Posted on 07/23/2003 8:02:37 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State
12 July 2003 Three months after US military forces smashed the last major Iraqi resistance to the US invasion and captured Baghdad and in view of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found, Americans are starting to wonder what really motivated the Bush Administration to take the nation into a war against a country like Iraq. This is particularly the case since it has become increasingly clear in retrospect that Iraq did not pose anything resembling the imminent threat to the United States that President Bush repeatedly alleged that it did prior to the US invasion. The Administration’s motives for the war were several. First and foremost was the President's desire to avenge his father's failure to achieve a lasting victory over Saddam and more particularly his desire to get back at Saddam for an alleged assassination attempt against former President Bush Sr. in 1993. Second, the Bush Administration neoconservatives invaded Iraq in furtherance of their grand plan to remake and democratize the Middle East by the force of arms in an attempt to make it safer for Israel. Of all the members of the axis of evil for the Bush Administration to wage war against, Iraq was the most “doable”, owing to the incessant demonization of Iraq stemming from 1990 onward by both Bush Administrations and the Clinton Administration. In addition, Iraq, which once boasted the fourth largest army in the world had seen its armed forces decimated to only forty percent of its pre-Gulf War One military strength by US military action in that just conflict fought to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. What the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration fail to realize is that Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite and Syria majority radical Sunni so that if these countries were to become true democracies they would elect anti-American tyrants and terrorists as their leaders. In fact, Iran is a democracy today and has done precisely that. Moreover, Iran is a far greater threat both in terms of their nuclear capability, IRBM capability and support of terrorists including Al Queda, which is far more pronounced than was ever the case with Iraq. Realist conservatives opposed the neo-conservative internationalist plan to invade Iraq out of fear that our invasion would merely serve to transform it into a carbon copy of 9-11 terrorist supporting Iran that would truly threaten the US homeland as secular Baathist-led Iraq never could or would. Now, the United States is faced with a no-win scenario. If the US withdraws from Iraq as it is in its national interests to do, it will leave behind a country dominated by supporters of international terrorism against it where one did not exist before. If the US continues to occupy Iraq with 150,000 troops, it will begin losing an increasing number of soldiers as recent news headlines have indicated and waste billions without any real hope of achieving a pro-Western democracy as the population continues to radicalize against those they perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be foreign occupiers and invaders. Third, the Administration invaded Iraq in an attempt to re-empower the United Nations by forcing it to enforce its resolutions even more aggressively than it wanted to. Far from opposing the UN like all conservatives should, the Bush Administration consistently used Iraq's alleged violation of eighteen UN sanctions as their prime justification for the war. Furthermore, the Administration initially attempted to avoid getting approval from Congress, the only constitutional authority on whether the US can or cannot initiate the use of military force against another country, which has not first attacked us. The Bush Administration attempted to use every possible justification they could come up with in the hopes of obtaining greater popular support for the war both at the national and international level. They needed to do so because Saddam and Iraq had committed no aggression or act of provocation to justify an all-out attack against it by the United States. In a dozen years since Gulf War One nothing had changed. Saddam was firmly in the box and everyone knew it. In fact, in 1998 there was tremendous international pressure to drop UN sanctions against Iraq due to their prior large-scale compliance with UN mandates. Almost immediately following 9-11, neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration led by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and others tried to create the illusion of a connection between Iraq, a secular socialist state and Al Queda, an Islamist extremist terrorist group. In this attempt they were almost entirely unsuccessful. Secretary Wolfowitz actually admitted that the WMD justification was “the only one that stuck” despite scanty evidence of a continuing Iraqi WMD program and the fact that Iraq had already destroyed the most of its WMD arsenal under UN supervision so that they posed a far lesser threat than in 1990 before the First Gulf War. Ultimately the Administration's justification of "liberating" the Iraqi people was just an afterthought. The American people didn't hear a word about the need to “liberate” the people of Iraq until just before the war. The Administration used that word to cover up the fact that they were using US military forces illegitimately to launch an aggressive war upon a country that had never attacked us and as Secretary of State Colin Powell eloquently put it less than two years ago, “threatened not the United States.” Once the war began, suddenly we were told that finding WMD was no longer a top priority and international inspectors were told they would not be welcome in the new US occupied Iraq. One wonders if the Administration might have obtained intelligence that Saddam had in fact destroyed what little was left of his arsenal before the US invasion, but decided not to release this info to the American public to avoid the embarrassment and a major loss of US prestige and credibility which was by then firmly on the line in Iraq. With their credibility already badly damaged by this deception wrought upon the American people over the real rationale for the war, we may never know for sure. It is high time for the American people and their duly elected representatives in Congress to demand that President Bush, who proclaimed “mission accomplished” in Iraq in a speech over two months ago to declare victory and withdraw all US troops from Iraq by Christmas. The indefinite commitment of over one-third of our Army to the occupation of Iraq leaves the US incapable of sending reinforcements to help defend against hypothetical attacks against our allies on the Korean peninsula and Taiwan where the next conflict will likely erupt. The Administration’s attempt at nation-building and indeed empire-building in Iraq constitutes the very antithesis of conservatism and is doomed to ultimate failure. If continued, it will further provoke an increasingly visible global backlash of anti-Americanism which will likely culminate in further catastrophic terrorist attacks against the US homeland, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and perhaps thousands more Americans. The prompt withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is absolutely necessary to minimize further loss of life among our heroic and selflessly-serving military servicemen. It is also essential to do so in order to conserve our military strength and save untold billions of dollars in taxpayer funds for winnable missions that clearly advance, rather than jeopardize the US national security interest
Michael Eisner is desperate to find another location after last month's unfortunate incident at EuroDisney...During the fireworks display, the entire French staff surrendered.
