The reasons to go into Iraq never changed

Don't let revisionists cloud why we needed to take out Saddam.

Published on April 30, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

The problem I have with the anti-war crowd, particularly those who are on-line, is that I find them intellectually dishonest. When someone tries to say "Bush lied about WMD" or that the invasion of Iraq was largely because we believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMD they are really being dishonest. But dishonesty in debate is, sadly, a regular occurrence. But when it comes to blogging, blogs can be re-read from the time frame. And those who favored going into Iraq have been consistent in the reasons why we needed to go after Iraq.

Let's recap why Americans favored going to war in Iraq:

After the first Gulf War (1991) Saddam had continually violated the terms of the cease fire. This culminated in 1998 when the inspectors were thrown out. At that point, Americans would have supported the use of massive military support to remove Saddam. But Clinton was mired in the impeachment and the issue just didn't seem imminent enough.

Then came 9/11.

After 9/11, Americans came to the realization that the United States could no longer afford a powerful open enemy in that part of the world. Saddam had a history of invading its neighbors. It had a history of trying to acquire WMD and occasionally using them on his own people. Saddam, in short, was a ticking time bomb. He had to go.

So the US went to the UN one last time and essentially said "We need to put this guy on notice that we're not fooling around anymore. He's gotta comply with the previous dozen and a half UN resolutions or we're going to take him out." The UN passed resolution 1441.

Most Americans, myself included, believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMD in the form of chemical weapons. We'd been told that for 10 years. But that really wasn't the issue. But few were sweating whether Saddam had mustard gas or Sarin or whatever in his inventory. The issue was what would Saddam do after the sanctions got lifted and the inspectors were gone. But 1441 would at least let us see if he had any genuine interest in cooperating with the UN.

It turned out he didn't. He screwed around with the inspectors once again. No fly-overs allowed, no talking to scientists without Iraqi officials present to intimidate them, no paperwork on where the missing WMD stockpiles had gone. And in the midst of this, Iraq continued to shoot at US and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone.

Again, Americans were faced with a choice. We could just throw up our hands and let this guy keep doing this until one day he managed to develop and smuggle a nuke or something to Al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization, or we could go and remove this guy. After all, this guy was actively paying terrorists in Israel for their efforts, it isn't a stretch to imagine Saddam providing help to those who wanted to kill Americans.

So the United States went to war with a primary and secondary goal.

The primary goal was to remove Saddam Hussein. Doing so would eliminate any stockpiles of WMD but more importantly, it would eliminate any programs he may have had to produce WMD in the future that could be provided to terrorists. Like I said, it wasn't mustard gas that Americans were worried about, it was a future nuclear bomb or something worse that Saddam might produce in the future and turn over. In short, we would be removing a serious threat to the United States in the post 9/11 world.

The secondary goal was to establish a stable, prosperous democratic Iraq that would serve as an example to nearby countries as part of the effort to "drain the swamp" that creates the terrorists in the first place. An open, free society in Iraq might make the people of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Syria more inclined to move away from radical Islam and be more moderate. As an added benefit, such a state would be friendly to the United States and allow it to exert pressure on the aforementioned 3 countries that produce a disproportionate amount of terrorists.

Since the war, the Kay report came out. And the report actually backed up much of what those of us who were in favor of the war believed -- Saddam was actively trying to obtain WMD and had every intention to build WMD on a large scale once sanctions were lifted. His strategy was to not have stockpiles of WMD but instead gear up towards the post-sanction production of WMD.

But many who have opposed the war, have demonstrated a dishonesty on this issue that I find staggering. They have focused on the stockpiles of WMD discussion in the Kay report and totally ignored the real issue - Saddam wanted to get WMD and was actively putting together such a program to be fully implemented once sanctions were lifted. The people who believe we should have done more to stop 9/11 suddenly turn around and believe that it was wrong to stop what could have been a far worse catastrophe 5, 10 years in the future. In other words, the fear those of us who wanted Saddam removed was totally justified. As I wrote before the war, my concern wasn't whether Saddam had chemical weapons, my fear was that it would be my son fighting on a nuclear battle field in Iraq because we failed to act now.

