Why we fight in Iraq

We are there for our sake, not their sake

Published on April 12, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. We are not in Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people. Don't let those who favor military action in Iraq (or are against it) try to spin it that way. Our presence in Iraq has nothing to do whatsoever with how the Iraqi people feel about the United States. Our soldiers are risking their lives in Iraq not for the sake of Iraqi's but for our sake. For the sake of Americans.

It is often easy to forget, with all this talk of "liberation" that at the end of the day, we invaded Iraq because we believed it was a threat to us. I always felt that those who opposed taking out Saddam were being incredibly naive and short-sighted. Eventually, had things continued the way they were going pre-9/11, sanctions against Iraq would have been lifted and Saddam would have had a free hand to covertly become a nuclear power. Opponents of the war make great noise about the lack of WMD stockpiles. But they seem to gloss over the fact that Saddam was quite clearly trying to put together the infrastructure to start cranking them out once sanctions were over. The Kay report makes this quite plain.

Saddam's plan was pretty straight forward: Be a reasonably good boy until sanctions were lifted and the world looked the other way and then arm to the teeth with WMD so that 1991 could never happen again to him again. The next time he invaded someone he would have nuclear weapons to keep the allies at bay. That was the plan. Terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda worked very well into that strategy -- Al Qaeda would be the ultimate delivery system for such WMD.

Americans, contrary to what some in Europe seem to think, are pretty bright. We have a lot of common sense, as a culture. After 9/11 the calculus was pretty clear -- Al Qaeda would use any weapon available to murder Americans. And Saddam either had or planned to have weapons of mass destruction that he could, if he chose, provide covertly to these terrorists. At the very least, the very threat that he could do this could stymie US action in the middle east.

Let's take a quick look at the middle east. Do you see Afghanistan on the right? See Iraq there in the middle? Other than Turkey, most of these nations are cranking out terrorists one way or the other. These terrorist have been doing horrific things for 30 years now.

After 9/11 it became clear that we needed to deal with the underlying issue -- Islamic fascism. The question is, what exactly do you do? Why is it when you hear about terrorists killing innocent civilians, taking hostages, making declarations of war on the west, etc. that the people are from these countries in general? This is a very small section of the world we're looking at here. What makes this part of the world different? Oil? No. Most of these countries have no oil. Victims of US "aggression"? No, the US has had very little involvement here (particularly relative to the Europeans who colonized and created these countries in the first place). So what is special?

The Bush administration came up with a term: Freedom deficit. These were nations where freedom was virtually non-existent. Many of these nations were corrupt and cruel. On the other hand, there are plenty of nations in Africa with corrupt and totalitarian rulers. Perhaps a combination of religion and higher GDP has produced fanatics with means.

And so the United States government looked at this map. The first target had to be Afghanistan. It was the imminent threat. It was the failed nation state that Al Qaeda was based on thanks to the Taliban regime. The US's first priority after 9/11 was to remove the Taliban and disrupt Al Qaeda. That mission was accomplished (despite bitching and moaning from the left how it would be another "Vietnam" -- side note: Why is everything another Vietnam to the left? When I try to explain to my wife that I can't mow the lawn because it'll be another Vietnam she's unconvinced. But strangely Democrats think that most Americans will compare to Vietnam no matter what).

But what next? Remember - the goal in Afghanistan is accomplished already. Al Qaeda is disrupted. The Taliban is gone. And as bonus we are keeping the pressure on the top Al Qaeda leaders who are hanging out near the border region with Pakistan. The US decided it was time to look back at the map.

So who were the big sources of these violent fanatics? The answer: Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. But how do you go after them? Logistically, we couldn't go after any of them. And politically Saudi Arabia is off limits. But...BUT...there was Iraq. Iraq needed to be taken off the board anyway. Saddam had to go for plenty of reasons. Saddam should have been removed in 1998 by Clinton. But perhaps this could now be used to our advantage. We had dozens of UN resolutions against Iraq already. The legal case was already mature. Americans understood after 9/11 that Saddam had to go. And look at the map closely. Which 3 countries border Iraq? Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. And, Iraq did produce enough oil that we could afford to alienate Saudi Arabia if push came to shove.

If Saddam could be removed we would be eliminating a serious long term threat to US security. I know I didn't want my kids having to go over to Iraq to deal with a nuclear armed Saddam. Now was the time to do something about it. Momentum was in our favor if we could get rid of Iraq while people were paying attention to the seriousness of the threat. It didn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that Saddam, armed with biological or even nuclear weapons would probably have no problem covertly handing them over to fanatical Al Qaeda terrorists for their follow-up to 9/11.

