The Whole Argument for Operation Iraqi Freedom

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 2/18/04 | Thomas Patrick Carroll

[kattracks]

Let’s quit kidding each other.

All of us, critics and supporters alike, need to start being realistic about why America went to war in Iraq. Not only is the unvarnished truth less scandalous than commonly assumed, it is far more defensible than the party line nervously being adhered to by the White House.

There are reasons, and there are reasons

In the days leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush said he believed Saddam possessed WMD, and that justified war. Bush was telling the truth. Not, however, the entire truth. Instead, he was engaging in a foreign policy practice with a long and (in many cases) honorable history – i.e., putting forth arguments intended primarily, not to illuminate the grand strategy, but to give allies the political cover they need in order to cooperate.

Consider the Cold War.

Before the decade of the 1940s was over, it had become evident the gravest strategic challenge facing the United States was the possibility of a shooting war with the Soviet Union.

To meet this threat, America decided to go for strategic depth – i.e., to deploy its armed forces in such a way as to keep potential conflict as far from the US homeland as possible. Concretely, this translated into a huge American military presence in Western Europe. If the Cold War were to go hot, our strategic depth meant there would be a good chance the devastation would be confined to Eurasia, sparing North America. This would be especially true if neither the US nor the USSR chose to use strategic nuclear weapons.

Obviously, the West European governments knew exactly what the Americans were doing, but did not object – they had their own deep, strategic calculations. With a large US presence on the Continent, the West Europeans reasoned, the cost to the Warsaw Pact of an attempted invasion rose dramatically, and its likelihood therefore fell. European leaders saw their countries as being safer with the American deployment, even though it meant that World War III, if it ever came, would almost surely be fought on European soil. (The West European strategy assumed, of course, that the Russians were rational. Happily, they were.)

Now, here is the thing to notice.

When the time came to publicly advance and defend their Western European deployments, no American President – from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan – ever said, “Our troops are in Europe to deter aggression. But if a shooting war breaks out, it will be Bonn and Brussels left in ruin, not Philadelphia and Los Angeles.”

Had a President actually said that, not a single West European government could have agreed to the US presence, regardless of what they knew to be their nation’s own deep, strategic self-interest.

Instead, we said we were there to defend democracy. We were in Spain and Germany and England and Italy because these were our democratic brethren, and democracies must stand together in the face of Communist aggression. And the West European governments said the same thing the Americans did.

Were all those American Presidents and policy makers, along with their European counterparts, lying?

Of course not. They really did care about democracy, and about the protection of free societies against tyrannies. Their talk about defending democracy was true, but it wasn’t the whole truth. It was the part of the truth that multiple governments could all publicly endorse, all at the same time. There was more to the Atlantic alliance than simply defending democracy, but that ‘more’ involved stark, national self-interest that – almost by definition – two or more nations cannot share.

Further, America’s deeper strategic intentions were in no meaningful sense ‘secret.’ Anyone with a map of the world and the slightest understanding of modern warfare could see what Washington was doing. But for sound diplomatic reasons, American leaders emphasized a theme – i.e., the common defense of democracy – that allies could openly endorse and materially support.

Moralizers may claim that anything short of the whole truth is never justified, but they are wrong. This is especially the case in the affairs of nations, where the carefully worded diplomatic fig leaf often means the difference between cooperation and conflict. And during the Cold War, this difference between cooperation and conflict was the difference between containing the Warsaw Pact and being defeated by it.

WMD as Casus Belli

Now apply that Cold War parallel to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The plain truth is this. We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it. That is the deep, relatively unarticulated strategy behind Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I say relatively unarticulated because, in fact, Bush has been far more public about his deep strategy in the War on Terror that were any of his Cold War predecessors. In key public statements, especially the National Security Strategy (September 2002) and the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (February 2003), as well as speeches like the President’s address to the graduating class at West Point in June 2002, the Bush Administration has laid out its intention to force dangerous and uncooperative states to change their policies.

