Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Did the Bush Administration Really Decide to Invade Iraq?
National Security.org ^ | 07.12.03

Posted on 07/23/2003 8:02:37 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State

 

Why Did the Bush Administration Really Decide to Invade Iraq?

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

 


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Israel; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: anamericanbanned; dorks; helpmebecki; incompetents; isolationists; nutballs; paleolunacy; pyneisasleaze; villageofthebanned; whywefight
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
Does this mean I have to read this bilge?


You notice that the poster didn't include the author, etc in the posting.....
81 posted on 07/23/2003 5:08:21 PM PDT by deport (On a hot day don't kick a cow chip...... only democrat enablers..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: deport; Chancellor Palpatine; Long Cut; CWOJackson
You notice that the poster didn't include the author, etc in the posting.....

Gosh, I wonder why he didn't do that?

82 posted on 07/23/2003 5:13:26 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; Chancellor Palpatine; deport; Catspaw; Howlin
To be fair, the author's name doesn't show up in the link. But when you get to the home page you get:

David T. Pyne, Esq.
President & CEO
Center for the National Security Interest

83 posted on 07/23/2003 5:30:21 PM PDT by wimpycat (Down with Kooks and Kookery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: LS; Poohbah; Chancellor Palpatine; Catspaw
"Thank God ol' Patty isn't in charge, because things would already have gotten worse."

It would seem that the overwhelming majority of voters realize this, too, considering the fact that Herr Oberst Buchanan failed to convince about 99% of them to vote for him last time.

Hey, but on the bright side, Patso DID manage to utterly destroy the Reform Party. What a leader!

It is beyond comprehension that so many presumably intelligent, well-informed people still think he's some kind of Messiah. P.T. Barnum was right...

84 posted on 07/23/2003 5:32:43 PM PDT by Long Cut (Mini-Cut: Our baby BOY born 10 July 2003, 7 pounds, 13 ounces. Welcome to the world, SON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
"Congrats, Dad!"

Thanks, Cats!

85 posted on 07/23/2003 5:33:53 PM PDT by Long Cut (Mini-Cut: Our baby BOY born 10 July 2003, 7 pounds, 13 ounces. Welcome to the world, SON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
What a shock, eh?
86 posted on 07/23/2003 5:42:17 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Into the sunset?
87 posted on 07/23/2003 5:42:42 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
Formerly known as a freeper here....real whacked out bozo, imo.
88 posted on 07/23/2003 5:43:32 PM PDT by justshe (Educate....not Denigrate !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
"It is the uberpaleo dolt, David Pyne."

I wonder if he's still a highly placed and trusted Pentagon civilian employee who reads all the intell available to the JSC?

Is "Payne" French?

89 posted on 07/23/2003 6:47:12 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
BZ on the young airdale.
90 posted on 07/23/2003 6:47:43 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
What an argument. Liar. I tell you I don't know if I can come back from that. Oh, wait a minute....
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

If 45 minutes isn't immediate I don't know what is....
91 posted on 07/23/2003 8:03:47 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Source?
92 posted on 07/23/2003 9:51:29 PM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
While the people of many countries danced in the streets on 9/11, thousands of Iranians bravely poured out into the streets to hold candlelight vigils for the WTC victims. Same thing last year:

The Japan Today > Iran breaks up 9-11 remembrance ceremony > By PrimaNews

> > September 13, 2002

> > TEHRAN - Thousands of people were forced by Iranian > security forces to disperse Wednesday night when they took > to the streets of Iranian cities to hold solemn ceremonies > to commemorate the first anniversary of the terrorist > attacks against the United States.

> > The Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy > in Iran (SMCCDI) reported that attempts to hold remembrance > meetings were recorded in Tehran, Shiraz, Hamedan, > Kermanshah, and Piranshahr. Demonstrators were chanting > "Our condolences to America!" and "Down with Iranian > Taliban!"

To say I don't agree with you is an understatement.

93 posted on 07/24/2003 6:54:21 AM PDT by Frances_Marion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Frances_Marion
This situation in Iran, and Saudi Arabia is exaggerated by the “insiders” to help pacify our public distrust of both of these evil regimes. Iran has lots of intellectuals, and well to do families who yearn to the good old days of modern living. However, these people are not influential, and are constantly beaten by the radical Islamists. There will NEVER be a revolution from within. Just remember, the Iraq oppressive regime; every time there was an uprising it was met with brutal force. The same goes with ALL dictatorships in the Moslem world. The brutality of Islam and its theology of intolerance come shining through—there is no toleration of oppositions. Remember Saddam ordered his son killed! Lots of these Moslem leaders do the same. The brother of the King of Saudi Arabia killed him to take over, Nasser, Killed his own best friend Amer,….

Furthermore, the media, and the Administration like to tell us that Saudi Arabia is cooperating and cracking down on militants. If Saudi Arabia really wants to crack down on militants, it must kill every single Saudi, including the King—every single one of them is full of hate. Read the CIA agent’s book SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY- a book about the US appeasement of the evil Saudis.

94 posted on 07/24/2003 7:25:46 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: LS
Go for it. Buchanan would have invited AQ to bomb Seattle and Phoenix and other places too, just so we don't "get involved" overseas.

Huh? Man, you seem hysterical. LOL!

And yes, we did have protectionist policies, and yes, the cost us tremendously.

Cost us? This country was built great under protectionist policies. Look at what we have now! At this rate in five years, we will no longer manufacture anything, and another 5 million jobs will be exported. You think this is a good thing?

95 posted on 07/24/2003 8:35:11 AM PDT by Joe Hadenuf (Are these people for real?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
I heard this in the 1980s. "Japan is the bogeyman." All our manufacturing jobs are going to Japan. Surprise. We're still here, Japan ain't.
96 posted on 07/24/2003 9:28:51 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: LS
Your comparing what is going on now with 1980? LOL!
97 posted on 07/24/2003 10:10:59 AM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
I'm comparing the hysteria of the two periods, yes. Exactly the same. Only now, China is the bogeyman.
98 posted on 07/24/2003 10:14:48 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: LS
Exactly the same? You cannot seriously be comparing Japan to a country the size of China, with it's population of billions, and the epic outsourcing of American jobs that is now taking place, as we speak. Sorry, what is going on now, is in no way like 1980.....
99 posted on 07/24/2003 10:29:04 AM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
You are right. Japan was a bigger threat, since, unlike China, it was high tech and competed with us in computer chips and steel. China competes with toys and plastic crap. Yeah, I'm terrified of Tyco outsourcing to Peking and its "billions."
100 posted on 07/24/2003 5:35:17 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson