Before getting into this, I think it is important for me to say that the Iraq war was the reason that I personally left the democrat party, soon after leaving college, and it is the number one reason that I will always remember President Bush as a courageous leader.
War itself is complicated, most especially for the American Republic. Many have a natural instinct to say they are anti-war, and that peace is possible. Others believe that there is good and evil, and it is in the national interest of the United States that good prevails, and we fight for our interests.
As the Iraq war officially comes to an end, it is clear that the American people are confused about how to react. I believe the divisions in this country caused specifically by the war has left us feeling more ashamed than anything else.
As the Iraq war officially comes to an end, it is clear that the American people are confused about how to react. I believe the divisions in this country caused specifically by the war has left us feeling more ashamed than anything else.
Twenty years ago, George Bush (senior) made a decision not to get rid of Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. He was a tyrant, who gassed the Kurds in the north of Iraq, invaded Kuwait to its south and was a threat to confiscating much of our oil supply in Saudi Arabia. We didn't take him out because we feared the very things that we witnessed over the last decade. Sectarian violence and Iran being emboldened by the fall of its counter weight in the Middle East.
(It is important to note that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other)
So why did we go back? The truth is that only those in power know that answer, but I supported the mission, and here is why I thought we went in:
(It is important to note that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other)
So why did we go back? The truth is that only those in power know that answer, but I supported the mission, and here is why I thought we went in:
September 11th sent us a message... we were vulnerable to attack here at home from a radical enemy. The message from Bin Laden was clear; remove all US troops from the middle east, and stop supporting Israel, or the attacks would keep coming.
We knew from (many) teaching's of Wahhabism that the goal of our enemy was to establish a caliphate who would control the Middle East and beyond with strict Islamic Law, and they carry the belief that "non-believers" were the enemy. There were tyrants from North Africa to Iran who openly shared in the feeling of hatred toward the US (not all Wahhabi), but they had the potential to be united by their hatred of us.
Saddam had often praised the practice of suicide bombers in Israel, going as far as financially supporting the practice by giving $25,000 to the families of those lunatics.
After 9/11, we had to make it clear that terrorism was unacceptable. States who sponsored terror were therefor our enemy, and we needed to send a clear message of the consequences of such actions. To be clear: Saddam was supporting terror!
On top of that, we believed that Saddam still held WMD. Yes, the reason we believed he had it is because we gave some to him to fight Iran... (but that is for another posting I guess). Bill Clinton enforced a no-fly zone in the 90's because he believed they had the weapons. Democrats and Republicans along with most intelligence services across the world believed he had some form of WMD...
President Bush went to the U.N., after years of sanctions and Saddam's refusal to allow inspectors full access, to say the world could not allow this threat to continue. But corruption and self-interest from nations like France and Russia, prevented the U.N. from being able to pose a credible threat. Saddam knew the U.N. would not act, because these countries openly said so... and so the United States led its own coalition to eliminate the threat of terror.
We did not find WMD... was it moved to another country? was it never there? That question is over my head.
What we did find though, was so called jihadist's and foreign fighters from Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries, coming to Iraq to fight the US. I am not blind to the reality that the Iraqi people suffered severely because of this, but what ended up happening is these people thought they could defeat us in Iraq. So they came from all over to fight our soldiers, using up a lot of their resources and man power, not to attack US civilians on our soil but to fight our military. For the US national interest, this was a huge success, and mostly overlooked by our press. President Bush said many times, we would rather fight them over there than on our own city streets.
It was clear that defeat in Iraq would have given our enemies (radical Islamists) the very thing that they desire... A state in the heart of the middle east to establish the base for radical Islam to spread. The democrat party used the war as a political talking point instead of recognizing the obvious threat. Leaders in the party repeatedly announced that the war was lost, and it was time for us to retreat. The media only focused on the absence of WMD, and highlighted daily the enormous cost of lives being lost. (Hard for me to say even about one life, but "relative" to other wars, we did not lose nearly as many soldiers) They attacked President Bush over it endlessly... but he stood firm. Would we have won earlier if we were united? Would less people have died if we projected unity versus division?
Clearly the war was not a political winner, but the President recognized the great risk we faced if we let Iraq fall to extremists. His determination to see it through and win the war was honorable, and yet "they" used his endurance as a political club to win elections. We were not united in the face of our enemy, but President Bush carried the burden of our divisions on his shoulders, and led us to victory.
Saddam had often praised the practice of suicide bombers in Israel, going as far as financially supporting the practice by giving $25,000 to the families of those lunatics.
After 9/11, we had to make it clear that terrorism was unacceptable. States who sponsored terror were therefor our enemy, and we needed to send a clear message of the consequences of such actions. To be clear: Saddam was supporting terror!
On top of that, we believed that Saddam still held WMD. Yes, the reason we believed he had it is because we gave some to him to fight Iran... (but that is for another posting I guess). Bill Clinton enforced a no-fly zone in the 90's because he believed they had the weapons. Democrats and Republicans along with most intelligence services across the world believed he had some form of WMD...
President Bush went to the U.N., after years of sanctions and Saddam's refusal to allow inspectors full access, to say the world could not allow this threat to continue. But corruption and self-interest from nations like France and Russia, prevented the U.N. from being able to pose a credible threat. Saddam knew the U.N. would not act, because these countries openly said so... and so the United States led its own coalition to eliminate the threat of terror.
We did not find WMD... was it moved to another country? was it never there? That question is over my head.
What we did find though, was so called jihadist's and foreign fighters from Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries, coming to Iraq to fight the US. I am not blind to the reality that the Iraqi people suffered severely because of this, but what ended up happening is these people thought they could defeat us in Iraq. So they came from all over to fight our soldiers, using up a lot of their resources and man power, not to attack US civilians on our soil but to fight our military. For the US national interest, this was a huge success, and mostly overlooked by our press. President Bush said many times, we would rather fight them over there than on our own city streets.
It was clear that defeat in Iraq would have given our enemies (radical Islamists) the very thing that they desire... A state in the heart of the middle east to establish the base for radical Islam to spread. The democrat party used the war as a political talking point instead of recognizing the obvious threat. Leaders in the party repeatedly announced that the war was lost, and it was time for us to retreat. The media only focused on the absence of WMD, and highlighted daily the enormous cost of lives being lost. (Hard for me to say even about one life, but "relative" to other wars, we did not lose nearly as many soldiers) They attacked President Bush over it endlessly... but he stood firm. Would we have won earlier if we were united? Would less people have died if we projected unity versus division?
Clearly the war was not a political winner, but the President recognized the great risk we faced if we let Iraq fall to extremists. His determination to see it through and win the war was honorable, and yet "they" used his endurance as a political club to win elections. We were not united in the face of our enemy, but President Bush carried the burden of our divisions on his shoulders, and led us to victory.
I do hope for the Iraqi's sake that our leaving does not cause them to fall into chaos... When we make the decision to bring our troops home for political reasons, we risk losing a very stable progress.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many middle eastern countries struggling to write there own future, you would think it would be in the US interest to stay with Iraq and assure that they become the peaceful example of freedom for the rest of the mid east...
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/12/ap-military-iraq-war-ends-no-troop-parade-imminent-122711/
ReplyDelete