The War In Iraq

Some people in this country, including myself and perhaps the president, feel it is our duty as a nation, when in our interest, to use our power as a force to overthrow regimes or to establish footholds in strategic places. I could write an entire book about the intricacies of this subject and the following but this is a website so I will stick to the basics.

Iraq was invaded and Hussein was overthrown for many reasons. However, the main reason had nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. I accept that and I knew that then based on a careful study of the situation and my analysis of the Bush Administration. This line of thought is based on the post 9/11 mindset which I hope many other people would adopt. That, of course, is wishful thinking but none the less, I hope others can come to share my outlook. I will start with the push to war and why I feel it was important.

The President of the United States was presented, I’m sure, with many plans or scenarios that outlined the strategic possibilities and goals that were worth consideration in terms of Iraq. Among the key players in the administration and even in the previous administration basically felt one of two ways about the situation. A) Regime change in Iraq is necessary but that necessity should be dealt with by using diplomatic pressure. Or B) Regime change in Iraq is necessary but that necessity cannot be dealt with by diplomacy and war is the only option. I happen to share the second view and that is the way I feel about the current situation with Iran. This stance is based on what I think is commonsense and an understating of the consequences and benefits of either allowing a regime like that of Saddam Hussein to stay active or to take action to overthrow it. The cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of what we are seeing today and that position is justified by the consequences the world witnessed after the appeasement of a certain madman by the name of Adolf Hitler. For this reason, I understand and even support, I say that cautiously, how the WMD argument was used to gain support for the current conflict. And by “used” I mean it was a convenient way to get the American people on their side. And before some people fly off the handle and start bashing the president; this form of manipulation has been used by Democrats during war time including WW2.

The truth is this: the WMD argument was so clear-cut to use to push for what some, including myself, felt was a necessary step in the long term effort for the security of America, that it was used. Saying to the world that Hussein had such weapons was probably the only way this war, deemed necessary, was going to happen. Now, if the president came out and said we want to take out Saddam Hussein because he is an enemy and just because he is Saddam Hussein, I would have said, do it. I would have supported it…even if 9/11 never happened. But that is me and I know many people would support that goal in spirit but not in a real effort. So, even though the regime acquiring nuclear weapons was a real and dangerous threat it was still only the secondary motive. The primary motive being a strategic first step in undermining the entire Middle East structure of anti-American regimes… but that is way too complicated to discuss on a blog so I will leave it at that. WMD being the administration's secondary motive says a lot about how intense their feelings, like the feelings of most Democrats, were about regime change in the heart of the Middle East. That is not to say that the WMD issue is not important because it is and I’ll try to explain why. Also, for the people who think that the Democratic leadership did not want this war as much as the Bush Administration, I’m sorry to say that you are sadly mistaken. Don’t mistake their current political rhetoric for their true beliefs because it is only being used for political advancement.

John Kerry himself pushed for ground troops in 1998
saying, "I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Hussein presents to the world and what we are talking about doing. We have to prepared to go the full distance… I’m personally prepared [to send ground troops] if that is what it meant; if he can rebuild chemical and biological [weapons]. We will not eliminate the problem [Hussein] with a bombing attack… [Talking about the idea of going to war with Iraq] I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and probably way ahead of my colleagues, and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before, he has invaded another country, he views himself as a modern day Nebakanezer... And I think we have to stand up to that." This war was wanted, and rightly so, by many democrats in power. That's why they voted for it.

Moving on… The reason so many leaders of both parties wanted regime change in Iraq is because their outlook, despite their rhetoric, is similar to mine. It is a no-nonsense view of national security. Saddam Hussein, like the current Iranian regime, was in fact a direct enemy of the United States of America. It was in our vital long-term interest to remove him from power just as it is vitally important to prevent Iran from furthering their quest to acquire nuclear weapons. And the argument of Hussein was isolated is only valid if nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons were not part of reality. Because being isolated has nothing to do with, nor does it prevent, a regime from providing an organization hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States with weapons designed to inflict massive damage to a civilian population.

Saddam Hussein would have eventually reconstituted his weapons program and he would have provided or directly used that technology to kill thousands if not millions of people. Do you think the hatred and the desperate need on the part of Islamic extremists to kill as many people as possible is fake or somehow hyped? It’s not; it’s real and very soon you and I will witness massive death. Rouge elements in rouge regimes will stop at nothing to fulfill what they believe is their god-demanded duty to destroy the non-Muslim inhabitants of this world; starting with the Jews. How are you going to feel when, not if, the first nuclear device is detonated in one of our major cities? Some people are clueless and completely unhinged from reality that they will never understand what I’m talking about but when they are dead, I’m sure they won’t be complaining.

Saddam Hussein would have provided the people who wish to destroy us, with the means to do so. Just as Iran is sure to do when they get their hands on the bomb. Peace is impossible and those of you who do not realize that very simple fact are lost in a world of ignorance. And those who think that suicidal maniacs are worried about committing suicide by passing nukes to Al Qaeda, are the dumbest people on this planet. The phrase “Iran won’t pass on their weapons to terrorists because that would be suicide” is the single most moronic statement I have ever heard. Just because a jihadist might be a high ranking official in a rogue regime doesn’t make him a rational person. A jihadist willing to blow himself up or who is on a quest for holy war is by no means hindered by the thought of suicide…they actually embrace it. And it’s that understanding that is behind the need for our country to start using its military might to counter the very real threat of nuclear devastation. This is not some quaint concept that has no bearing on our decision makers. I think it is the only concept that truly matters when weighing this war on terror.

But, for the idealists, it is true; words are weapons too...isn’t that a profound flower blooming with happiness? unfortunately, those words usually arm our enemies and convince impressionable youths to strap a bomb-belt to their waist and blow up a bus full of innocent people or fly jetliners into buildings.