Here are some of my articles I wrote on the war back at the time:

https://www.joeuser.com/Articles/InanidealworldBushcouldte.html

https://www.joeuser.com/Articles/TheCaseforandagainstwar.html

https://www.joeuser.com/Articles/AmericaattheCross-Roads.html

https://www.joeuser.com/Articles/PrincipledPositions.html

https://www.joeuser.com/Articles/TheLefthaslostitsvoice.html

https://www.joeuser.com/Articles/TheDebate.html

BTW, one thing you'll get from reading those old blogs (i.e. BEFORE the war) is that I didn't even believe Iraq had any WMD at the time (I don't usually consider chemical weapons to be WMD). So as you read the articles, not only are stockpiles of WMD not an issue, I didn't even think he had WMD at the time. My concern was that after 9/11, we couldn't mess around with this guy anymore. He had shown he wanted to obtain WMD if he could and with Al Qaeda he had a delivery vehicle.

My articles are no way unique either. They mirror articles written by others at the time who supported the war. No where can I find any articles that argued that the primary or even major reason for invading Iraq was to eliminate Saddam's stockpile of WMD. The reason we removed Saddam was because we believed he was a threat that we could no longer live with in a post-9/11 world. End of story.

Those who cling to the lack of stockpiles of WMD are overstating their case and being dishonest. Sure, I thought Iraq had chemical weapons in barrels somewhere. And they might. But it wasn't something keeping me up at night. What I knew and still know is that quite a number of people over in that area of the world are trying to murder as many innocent Americans as possible. And I knew that Saddam, being an open enemy of the United States was interested in acquiring WMD destruction. Time has shown that Saddam was trying to acquire WMDs. He just didn't keep stockpiles of them, he was building the programs to produce them once sanctions were lifted. As an American, I expect my government to protect me and my family. The federal government does precious little for me given the taxes it extracts. But I expect it to do this one thing damn well. And 9/11 was the wake up call so that I could avoid having my son fighting on a nuclear battle ground in Iraq 10 years hence.

Once Saddam was toppled, the mission was accomplished. The primary goal of the invasion was completed a year ago. Now we wrestle with the secondary goal of trying to establish a stable, peaceful democracy. How that will turn out is anyone's guess. As a hawk, I'm not going to lose sleep whether Iraq ends up a democracy or not as long as it doesn't support or harbor terrorists or try to develop a WMD program. Ironically, it should be the doves hoping that the US is successful from here on out. As far as I'm concerned, our main job is done. The point of staying now is to help the Iraqi's that we have a moral responsibility to do. But that should be the argument the left is making because I'm not going to make it for them.

Comments (Page 1)

mikimouse

on Apr 30, 2004

One thing you don't cover is the open question as to why the US already had war plans drawn up for Iraq 2 days after 911. You have to cover that if you wish to be open about this subject. Sure Hussein was bad, but in some cases no worse than any other psycho murderous leader in other countries.
"Saddam had a history of invading its neighbors.".....it's a telling fact that not one single nation surrounding Iraq was in fear of Iraq in any way. No one nation asked the US for help even after the US offered it to them. I find that disturbing.
"it was a future nuclear bomb or something worse that Saddam might produce in the future and turn over."
Cheney as well as Bush and even Powell all stated as fact that Iraq was producing nuclear weapons. Rumsfeld even said the US knew where they are! And Powell's speech to the UN, with fake props and all, stated that Iraq was nuclear-ready. All bloody lies! All of it. The US wasn't in danger of Iraq. The US had bombed Iraq thousands of times during the 10 year period after the 1st Gulf War. And none of them were in any papers in the US. Iraq is and was a basket-case, turned to shit from sanctions, sanctions which the US admitted had killed at least 500,000 Iraqi children. UNBELIEVABLE!! I couldn't believe Mz. Albright when she said the US believes the price was worth it. Oh sure she regrets saying it now, but then she was merely speaking for the US gov't. And the reasons have changed. Lmao. When was the last time Bush, Powell, Cheney or Rice mentioned the WMD in Iraq? They don't. The focus now, supposedly, is on the humanitarian mission (with heavy weapons) to free the Iraqi people from tyranny and to bring order to Iraq. Odd. Rumsfeld said at the start of the ground war: "the purpose....is to rid Iraq of it's WMD and to secure the oilfields...". It's changed all right. A lot.

JeremyG

on Apr 30, 2004

State of the Union 2002

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. "

This is the premise that the american people were lead to believe. The average american does not do a lot of fact seeking in foreign affairs. Nor should they, thats why there's different people for different jobs. Brad, you just happen to be the type of person who enjoys that sort of thing. To the average person they trust that their president will honestly represent the serious issues at hand. The above is what was presented on that note. Naturally people trust it and agree....after all that sounds like it's such a horrible thing.

