Untold Reason Y we R in Iraq!

[imported_kydawg95]

Best Thing I have ever read! [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

This is the mantra of the extreme Left: "Bush lied, thousands died." A softer version from politicians now often follows: "If I knew then what I know now, I would never have supported the war."

These sentiments are intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible for a variety of reasons beyond the obvious consideration that you do not hang out to dry some 150,000 brave Americans on the field of battle while you in-fight over whether they should have ever been sent there in the first place.

Consider the now exasperating (and tired) argument that almost anyone who looked at the intelligence data shared the same opinion about the threat of weapons of mass destruction "? former presidents, U.S. congressmen, foreign governments, Iraqi exiles, and numerous intelligence organizations.

The prewar speeches of a Jay Rockefeller and Hillary Clinton sparked and sizzled with somber warnings about biological and chemical arsenals "? and, yes, nuclear threats growing on the horizon. Politicians voted for war at a time of post-9/11 furor and fear, when anthrax was thought to have been scattered in our major cities and the hysteria over its traces evacuated government buildings. In response, the Democrats beat their breasts to prove that they could out-macho the "smoke-em-out" and "dead-or-alive" president in laying out the case against Saddam Hussein, especially after the successful removal of the Taliban.

To argue recently, as Howard Dean has, that the president somehow had even more intelligence data or additional information beyond what was given to the Senate Intelligence Committee can make the opposite argument from what was intended "? the dangers seemed even greater the more files one read attesting to Saddam's past history, clear intent, formidable financial resources, and fury at the United States. If the Dean notion is that the president had mysterious auxiliary information, then the case was probably even stronger for war, since no one has yet produced any stealth document that (a) warned there was no WMDs, and (b) was knowingly withheld from the Congress.

A bewildered visitor from Mars would tell Washingtonians something like: "For twelve years you occupied Saddam's airspace, since he refused to abide by the peace accords and you were afraid that he would activate his WMD arsenal again against the Kurds or his neighbors. Now that he is gone and for the first time you can confirm that his weapons program is finally defunct, you are mad about this new precedent that you have established: Given the gravity of WMD arsenals, the onus is now on suspect rogue nations to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction, rather than for civilization to establish beyond a responsible doubt that they do?"

Even more importantly, the U.S. Senate voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein for 22 reasons other than just his possession of dangerous weapons. We seem to have forgotten that entirely.

If the Bush administration erred in privileging the dangers of Iraqi WMDs, then the Congress in its wisdom used a far broader approach (as Sen. Robert Byrd complained at the time), and went well beyond George Bush in making a more far-reaching case for war "? genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American aerial patrols. It was the U.S. Senate "? a majority of Democrats included "? not Paul Wolfowitz, that legislated a war to reform and restore the wider Middle East: "...whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region".

So read the senators' October 2002 resolution. It is a model of sobriety and judiciousness in authorizing a war. There are facts cited such as the violation of agreements; moral considerations such as genocide; real worries about al Qaeda's ties to Saddam (e.g., "...whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq"); fears of terrorism (" ...whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens.")

No doubt many Democrats in the Senate who voted to authorize the war took their cue from Bill Clinton's own November 1998 indictment of bin Laden (still, how does one indict an enemy that has declared war on you?) that explicitly stressed the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein: "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Thus the honest and moral argument for the now contrite would be something like: "I know now that Saddam did not try to kill a former president, did not commit genocide, did not attack four of his neighbors, did not harbor anti-American terrorists, did not ignore U.N. and 1991 peace accords, and did not attack Americans enforcing U.N.-mandated no-fly zones "? and so I regret my vote."

Or if the former supporters of the war had character, they would be more honest still: "Yes, Saddam was guilty of those other 22 writs, but none of them justified the war that I voted for, and I should not have included them in the resolution."

Or they could be more truthful still: "I didn't really want a war, and only threw in the bit about al Qaeda and Saddam. So I just voted for the authorization in case some crisis emerged and the President had to act swiftly."

I doubt any will ever say, "I voted to cover myself: If the war proved swift and relatively low-cost like Bosnia or Afghanistan, I was on record for it; if it got bad like Mogadishu or Lebanon, then I wasn't the commander-in-chief who conducted it."

Given such an incriminating record, what then is really at the heart of the current strange congressional hysteria?

Simple "? the tragic loss of nearly 2,100 Americans in Iraq.

The "my perfect war, your messy postbellum reconstruction" crowd is now huge and unapologetic. It encompasses not just leftists who once jumped on the war bandwagon in fears that Democrats would be tarred as weak on national security (a legitimate worry), but also many saber-rattling conservatives and Republicans "? including those (the most shameful of all) who had in earlier times both sent letters to President Clinton and Bush demanding the removal of Saddam and now damn their commander-in-chief for taking them at their own word.

In the triumphalism after seeing Milosevic go down without a single American death, the Taliban implode at very little cost, and Saddam removed from power with little more than 100 fatalities, there was the assumption that the United States could simply nod and dictators would quail and democracy would follow. Had we lost 100 in birthing democracy and not 2,000, or seen purple fingers only and not IEDs on Dan Rather's nightly broadcasts, today's critics would be arguing over who first thought up the idea of removing Saddam and implementing democratic changes.

So without our 2,100 losses, nearly all the present critics would be either silent or grandstanding their support "? in the manner that three quarters of the American population who polled that they were in favor of the war once they saw the statue of Saddam fall.

In short, there is no issue of WMD other than finding out why our intelligence people who had once missed it in the First Gulf War, then hyped it in the next "? or what actually happened to all the unaccounted for vials and stockpiles that the U.N. inspectors swore were once inside Iraq.

