Why Iraq was the Right Thing to Do
I realize that reasonable minds can disagree. I realize their were no WMD (although at the time the intelligence says there was, enough to convince the UN security counsel), so let’s avoid playing Monday morning quarterback about that issue. My thoughts:
Since September 11, 2001, the world has fundamentally changed. For me, Afghanistan was the correct solution. Iraq followed. I am a firm Iraq war supporter for the following reasons.
First, I wish George W. Bush had sold it under what I believe are the real reasons for Iraq that I outline here, but then again if he had, Congress would have never approved. If history teaches us anything, politicians are notoriously indecisive when it comes down to making hard decisions about moving armies in and killing people. Such indecisiveness allowed Hitler to take over a large portion of Europe and it has happened time and again this last century, where a rouge country makes a move and then uses their public relations machine to "diplomatically" lull the rest of the world into doing nothing.
Take Russia invading into Georgia. Russia takes decisive action, then comes hat in hand saying they will withdraw in a couple of days. A couple of days later, they offer some feeble excuse and say they will withdraw a few days later and so forth. Over a month later, Russia is still entrenching in Georgia and nobody has done anything (except decide to build a missile defense system in Poland… hahaha in your face Russia). Meanwhile, Russia is lulling the world of diplomacy-first politicians into inaction and desensitization as to their unlawful occupation of Georgia. I digress.
Why was Iraq important?
1. We needed to take the fight away from our civilian populations and engage the terrorists with our military. Our military is trained to deal with insurgencies, not to mention mean armed men (and women) bent on killing anybody that doesn’t agree with their view on religion (Muslim and non-Muslim alike). It is true that we have suffered causalities of many troops as a result. But our military is doing the job they are there for. Let’s not forget that the military is an organization for more than putting kids through college and having "You’ve Lost that Loving Feeling" belted out to blonde’s in a bar by Tim Cruise.
- We knew that by moving our military onto Muslim soil, the terrorists would focus their attention first on getting us out of their terroritories, and then on attacking us on ours. The particular brain washing that these terrorists go through ingrains in them a perception that the United States and its allies are interested in snuffing out Islam. To them, U.S. military on already held Muslim soil was the number one problem to be dealt with to prevent us from reducing their own stake in world territory. The result: the terrorists focused their attention on Iraq and not on Indiana.
- Note that since Sept. 11, 2001, not a single additional attack of any significance has occurred on American soil. Is this because they made their point with Sept. 11? Of course not. It is because they have been busy trying to break our resolve in Iraq.
2. We needed to let the terrorists know in no uncertain terms that attacking America would be retributed on Muslim soil. In other words, we couldn’t just sit there and do nothing.
Diplomacy? Diplomacy is great when a deal can be reached that meets the interests of both parties. With Al-Qaeda, however, there is no diplomatic solution that is acceptable to both us and them. They want us to be ruled by a Calif and we want them to be nice. Isn’t going to happen unless we have some sort of leverage. Due to oil revenue, however, we can’t hurt them with economic sanctions (how do you sanction a group that exists in many countries and rejects the rule of law from any of the countries?) and we are not about to install Muslim religious rule in our country. There is simply no diplomatic solution that works with the terrorists. It is like going to the insane asylum and trying to strike a deal with the lady who thinks bees are constantly trying to get her.
The only message (leverage) they understand is getting hunted down and killed.
We did and are doing just that in Afghanistan. But, after we had them on the run, we needed the terrorists and governments that might have hosted them to understand there was nowhere else to go. Would they have gone to Iraq? Probably not. Saddam didn’t want them. But this is beside the point. It wasn’t where they could have gone that was important, but letting any country that might have considered harboring them know that we are going to punish anybody who hosts the terrorists.
So why Iraq? Because the Saddam Hussein regime was brutal and a threat to America. Saddam had vast oil reserves and had entrenched. Economic sanctions were a blunt tool at best against him. He ruthlessly put down dissenters. He had already shown he was not afraid to invade neighboring countries. If we had to choose one country in which to take the fight to the terrorists, it was Iraq.