But when the situation changes, and more facts get brought out into the public....that is when the common man's opinion changes. When peoples started to realize that the premise they were given for the war, was based on a lot of shady, less than factual information, naturally they withdrew a lot of support.

The mistake you are making is that you're assuming that the public was supporting the war based on the actual intentions of our government, rather than the general intentions that were telegraphed to the nation via the State of the Union. I'm sure you'll come back and say that "well then it's their fault for not understanding the issues"......but that is why the people rely on government, to present those issues. So they dont have to spend their days investigating things in other nations. People get dissappointed when things are not presented to them striaght up.

mikimouse

on Apr 30, 2004

well stated.

messybuu

on Apr 30, 2004

What's funny is that somebody sometimes accuses the U.S. of giving WMDs to Hussein and then later says that Hussein never had any WMDs. I think people are picking at the WMD argument much like people picked at the fact that Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky: it's all they have.

Draginol

on Apr 30, 2004

JeremyG: How does your state of the union quote contradict anything I said?

The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

This is absolutely true. He is not saying that have these weapons, he is saying that they have plotted to develop WMD which is the whole point. Saddam was a threat to the US that needed to be removed.

In other words: Things were presented "straight up". Americans STILL support what we did. Very few people have changed their views despite how crappily the Bush administration has handled the post-war occupation.

mikimouse

on Apr 30, 2004

super think. The US gave Iraq WMD. 12 years later they didn't have them anymore. They have a shelf life you know. Or don't know. The bottom line is that the US said Iraq had WMD, iraq said they didn't, the US called them liars, the US invaded, the US found nothing. Sadly, it turns out that Hussein was telling the truth and the US wasn't telling the truth. It's easy to see that.

Draginol

on Apr 30, 2004

And if Iraq having stockpiles of WMD was a major reason for going into Iraq you might actually have a point. But it wasn't. And what it does show then is that Saddam was a world class fool for screwing around with the inspectors if he had nothing to hide.

Aaron Brandt

on Apr 30, 2004

If Saddam didn't have WMD's, why did he kick weapons inspectors out for so long? Why did he put such restrictions on weapons inspectors when he would let them in? If you knew that the most powerful nation in the world was about to invade you, wouldn't you prevent some evidence of having disarmed?
I'm sorry, I do believe that WMD's were not the best reason we had for attacking, but just because we haven't found any, doesnt mean that they aren't there. I really don't understand this thought process. Months after we had been there, we found many buried fighter jets just outside of an airport we used. The only way we found them was because part of one of them came unburied. If someone was to bury WMD's, which would be smaller than multiple fighter jets, far out in the desert, quite deep, how long would this take us to find? Unless we can find some records, its gonna take us a long while.

Jesse3581

on Apr 30, 2004

First, I'd like to thank you for a well thought out, well documented post. I disagree with your term of "intellectual dishonesty", but we'll leave that for another time.

mikimouse wrote that we had a war plan for Iraq two days after September 11th. The truth is that We've had a war plan for Iraq for 10 years, following the first Gulf War. This is what the Defense Department does: they write war plans based on future contagiencies. According to Bob Woodward's latest book, "Plan of Attack" which documents the development of the Iraq war in intimate detail, the plans we used began to be developed two months after 9/11.

With that out of the way, we'll dissect a little bit here. But first, we need to realize that most americans do not pay attention to poltics like we do. They just don't. I wish that wasn't the case, but it's true and I hope we can all come to an agreement on that.

Did George W. Bush over state the case for war? Probably. We don't know for sure and we may never know. In November he went to the UN with resolution 1441, which is very much debatable as to weather it authorized the use of force. But the security council did not approve, and if we'll all remember, the US made a last ditch effort for UN involvement in Febuary, on the island of A(something). At the last minute, the US withdrew, knowing they did not have the votes to pass. At the time, 55% of Americans believed we should not go to war without UN backing. The fact is, we didn't have UN backing and the American public rallied behind the President and troops once the war started.

Here's the text of 1441. It did say this was a final attempt for Iraq to let the inspectors back in, but no word as to the consequences or the use of force. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm

In January (It was funny, actually), the administration changed course and stopped talking about WMD and more on liberating the Iraqi people.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest here, so far I hope (I really hate that term). So the issue comes back to did the President lie? Man, it really is a tough one. If he did, what are the consequences? LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, escalating Vietnam, and he escaped relatively unscathed. This issue, like politics, is a personal thing and a personal belief. I think people have the RIGHT to nitpick about the WMD, but I also agree that it shouldn't be considered the primary cause for war.