And that is why we invaded Iraq. To remove Saddam first and foremost and if possible, for extra credit to create a stable, democratic, liberal Iraq. One that would, hopefully, serve as a beacon to its neighbors: Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. A successful Iraq would draw others to emulate it. And by doing so, drain the swamp of the fundamental source of terrorism.

That's why we are there in Iraq. We are there because we are trying to prevent future 9/11's. With all the bitching about how Clinton and Bush should have stopped 9/11, it's amazing that those same people who bitch are usually the ones who argue against what we have done in Iraq. For if in say 2010 Saddam's sons had smuggled a crude nuclear weapon to Al Qaeda who then used it in New York harbor to kill 250,000 Americans, these same anti-war people would be incredulously demanding why we didn't remove Saddam when it was politically feasible to do so. That's why it's hard to take people who are both anti-war yet believe Bush is somehow at fault for 9/11 seriously. They're not serious people.

Which is why it ultimately doesn't really matter whether the Iraqis want the US in Iraq. We're not there for their sake. We are there for our sake. It just so happens that our sake happens to provide the opportunity for Iraqis to live in a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq.

Our soldiers who fight in Iraq are not there to save Iraq. They are there so that their own children are not murdered en masse by nuclear armed terrorists. They're there so that their children don't have to go over to the Middle East to fight off some united Islamic Fascist republic. We are there because in the long run, our soldiers are fighting to save the lives of thousands, or even millions of innocent lives. Every American solider is a hero. Sacrificing their own comfort to ensure our safety in the long run. They are giving up their today so that we have a safer tomorrow.

It is a nice side-effect that the citizens of those failed nations whose corrupt, evil leaders are being removed will end up befitting in the long run. But their benefit is just that -- a side effect. It is not the primary goal. Never forget that.

Comments (Page 1)

Island Dog

on Apr 12, 2004

Very good post. The problem is we have people in this country, mainly on the left, who don't see the threat of terrorism. Just look at John Kerry who says "terrorism is exaggerated".

peterb

on Apr 12, 2004

It seems to me the real question that hasn't been adequately addressed is whether the war in Iraq is worth the blood and treasure we have had to spend (and will continue to spend) to prosecute it. So far I've seen no convincing evidence that it is (as compared to, say, the war in Afghanistan, which provided clear and convincing benefit at a well-understood cost.)

There's also the issue that the war has been mismanaged by the civilian overseers of our military. It really disturbs me that our military told the civilian leadership exactly what it would take to avoid the precise situation we're in now, and as near as I can tell Rumsfeld ignored them (not to mention humiliating General Shinseki publically).

It turns out that ignoring the military advice your military experts give you is a stupid way to try to win a war.

Draginol

on Apr 12, 2004

On 9/11 over 3000 Americans died. In Iraq, a few hundred American soldiers have died. What do you think the cost to the United STates would have been if in say, 2010, Al Qaeda smuggled a 10K nuclear bomb into New York harbor courtesy of one of Saddam's sons?

Draginol

on Apr 12, 2004

BTW, I agree that Rumsfeld hasnt' handled things terribly well overall. But that's more of a tactical issue than a strategic one.

dharmagrl

on Apr 12, 2004

Thank you for a lucid, well constructed article that was relatively free of political bias.

Shea (my daughter) thanks you too.

peterb

on Apr 12, 2004

Brad,

What do you think the cost would be if Libya smuggles a nuclear bomb into New York Harbor in 2010?

Should we invade Libya? Why or why not?

What do you think the cost would be if Iran smuggles a nuclear bomb into New York Harbor in 2010?

Should we invade Iran? Why or why not?

We can generate any number of fantasy scenarios in which various countries may do bad things in the future. Unfortunately, we don't live in a fantasy world. We live in the real world. In the real world, when we expend blood and treasure to accomplish one objective, we incur an opportunity cost in that that blood and treasure cannot be spent to accomplish another objective. Given that no credible connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq exists (and let's be frank -- no one has ever seriously believed that such a link existed), and given that there was, apparently, no credible evidence that Iraq had a real WMD program (which is not to say that they didn't _want_ to have one), we have apparently spent a lot of blood and treasure to buy, as they say, a pig in a poke.

Please note that I am not making some Marxist argument that the US should not vigorously pursue our security interests and use force when appropriate. Rather, I'm arguing that the selection, planning and execution of this war by our civilian leadership has been inexcusably incompetent.

