Iraq War – Should we have gone? Part III
In the last two parts I looked at the WMDs and humanitarian reasons for going to War. While, when put into context, I believe these justified going to war, I do not believe that these were the most important reasons. The most important reason for the removal of Saddam was not only a valid strategic goal in the war on terrorism, it was a necessary step. I do not believe that the war on terrorism could ever be won as long as Saddam was in power. Iraq’s strategic importance is also one of the main reasons the securing of the peace following the downfall of Saddam has been so difficult.
While there is little evidence to say that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and I never believe he was, there is no question that Saddam supported terrorists, including paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. In addition Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East.
To really deal with the threat of Terrorism, we must not only take on the terrorists, but we must also deal with the situation that is creating them. For decades US policy towards the Middle East has basically been that we did not care what the dictators did in their own countries, as long as the oil continued to flow. The result has been the creation of circumstances were these despotic rules along with radical clerics have explained away the problems in their own countries by blaming the US and Israel. In fact in a recent Zogby poll of opinion in six Middle Eastern countries, 80% had an unfavorable view of the United States, (57% very unfavorable), 72% said the US was one of the biggest threats to them (80% included Israel), and 69% said the true goal of US policy was “weakening the Muslim world.” Critics will probably say this is all because of Bush, but this is not new. One only has to go back to the year 2000, before Bush was even elected, to see hundreds of thousands marching in Morocco burning US and Israeli flags. And of course terrorism has been a growing problem for decades.
On 9/11 the state supporters of terrorism were: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan. To really solve the problem all would need to stop their support. Unless we were to take them on all at once (a policy no one I know of supports) they would have to be dealt with in sequence. While not on the list Afghanistan was a logical first place to start, as it was the home of Al Qaida, and few except those who are opposed to all wars agreed. For those who see the terrorism as a law enforcement issue Afghanistan should have been the end of it, at least until the next attack. And with the other countries still supporting terrorism, there would have been another attack.
For those who see this as a war, the main question is where to go next. I would argue that Iraq was the next logical step. It had been a very visible antagonist for nearly a decade, it was in violation of the peace treaty, it was firing on US aircraft virtually on a daily basis, it was a major abuser of human rights, and was in violation of 16 UN resolution, in addition to supporting terrorism. More importantly a successful transformation of Iraq, would put pressure on others with the hope that military action would not be necessary. For example, it has long been reported that the Iranian people are unhappy with their government, and Iran is ripe for revolution.
For awhile it looked like this policy was working. Following the invasion of Iraq, Libya did renounce terrorism, give up its WMD programs and took steps to rejoin the world community, though this had been in the works for some time. There were even some positive signs in Syria as it was forced out of Lebanon. Iran and Syria, could see what was happening and have actively responded by supporting opposition to the US. The terrorists also see key importance of a US victory in Iraq, and describe the conflict as “the greatest battle of Islam in this era” and “the decisive battle.” How can Iraq be unimportant to the war on terror, if the terrorist see it in these terms?
Yet critics claim invading Iraq was unnecessary, it was an optional war, a war of choice. Because of their law enforcement viewpoint, they wrongly see this as a choice between war and peace. But we are at war. The terrorists are not fighting us because we invaded Iraq, they declared war on us long before Iraq, and have been fighting us for decades, and they will continue to do so. There are only two ways wars can end. Either both side mutually agree to stop, or one side defeats the other. The terrorist show no signs of stopping, they see themselves as on a mission from, and to stop would be to disobey God. So, unless we are willing to give up Western civilization and live under Islamic Law, it is not a question of whether or not we will fight, but a question of where and when. As long as there are state supporters of militant Islam, the threat posed by militant Islam will grow stronger. It is not a matter of if they will get WMDs, it is a matter of when. And make no mistake, when they get them, they will use them. Unfortunately many find the idea of fanatics who believe they are on a mission from God to kill or convert unbelievers getting nuclear weapons so unthinkable they do not want to face up to the real danger we face.
So it is not a choice between war and peace, but between war now, or an even larger bloodier war later; of stopping militant Islam before it gets WMDs (assuming it is not already too late to do this) or waiting until they have them and have used them. This was not only a good reason for going into to Iraq, it is just as valid now, if not more so. If we should not have fought them in Iraq then just where should we fight them? Or should we let them choose the battleground that is best for them?