Saddam Hussian had built his country into a fortress. No coup or rebellion would be able to remove him from power. The tanks either had shells or fuel, but no tanks had both, putting him in complete control of the military. Millions and millions of dollars went to fund opposition groups, but they were all unsuccessful.

It's easy to say in retrospect that we should have done this or that, but in order to remove Saddam there was only one way to do it.

So should we have removed Saddam?

An intresting tidbit in Woodward's book is that the only time he killed his own people is when there was a US-funded opposition group rising up. That what these mass graves are. The US is just as responisable for those killings as Saddam.

So should we have removed Saddam?

I don't buy the "democracy in the middle east" crap because ... democracy IS NOT a perfect form of govenment. It does NOT belong everywhere. Everyone does NOT want it. Turkey is part of the middle east and they used democracy loud and clear when they said not to the 80 billion we offered in exchange for being part of the coalition.

Which brings me to this ... Democrats and myself misspeak when we say this war is being fought unilaterially. It isn't, there are other countries involved. What we mean to say is that the citizens of the world do not support us. Thier governments might, but the people overwhelmingly do not. That is why Germany and S. Korea elected anti-US Presidents. Not one major country had a majority opinion in favor of the war last Febuary. It would be intresting to see how they react now, but my guess is that it will probably be the same.

So should we have removed Saddam?

messybuu

on May 01, 2004

That's my problem. What in God's name made him act as if he had something to hide if he didn't still have those WMDs? Why was he so secret about "disarming them" (if it's true that he actually did)?

vincible

on May 01, 2004

You're missing the point.

The choice being made here was between war and some form of containment. If Hussein had actually managed to maintain a nuclear or biological weapons program in spite of sanctions--as some in the administration had incorrectly claimed--it would mean that containment was ineffective. It meant that in spite of strict sanctions, Hussein was managing to build up his weapons programs, and was a "grave and gathering threat" in Bush's words. So the supposed existence of WMD showed that containment--the alternative to war--was untenable.

However, if we had known in advance that he didn't have any stockpiles and that his weapons programs were rudimentary at best, as we know now, there would have been no urgency about settling the issue immediately. Hussein wasn't a threat at all, since containment was working! And it would have continued to work, while we experimented with, say, funding an anti-Hussein insurgency, with smart sanctions, and other options.

Now I'm not one of those who thinks the Bush team deliberately lied... but I do think they exaggerated the evidence to the public for what they thought were good reasons, in order to assure support for a war that they thought to be necessary and urgent. And they turned out to be wrong.

vincible

on May 01, 2004

I can't understand those who still think he might have had weapons. We've been in the country for a year now, and we've been able to interview just about every important Iraqi scientist. Face it, there wasn't anything.

What in God's name made him act as if he had something to hide if he didn't still have those WMDs

I had the same doubts for quite some time. Then this article answered them.

Link

Basically, Hussein tried to create weapons programs, and they all failed, because the embargo meant that scientists could not obtain vital tools and materials. But they still had to hide the related documents and evidence. Also, scientists lied to the government, exaggerating their success, because no one wanted to tell Hussein, "that can't be done," and Western intelligence intercepted those false reports and believed them.Link

Draginol

on May 01, 2004

An intresting tidbit in Woodward's book is that the only time he killed his own people is when there was a US-funded opposition group rising up. That what these mass graves are. The US is just as responisable for those killings as Saddam.

That's a ridiculous statement. Saddam had been killing his own people since he got into power. Unless, of course, you are arguing those Kurdish women and children gassed to death were part of the "US funded" opposition.

Draginol

on May 01, 2004

There's things in my own hosue I haven't found in over a year -- let alone in a country the size of France. But that said, we've found PLENTY of evidence of a WMD program, just not actual stockpiles of nerve gas or whatever.

Big whoop, he didn't have a warehouse of mustard gas. The left's dishonesty on this issue is ignoring how much evidence of WMD programs he had going. I wasn't worried mustard gas, I was worried about him or more likely his sons 5 to 10 years from now providing terrorists with nuclear weapons or worse.

Draginol

on May 01, 2004

Incidentally, Vincible, France and Russia were pushing very hard before 9/11 for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq.

The idea that the US and UK should have "contained" him for the next several decades is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to take the opposition to the war seriously. North Korea has been "contained" for decades and it apparently has nuclear weapons now -- and it's on a freaking peninsula!

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!