Posted on 03/21/2013 6:42:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ten years ago this week, the United States led an invasion of Iraq with the explicit purpose of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The preceding months had been filled with vehement protests against the impending war, expressed in editorials, in advertisements, and in rallies so vast that some of them made it into the Guinness Book of World Records. With so many people against the invasion, who supported it?
Well, if you were like the great majority of Americans – you did. In February and March 2003, Newsweek's polls showed 70 percent of the public in favor of military action against Iraq; Gallup and Pew Research Center surveys showed the same thing. Congress had authorized the invasion a few months earlier with strong bipartisan majorities; among the many Democrats voting for the war were Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden.
Though the Iraq War later became a favorite Democratic club for bashing George W. Bush, Republicans and Democrats alike had long understood that Saddam was a deadly menace who had to be forcibly eradicated. In 1998 President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, making Saddam's removal from power a matter of US policy. "If the history of the last six years has taught us anything," Kerry had said two years earlier, "it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power."
But bipartisan harmony was an early casualty of the war. Once it became clear that Saddam didn't have the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that were a major justification for the invasion, unity gave way to recrimination. It didn't matter that virtually everyone – Republicans and Democrats, CIA analysts and the UN Security Council, even Saddam's own military officers – had been sure the WMD would be found. Nor did it matter that Saddam had previously used WMD to exterminate thousands of men, women, and children. The temptation to spin an intelligence failure as a deliberate "lie" was politically irresistible.
When the relatively quick toppling of Saddam was followed by a long and bloody insurgency, opposition to the war intensified. For many it became an intractable article of faith that victory was not an option. The war to remove Saddam was not merely "Bush's folly," but – as Senate majority leader Harry Reid called it in 2007 -- "the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country."
But then came Bush's "surge," and the course of the war shifted dramatically for the better.
By the time Bush left office, the insurgency was crippled, violence was down 90 percent, and Iraqis were being governed by politicians they had voted for. It was far from perfect, but "something that looks an awful lot like democracy is beginning to take hold in Iraq," reported Newsweek in early 2010. On its cover the magazine proclaimed: "Victory at Last."
And so it might have been, if America's new commander-in-chief hadn't been so insistent on pulling the plug.
In October 2011, President Obama – overriding his military commanders, who had recommended keeping 18,000 troops on the ground – announced that all remaining US servicemen would be out of Iraq by the end of the year. Politically, it was a popular decision; most Americans were understandably weary of Iraq. But abandoning Iraqis and their frail, fledgling democracy was reckless.
"It freed Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to be more of a Shiite sectarian than he could have been with the US looking over his shoulder," military historian Max Boot observed this week. And with Maliki moving against his Sunni opponents, some of them "are making common cause once again with Al-Qaeda in Iraq, [which] has recovered from its near-death experience" during the surge. It is cold comfort that so many urgently warned of just such an outcome in 2011.
So was the Iraq war worth it? On that, Americans are a long way from a consensus. It is never clear in the immediate aftermath of any war what history's judgment will be. Two decades ago, the 1991 Gulf War was regarded as a triumph. In retrospect, the decision to leave Saddam in power – and to let him murderously crush an uprising we had encouraged – looks like a tragic blunder.
But this much we do know: The invasion of Iraq 10 years ago ended the reign of a genocidal tyrant, and ensured that his monstrous sons could never succeed him. It struck a shaft of fear into other dictators, leading Libya's Moammar Qaddafi, for example, to relinquish his WMD. It let Iraqis find out how much better their lives could be under democratic self-government. Like all wars, even wars of liberation, it took an awful toll. The status quo ante was worse.
Yes. Saddam was shielding the worst of the worst terrorists and funding all manner of terrorism. Abu Abbas, ABu Nidal. These were terrorists who had killed Americans and were living the life in Baghdad planning more ops against Americans. They are dead now just like Saddam and his insane progeny. The Middle East was a great big boil that needed lancing and Bush lanced it. Khadafy saw the light and gave up his WMD which was amistake on his part but good for us.
I prefer to fight war differently than Bush did. Dresden and Hiroshima come to mind but in the aftermath of 9/11 Iraq had to be dealt with because Hussein was harboring the worst of the worst. It appears that memories on FR as as short as the memories and DU. Disappointing but not surprising. America ain’twhat it used to be.
Yes, we did beat imperial Japan, but we did so first at sea, then from the air with a grand total of two bombs; apart from bitterly and bloodily contested islands, we didn't beat Japan on land.
We (including our allies) beat the Japanese on the land, the sea, and in the air.
How do you think the Japanese were defeated on the mainland of Asia or in the Philippines or Okinawa (part of Japan, which is an island nation?) Ever hear of the Burma Road? We may have ended the war with two atomic bombs, but that was preceded by huge air attacks that included multiple fire bombings of Tokyo that took more lives than the atomic bombs.