Deference

on Apr 12, 2004

Americans have been bombarded with many “dummy” reasons as to why we invaded Iraq. The first reason given was that Iraq had ties to Osama bin Laden. When the flimsy “evidence” provided by the administration was proven incorrect, the administration tried again by saying that we were there because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (Rumsfield may have been the one who thought up this ploy as he was once a member of the Reagan administration which initially armed and propped up Saddam in the eighties). When it was discovered that the Iraqi government had destroyed all their “stockpiles” and that the canister Colin Powell contended was evidence was, in fact, not, a new dummy was set up in the form of our grand nation building idea of “liberating the people of Iraq”. Public support of this idea is eroding quickly, however, as many people feel that it would add to greater national security if we stopped spending our money on people who don’t want us in their backyard and more on our deficit-laden economy.

Apparently, the majority of the public don’t believe Iraq is that great of a threat. It is surprising that many people who are hawkish on Iraq are not so bold when addressing North Korea who already has nuclear weapons and has told the U.S. it refuses to abandon it’s nuclear program. Our quick-shootin’, rootin’-tootin’ cowboy President has been quick to drop bombs on shepherds in Afghanistan and bring down the hammer on an old inept dictator with more mouth than anything else, but when someone with real guns enters the picture, it seems diplomacy is his only answer.

Would Saddam have been a “good boy” throughout sanctions then equipped himself with enough W.M.D.’s or nuclear weapons to attack the U.S. ? With what we know of the now – captive Saddam, his mental condition is unstable and degraded due to years of alcohol and drug abuse, the guy is over 70, and would probably die before our sanctions were ever lifted.

Why DO some people compare large military maneuvers such as this version of the Gulf War to Vietnam, I wonder? Perhaps it is because it is an unpopular war, perhaps it is because there was no exit strategy proposed when the idea to invade was wrought. Maybe it is due to the fact that the people we are trying to help are shooting us in the back. Maybe it is because Americans are losing lives without any tangible goal being achieved. Nobody will admit to the oil issue, so we’ll pretend we really want to create a “stable democracy” in Iraq (but aren’t we there for our protection? Oh, yeah, already addressed that). Doesn’t look like that will happen either with our “transfer of power” going to the Iraqi police, perhaps we’ll hightail out of there, leaving the region unstable and ripe for take over by the next despot. With all these reasons, I agree, it is hard to compare this war to Vietnam!

Finally, words like “freedom deficit” and “pre-emptive action” speak of the poor foresight of this administration. Americans are facing a “freedom deficit” right now as the fourth amendment right is nearly moot thanks to the Patriot Act (though signed by Dems, the Patriot Act, all 700 hundred pages or so were put together one day, then voted on the very next, leaving little room for debate or examination and all the while heavily pushed by the current administration). The “pre-emptive action” doctrine is incredibly thoughtless in the act of poking about the world map and looking for “deficits” to attempt to right, or for paper tigers to jump at. I can see Bush and Dick out hunting now,
“Look Dick, one of them er… marmots,”
“He’s comin’ right for us!”
“Shoot Dick, shoot!”
“Dammit’ Bush, it’s not a marmut, it’s just an old rag somebody left out here. “

Yes, despite Bush’s grand delusions, all we’ve got with this foreign policy is some old rag. Let’s stop the nation building and world policing, let’s focus on America first, and when it comes to problems abroad, allow some thought and careful consideration before we jump at the sight of rotting phantoms.

jeblackstar

on Apr 12, 2004

I think the greatest concern for Nuclear weapons being smuggled into New York in 2010 is from N. Korea, since they are, a. not friendly to the US, and b. covertly building Nukes anyway.

Cheers

Gerry Atrick

on Apr 13, 2004

Deference, you are spot on with your assessment.

Gerry Atrick

on Apr 13, 2004

Brad,
Even though I disagree with most of what you write, I am in awe of the sheer volume and quality of the writing. You always seem to argue your point of view without resorting to abuse when people disagree with you. I do have one question though....where do you find the time?

jeblackstar

on Apr 13, 2004

It's when he's taking a break from working on the Politicalmachine. I don't always agree with Brad, in fact, often I vocally disagree, but I too am amazed by the volume of his posts, and the amount of research he does on them. I usually stick to historical precedent, which is easy to do in my field of work, but Brad's a techie, so where he gets the time to do the research is truely beyond my ken.

Cheers

Solitair

on Apr 13, 2004

Interesting article Brad. I would agree with most of your conclusions regarding why Iraq was invaded. You however don't deal at all with the whole issue of why the US government failed to acknowledge this as their reason and actively argued other reasons.

Do you feel it was acceptable for them to do so?

You also fail to address the separate issue of occupying Iraq once the war was complete. In my opinion it is these issues which will make your stated mission a success or failure. Removing Saddam will mean nothing if the US manages to make Iraqis hate the west and leads to thousands of them joining terrorist organisations.

