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.