If I'd been in George W. Bush's shoes on September 11, 2001, I'd have told the Air Force or the Navy I wanted Medina nuked within six hours. I'd have gone on television to issue an ultimatum to all the Islamic states known to support jihad: you've got 24 hours to sign and return the unconditional surrenders I've just faxed you, or Mecca is next. If even one jihad state fails to surrender, there won't be a Mecca any more. I'd have accepted surrenders, nuked Mecca as needed, and issued constitutions exactly as we issued them to Germany and Japan at the end of World War II. How much international trouble has either Germany or Japan caused since 1945? That's exactly how much trouble there'd be in the Middle East today if cranky old Standing Wolf had been in charge: none.
LOL. Yeah that's the ticket. Bomb the holiest two places in Islam and that will end the jihads. I have lived 9 years in three Islamic countries including five in the Kingdom. Bombing Mecca and Medina would stir up a hornet's nest around the globe among the 1.2 billion Muslims and engender sympathy from many others who consider such attacks as against all religions.
As someone who has also visited Pakistan (a Muslim nuclear power) on many occasions, the reaction there would be enormous. The entire Middle East would erupt along with places like Indonesia, Malaysia, India, etc. The US would be a pariah and the subject of many reprisals for generations. You don't wipe out a religion by destroying its holy sites anymore than you can wipe out capitalism by destroying the twin towers or Wall Street.
Well said.
You nailed it.
And they weren’t worth the blood or treasure.
FDR was terrible when it came to domestic policy, but he was a heck of a wartime President, when it came to fighting the Nazis and Japanese (his handling of Soviet agents is another story).
If you haven’t bothered to notice, we’ve had a jug eared clown in the WH running foreign policy for over 4 years.
It’s time to stop blaming Bush.
Like it or not, oil is a major driving force of the world economy.
You have to have a happy medium.
Price too high, it creates economic problems for consumers, but it creates jobs as more people try to cash in by drilling and producing oil to sell.
Price too low, it’s good for the consumer but it creates economic problems as millions of jobs are lost.
With the OFF program the UN was getting more and more control of the world economy.
I don’t know about you but I really don’t want the UN controlling the world economy.
It’s nice to see you know how to stay on topic.
Did your mommy teach you that too?
Spoken like a TRUE MOSLEM or at least a MOSLEM-Apoligist(you khow a DHIMMI)!
You are turning into what we here at FreeRepublic call “a troll”.
Who thinks the war with islamism is anywhere near over?
No. I don’t care how evil a tyrannt Saddam was, it wasn’t worth any American blood to see him toppled. In fact, subsequent events, such as the martyrdom of the Church in Iraq, proved that Iraq needs a tyrant!
3 responses from you and not a single one has any substance.
Thought process isn’t your strong suite is it.
Get real. Radical Islam is not sending our jobs to Red China. Radical Islam is not groping Grandma at the airport. Radical Islam hasn't made our cities unfit for decent people to raise families. Radical Islam hasn't homosexualized our military and put girls in combat. Radical Islam isn't printing our currency into oblivion. Radical Islam hasn't opened our borders to tens of millions of Third worlders, including Muslims. Radical Islam isn't in the public schools teaching 1st graders how to masturbate.
Radical Islam is a joke. Its propped up as a boogieman to scare naive Westerners into giving up their liberty and money. Radical Islam can't even take out a two bit dictator like Assad. They wouldn't have lasted a week against the Syrian Army without all the weapons and money funneled to them by US/NATO.
Give me a break. Radical Islam is as threatening to the USA as the Easter Bunny.
Islam may be behind all you mentioned. There is no such thing as “radical Islam”. Just about every muslims will become radical given the right push. They are a collective mindset. Usually they are quiet and stay under the radar until their population numbers get big enough to make a difference.
Notice how no one makes fun of Islam and get away with it. See any homos making fun of Mohammed lately?
I don't disagree. There are many threats to Western Civilization. But unlike all the things you mentioned, radical islam is very difficult to eliminate once it has gained a foothold.
A strong US president could quite easily reverse the job loss to China. But could a strong British prime minister reverse the slow and steady islamization of London? I think not.
Let’s see now -
Minus side - we were not greeted with flowers, oil did not pay for it - we made more enemies than friends - we did not change them into liking us - we took out an enemy of Iran - we are going broke - our young people killed or crippled.
Plus side - Showed you can’t trust government bent on war aided by the media.
Result - NO, HELL NO
Perhaps in the long run it will still have been worth it, but it is unreasonable to judge Bush's 2002 based on its outcome after an event that most people in that year would have considered incredibly unlikely. Or did anyone on FR think that, not only could the Democrats find someone worse than Hillary, but that it would be a socialist anti-American druggie who would consistently side with America's enemies?
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.