in the Mideast---a place the pukeneos said was "thirsting" for American-style democracy.

(waiting for hysterical laughter to die down)

Same place now known as a terrorist hellhole where trillions of US tax dollars and rivers of young blood were shed. <><> Where the blood-thirsty Muslim Brotherhood has a stranglehold. <><> Where the WSJ reported neocon godfather, Richard Perle, is starting an oil company with his war profiteering billions (your tax dollars at work).

It took the US about a decade to get out of Iraq....as the globe erupted into Mideast-centered terrorism.....and hate-filled Muslims set sail for America.

But not to worry---at the serene Four Seasons lounge, where the champagne flows, the Iraq War is still seen as a really, really good idea......and opposition to Pat Buchananis the strongest.

Cheers.

Mmmmm......sure would like to be a fly on the wall at the Four Seasons---where the puke elite meet downtrodden GOP'ers---- over chilled Cristal, imported room temp Brie and water crackers.

Rubio just hired a puke for his campaign team. Looks like there's gonna be A LOT MORE puke-invasions and land wars since the pukes duped Bush into invading Iran, now that the entire 100 million-strong Muslim world is aflame with hatred for the US, Americans, and Christians.

I guess the pukes will have to use darts and a Mideast map to decide which country they want the US to invade next (cackle).

====================================================================

REFERENCE On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony from Marine Corps Gen Anthony Zinni---and other millitary experts---that the architects of the Iraq invasion were totally ill-prepared for a post-combat occupation. The military experts ridiculed administration claims that rebuilding could be achieved within two years, that the weapons of mass destruction would be destroyed-------and that a vibrant new political and economic system would emerge. Ten years later, Iraq---and the rest of the Mideast----has yet to create a viable political and economic system....a system that is totally incompatible w/ their archaic Islamicist thinking.

The second Iraq war wouldn’t have been necessary if we had finished the first one back during the first Bush presidency.

It was no less than Colin Powell who put the kibosh on that one. Norman Schwarzkopf wanted to keep going, perhaps all the way to Baghdad, but Powell argued to President G.H.W. Bush that they stop prematurely. Schwarzkopf later commented that Powell “had no stomach” for war.

After the World Trade Center attack, Bush II probably reckoned he had to do _something_ as a show of force against “terrorism”, and Afghanistan wasn’t going to be “enough”. So, we got “Iraq II”.

I foresaw years ago that toppling both regimes would really gain little in the true struggle in which we are engaged. It should be obvious now that our efforts there were little more than wasted, particularly in Afghanistan (which will be back under taliban control before too long). All they had to do was “wait us out” until we just got tired of being there.

The problem with the struggle with islam is that we are not involved in a war with any existing national “government”, per se. Our struggle is with _something else_. Most here know what the “something else” actually is. Most leaders of The West are desparate to deny this truth.

Also, removing any particular individual (or more than one) from power will do little to change things — because the actual leader of the forces against which we are aligned has been dead for 1,400 years. Yet he still controls more than a billion of his “soldiers” through his “operational field manual” — the quran.

This is why the other side is winning.
It’s also why it will continue to win, so long as The West refuses to confront the realities before us….

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.