Libya observed the goings on in Iraq for about a year before surrendering their weapons of mass destruction and deciding it was better to play with the rest of the world than against the rest of the world.
How about Iran? Turns out economic sanctions will eventually deal with Iran.
The Only Real Issue This Election (from 2004 – Why Iran can be dealt with economically)
Did we Invade the Wrong Country?
I have no idea why I am citing two articles from Orson Scott Card, a who is a Democrat… but for what it is worth, there they are.
3. We needed Muslim’s to wake up and decide to fight the terrorists of their own accord. The trouble with standing up to bullies, especially ones that will kill you, is that most people will just put their heads in the sand and pretend like nothing is going on provided their family is safe, they have food to eat, and a roof over their heads. We needed the terrorists to bring the fight against the Muslim people so that the general Muslim population would be forced to take a stand against the terrorists.
All things being equal, I would prefer to have Muslims fighting and killing themselves, then letting them kill Americans. This seems a little racist, but in principle, it makes sense. The Muslims must reap what they sow. They have sown terrorism, it is only fair they reap the consequences of their religious ruled societies that prove to be fertile soil to cultivate terrorism. Our society would never tolerate terrorism; so why should we reap the negative consequences of the terrorism grown in the fertile soil of their countries?
For a long while, the terrorists targeted and fought the American and allied troops. The Sunni’s, unhappy that Saddam had been deposed because he was one of them, readily joined Al-Qaeda in the fight against the American infidels.
Then something interesting started to happen. The American troops become more and more efficient at repelling the attacks and inflicting heavily casualties on the other side. Partly, the improved American military efficiency was born of the surge. Partly is was experience. There were more troops, more understanding of how the terrorists work, more eyes, and more guns pointed at the terrorists. The American troops became a difficult, and therefore less desirable, target than Iraqi civilians.
The foreign born leaders of Iraq’s Al-Qaeda began commanding the Sunni Iraqi volunteers to strike Iraqi targets. The Sunni’s had no desire to kill their own countrymen, just the Americans. And thus, the Iraqi’s were forced to confront the bullies or punch themselves. They could no longer put their heads in the sand.
The fight of the Muslim terrorists had been taken to the general Muslim population and the Sunni’s wanted nothing to do with it. The Sunni Awakening took place. They decided it would be better to stand against Al-Qaeda that to fight the Americans in fruitless battles with heavy causalities on their end. By joining with the Americans, the Sunni’s could take the fight against Al-Qaeda and create a situation of stability. They recognized that as soon as Iraq was fully stable, the Americans will leave. This was then end of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Sunni’s turned on them and the had nowhere to run.
Thus, we helped the Iraqis pull their heads out of the sand and begin the process of stamping out that fertile soil of terrorism in their own country.
So, what do we have to show for our involvement in Iraq?
1. No American civilian target has been attacked in seven years.
2. America’s ability to detect terrorist activities is greatly enhanced.
3. The Muslims are stamping out terrorism of their own accord.
4. A brutal and evil regime has been deposed (it remains to be seen if democracy can flourish in Iraq, however. Although it seems to be alive and well in Egypt, Jordan, and other predominately Muslim countries, giving hope that it will grab hold in Iraq as well).
5. MOST IMPORTANTLY. Al-Qaeda has been effectively reduced to a bunch of ragged men hiding in caves in Afghanistan. They have no money. The have no command and control. Their leadership ranks are either dead or unable to communicate regularly with their troops. Thus, they have no infrastructure to plan and carry out large scale attacks.
We may not have Bin Laden, but his ability to threaten America has been all but eliminated. And frankly, it might be better never to get Bin Laden. Martyrs (especially high profile martyrs) motivate people to fight against extreme odds. The combination of Afganistan and Iraq led to this result. Afganistan directly and Iraq geopolitically. Even if Al-Qaeda left Afganistan, where would they go?
September 19th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Tim Cruise?????