Do you feel the US administration made the correct choices here?
Do you feel the version of Democracy they are forcing on Iraq is correct?
Do you feel their refusal to hand control to a UN mission was correct?

Paul.

Anthony R

on Apr 13, 2004

It is an exercise in futility to try and convince those that think the US was blindly lashing out at some harmless foe by removing Hussein. The notion that Saddam Hussein was not a threat or that his intentions toward the US were anything but malignant is some of the most misguided thinking imaginable.
Hussein openly celebrated September the 11th. We know Hussein had chemical weapons because he gassed the Kurds in the North with the nerve agent Saran; pictures of the atrocity are available. Hussein trained, funded, and offered safe harbor to terrorist organizations, he openly contracted the services of suicide bombers in Israel for ten thousand dollars apiece. Iraq had terrorist training camps such as Salmon Pak. Definitive links between the first WTC bombing and Iraqi intelligence agents and Hussein. Hussein tried to assassinate an American president. It is beyond belief that someone would think Hussein is not part of the war on terror. Removing Hussein was not without mistakes, but the people harping on it the most are the same people who thought that Bill Clintons announcement of “no ground troops “was appropriate.

Island Dog

on Apr 13, 2004

"On no less than seven different occasions in today's long-awaited testimony before the September 11th Commission, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice insisted that there was no specific advance knowledge as to the time, place and method of the attacks, and that there was no warning of a domestic internal threat from Al Qaeda throughout the spring and summer of 2001. With these sworn statements the biggest vulnerability of the Bush administration in its criminal complicity for those attacks lies exposed and fully on the record. Ladies and gentlemen, what you witnessed today, on every major network, was perjury – a felony. We will prove that here. But compared to the crimes of murder, conspiracy and treason it was perhaps maybe too small a crime for the major media to notice. It was not too big a crime, however, for the American people and the victim families of 9/11 to notice. The revolution may not be televised. But it may have begun as a result of what was televised today."

Where is the document that says there will be an attack on Sept. 11, in New York, using airplanes? The august briefing says nothing of that. Remember that conspiracy theories are for the weak minded who do nothing but quote conspiracy theory websites for the answers they seek.

"Apparently, the majority of the public don’t believe Iraq is that great of a threat. It is surprising that many people who are hawkish on Iraq are not so bold when addressing North Korea who already has nuclear weapons and has told the U.S. it refuses to abandon it’s nuclear program. Our quick-shootin’, rootin’-tootin’ cowboy President has been quick to drop bombs on shepherds in Afghanistan and bring down the hammer on an old inept dictator with more mouth than anything else, but when someone with real guns enters the picture, it seems diplomacy is his only answer."

The majority of Americans still support the war, and the majority believe that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist., which he was. Dropping bombs on shepards in Afghanistan? I guess we should negotiate with the Taliban and let them come back and take over Afghanistan again.

Old enept dictator? That old dictator has killed more than million people, gassed people, brutalized his people on a daily basis, and attacked several of his neighboring countries. People like you just don't get it. Get off your conspiarcy theories and wake up and see that people like saddam are a threat to the world. I know your conspiracy theory websites won't let you believe thta, but you should really try.

Island Dog

on Apr 13, 2004

"Why DO some people compare large military maneuvers such as this version of the Gulf War to Vietnam, I wonder? Perhaps it is because it is an unpopular war, perhaps it is because there was no exit strategy proposed when the idea to invade was wrought. Maybe it is due to the fact that the people we are trying to help are shooting us in the back. Maybe it is because Americans are losing lives without any tangible goal being achieved. Nobody will admit to the oil issue, so we’ll pretend we really want to create a “stable democracy” in Iraq (but aren’t we there for our protection? Oh, yeah, already addressed that). Doesn’t look like that will happen either with our “transfer of power” going to the Iraqi police, perhaps we’ll hightail out of there, leaving the region unstable and ripe for take over by the next despot. With all these reasons, I agree, it is hard to compare this war to Vietnam! "

Some people like Ted Kennedy. Oh that's a person to admire. Americans still support this war. The people who don't like the French, who the left love so much, were bribed by Saddam to try and stop the war. Also the majority of Iraqis supports America being there, there are still problems with very small parts of the country, but overall the country is pacified. I know the liberal media doesn't like to show it, but research for yourself and you will see all the great things that America has accomplished in Iraq. The building and rebuilding of schools and hospitals, that is just a small part of the things we are accomplishing in Iraq.

Oil issue? It is being addressed. It's being investigated of how the corrupt U.N. and corrupt countries like France and Germany were being bribed by Saddam and taking money from the "oil for food" program. I forgot, you are a conspiracy theorist. I guess you are talking about all the oil we are stealing. Give me a break.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!