So the real crux is a real legitimate debate over whether our ongoing costs-billions spent, thousands wounded, nearly 2,100 American soldiers lost-will be worth the results achieved. Post facto, no death seems "worth it". The premature end of life is tangible and horrendous in a way that the object of such soldiers' sacrifices "? a reformed Middle East, a safer world, enhanced American safety, and freedom for 26 million "? seems remote and abstract.

Nevertheless, that is what our soldiers died for: a world in which Middle East dictators no longer murder their own, ruin their won societies, and then cynically use terrorism to whip up the Arab street and deflect their own self-induced miseries onto the United States. This is the calculus that led to 9/11, and the reason why Saddam gave sanctuary to 1980s terrorists, the killer Yasin who failed in his first attempt to take down the twin towers, and the likes of Zarqawi.

While the U.S. military conducts a brilliant campaign to implement democratic reform that is on the eve of ending with an Iraqi parliament, while there has been no repeat of promised 9/11 attacks here at home, and while the entire dictatorial Middle East from Lebanon and Syria to Egypt and Libya is in crisis "? baffled, furious, or impressed by a now idealistic United States pushing for something different and far better "? our intellectual and political elite harp on "WMD, WMD, WMD..."

Sadder still, they stay transfixed to this refrain either because polls show that it is good politics or it allows them a viable exit from an apparently now unpopular war.

But no, not so fast.

History has other lessons as well "? as we know from the similar public depression during successful wars after Washington's sad winter at Valley Forge, Lincoln's summer of 1864, or the 1942 gloom that followed Pearl Harbor and the fall of the Philippines, Singapore, and Wake Island. When this is all over, and there is a legitimate government in the Middle East that represents the aspirations of a free people, the stunning achievement of our soldiers will be at last recognized, the idealism of the United States will be appreciated, our critics here and abroad will go mute "? and one of the 23 writs for a necessary war of liberation will largely be forgotten.

©2005 Victor Davis Hanson

[PVBaseball_15_]

I agree partially, I agree that we are standing against terror, but like i said in earlier posts, we should've planned this out more. Its like this, you are standing there having a good time, some dude swings at you from behind, u get back up and turn and swing without lookin to see whats up. It has the same basics that what happened with us and afghanistan, but still im trying to find out why we are just hangin around in iraq, i mean im sure that there are more terrorists and insurgents there, but we went there for three reasons, to find bin laden, overthrow hussein, and reinstate a form of democratic government in iraq where they could govern themselves, and defend themselves against terrorist. All i ask is what the he77 is taking so long?

[1inStripes]

Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will Iraq. We had to replace all forms of their government, and police force. The security is a big reason why we are still their. Their police force, army, and other safety forces will take time.

MMMM that is a pretty good story but his Daddy called off the dogs while the Republican Guard killed the Kurds by the hundreds of thousands, that was one of my biggest reasons for wanting SOMEONE ELSE to lead this war. Can you tell me why we didn't move on the WMDs then, if it was gonna be an issue now? They were then and Bush knew it was gonna happen, even promised to help the Kurds if they would rise up against Saddam, but the oilfields were safe then.

[imported_kydawg95]

At the time Desert Storm happened all we was there for and the only reason we had to be there in the first place was to remove Iraq from Kuwait!

[PVBaseball_15_]

The WMD's were only an excuse to get there, they left out the large part of repairing iraq's economy army police etc... its a great cause and all, but i just really dont think it will be worth it in the end. Iraq will more than likely just turn to us once again when terrorism threatens their country.

[LPDBlueDevils]

great article kydawg, I am glad you posted it!

[imported_kydawg95]

Thanks! [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[lpd05]

I could write a lengthy article how I believe that pre-war intelligence was mishandled (politcally correct) or misleading (truthful). That would not be a Democrat or Republican position. That would not be "Michael Moore left" or "Newt Gingrich right." Facts are facts. I've been into lists all day, maybe this will make my case...

1. When President Bush and Vice President Cheney say that Congress had the same intelligence they did...Did they? According to some congressman, they did not. If they did, who is to say that intelligence was not already misleading? We don't know

2. Think about the media's role in the Iraq War. Going to war is a big story. For months, we saw this reporter and that reporter "on the scene." What about the the song "Have you forgotten" Remember the lyrics to that song? "And they tell me not to worry about Saddam?" NO. "And they tell me not to worry about bin Laden." That's it. Weeks before we invaded Iraq, this song came out by Darrell Worley(?). bin Laden is not Saddam Hussein. bin Laden is not Saddam Hussein. These two were interconnected to play on folks fear after 9/11. If Saddam is a bad guy and bin Laden is a bad guy, then...

3. War is not a game. War is not a tool (though it is used) by politicians. I think President Bush after 9/11 thought that people would just go along with anything he wanted to do. Democrats did not have the backbone to stand up to President Bush and the Republicans because they would be seen as soft on terror. What is soft on terror? Letting bin Laden run around for 4 years after 9/11?
4. Even as poll numbers drop and support for the war slips, people like Dick Cheney have the nerve to call out a 37-year war veteran like John Murtha. Who is Dick Cheney. Is he a war veteran or even a former military member. 5 deferments. What about George Bush? How bad was a 2-term war vet like John Kerry? Who are they to send young folks to war? Since when did a rookie congresswoman from Ohio have the nerve to call out Murtha. "Cowards don't run." That is exactly right, cowards don't run. Democrats and some Republicans are starting to get the message.

I have always said and believed that what comes around goes around.

It is time for American boys to come home...And be told job well done, hero.

[imported_kydawg95]

Murtha is an honored war vet but he wrong on this if we pull out now for christ sakes it will get worse on us till we finally get out of there it would the worsed mistake we have ever made!