It's interesting that you and the writer of this obvious Onion piece, agree with Baghdad Bob.
The Saudi terrorists left SA as medical students and then left Germany full blown Islamic radicals.
If you know anything about the Saudis, you know the Royal family has been hugely pro-American since before Reagan. The population includes lots of looney Islamic radicals. As many people who have studied the area know and have written about, bin Laden and his group hate the Saudi Royal family as much or more than they hate us. There has been a price on bin Laden's head there for ten years. Likewise Egypt.
His main biographer said on FOX that bin Laden picked Saudis and Egyptians to carry out 9/11 in order to turn us against our allies and his main enemies. He's done it before.
You're just spewing crap you've heard that supports your own ignorance. If you really cared, you could educate yourself.
I think it's specious to believe he had nothing to disarm. I rather suspect we're going to find out, in time, exactly what happened to the WMD. My guess is they went to Syria, or were secreted within Iraq and only a very few people know (knew) where.
Don't forget, he booted the UN in 1998 when they uncovered WMD.
It is (was) there.
Finding actual WMD is a moot point. Saddam's done.
Of course it is, now. Especially since the administration has changed from 'immediate threat' to WMDs to WMD 'programs'. First they were there ready to be fired and now they may not even have been in existence, just the material to possibly make them.
Considering the bag of lunatics that comprise your average middle eastern country, the material alone is reason enough to snuff the regime.
If nothing else, we've cleaned up some slop, knocked a few rogues back on their heels and made 'the street' think twice before messing with us.
Unless someone has some compelling reason why Saddam should still be in power (aside from, let's say, his internal reign of terror) I'm still hard-pressed to find the downside.
Let the handwringers wring their hands. I think we did the world a service, and ourselves too. How often does that happen?
But they haven't found any material yet either except for some bags of beans...
If nothing else, we've cleaned up some slop, knocked a few rogues back on their heels and made 'the street' think twice before messing with us.
Wow, you know I'm absolutely sure that's not what the intent was originally of the Armed Forces. Forget defense, just go out and get some respect?
Unless someone has some compelling reason why Saddam should still be in power (aside from, let's say, his internal reign of terror) I'm still hard-pressed to find the downside.
Mind you, I'm glad in a way Hussein is gone as well, however it's quite evident what the downside is. Or are brave men and women of the Armed Forces after the end of the war being murdered in Iraq for a reason?
Let the handwringers wring their hands. I think we did the world a service, and ourselves too. How often does that happen?
Exactly how did we 'do ourselves' a service? If the WMDs aren't there, all that happened was the subjugation of a third world nation. And all the while Saudi Arabia, our 'ally', continues its support of Hamas and North Korea builds more bombs. Of course N Korea is probably the only nation with a worse human rights campaign and they have WMDs.
Senator Warner, among others, begs to differ. Patience.
Wow, you know I'm absolutely sure that's not what the intent was originally of the Armed Forces. Forget defense, just go out and get some respect?
The concept of 'getting respect' was laid out clearly in the Bush Doctrine. If you didn't like September 11th, the Doctrine is the remedy. Unless you have a better idea.
Mind you, I'm glad in a way Hussein is gone as well, however it's quite evident what the downside is. Or are brave men and women of the Armed Forces after the end of the war being murdered in Iraq for a reason?
Yes. Freedom is not free. That the thugs are willing to try a war of attrition is a surprise to noone, except those who ignore both sides of history. Doing the right thing is not easy, and it's infinitely more important to do the right thing when it's not easy.
Exactly how did we 'do ourselves' a service?
I don't know about you, but I'm less worried about an Iraqi-funded attack on the US than I was, say 6 moths ago. And I'm sure that the families of the homicide bombers in Israel are discomfited having to look elsewhere for the $15,000 checks that Saddam was sending each of them. How's that for a start?
If the WMDs aren't there, all that happened was the subjugation of a third world nation.
A third world nation with all the potential in the world (oil) bottled up in one person's maniacal psychosis. And I'm not talking about Iraqi oil for us, I'm talking about Iraqi oil for Iraq. Is Saddam's not truer subjugation than what we have wrought?
And all the while Saudi Arabia, our 'ally', continues its support of Hamas
We'll see about that...
and North Korea builds more bombs. Of course N Korea is probably the only nation with a worse human rights campaign and they have WMDs.
North Korea announced their nuclear program after our buildup against Saddam was under way. North Korea can be brought to heel by China via our economic vise. China needs our business, not the other way around. It is appealing but simple-minded to compare Iraq and NK; they're completely different situations.
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.