This plan to make governments of the Middle East rethink their strategic positions, policies, and calculations is the War on Terror’s analog to America’s Cold War ‘strategic depth’ architecture in Europe.

Of course, a stark declaration that the United States intended to force fundamental policy change on the states of the Middle East was not something that other governments, especially Middle Eastern ones, could accept. The United States could not simply go to the Gulf sheiks and say, “Join us in freeing your region of poisonous, autocratic rule.”

Instead, Bush emphasized the broadly appealing goal of ridding Mesopotamia of Saddam’s WMD arsenal. This was a goal Bush honestly believed in – again, there is no evidence of lying. But far more importantly, it was a goal that Middle Eastern governments could publicly support, or at least quietly accept. It was a goal even Germany and France could have supported, had they chosen to do so.

The destruction of WMD became for the War on Terror what ‘defense of democracy’ was for the Cold War – a central and genuinely important goal, but one whose primary value was as a policy that potential allies could openly endorse, or at least refrain from opposing.

The Middle Eastern rulers knew full well there was more to America’s intention than simply getting rid of mustard gas. This is why, for example, we saw a state like Saudi Arabia, even before the invasion was launched, talking openly about the need for more responsive and democratic institutions. The Arab rulers saw the handwriting on the wall. (Not without significance, the very name eventually chosen for the invasion – i.e., Operation Iraqi Freedom – pointed beyond simple WMD eradication, toward the Bush Administration’s grand strategy.)

Facing the Facts

We are at the point where everyone, on all sides of the conversation, needs to pull his head out of the sand.

A few suggestions on how to begin.

Bush needs to admit the obvious. When he made the pre-war case for Saddam’s having WMD, it seemed like a slam dunk. Clearly, it was not. The President needs to say this.

But while not denying the importance of WMD, Bush must get back to the grand vision articulated in the National Security Strategy and its corollaries. If critics say these points were not made strongly enough before the war, the Administration can grant that. At the same time, Bush is hardly responsible for commentators who chose not to acquaint themselves with the fundamental documents of American foreign policy, or not listen when the Commander-in-Chief addressed his new officers at West Point.

Rather than wistfully clinging to WMD, the President needs to point to the important regional changes we are seeing in the wake of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Libya coming clean on WMD, the Khan affair in Pakistan, Iran’s quiet cooperation, the Saudi confrontation with al Qai’da inside the Kingdom, Syria’s search for accommodation – none of these historic strategic shifts would be happening without Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the credit goes to Bush and the National Security Strategy he and his team are implementing. (The Middle East democracy initiative announced earlier this month is the latest link in the Bush Administration’s global strategic chain.)

As for the critics, they need to get serious about their responsibilities in this national debate. If they have an alternative strategy, they should articulate it. If all they have are inanities – like John Kerry’s vapid assertion that the terrorist threat is primarily a problem of intelligence and law enforcement – then they should be big enough to say so.

Mr. Carroll is a former officer in the Clandestine Service of the CIA, currently on the editorial board of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin.

---

[Diogenesis]

PARTIAL LIST OF TERRORIST ACTIONS

1968 Robert Kennedy assassinated
1972 Munich Olympic Massacure Sep-5,1972 (Black September)
1976 Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976
1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, Nov. 4, 1979 444 days
1979 Grand Mosque Seizure, Nov 20,1979
1981 Assassination of Egyptian President, Oct 6,1981
1982 Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, Sept 14, 1982
1983 Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut6, April 18,1983
1983 Bombing of Maring Barricks, Beruit, Oct 23,1983
1984 Hizballah Restaurant Bombing, April 12,1984
1985 Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, Nov 23,1985
1985 Rome Airport murders
1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacked, U.S. Navy diver murdered
1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, Homacidal maniac lived in saddams Iraq
1986 Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986
1988 Pan Am 747 Flight 103 Bombing, Lockerbie, 100's murdered
1988 Berlin Discoteque Bombing, Dec 21,1988
1992 Bombing in Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17,1992
1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec 24,1994
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1995 Saudi Military Installation Attack, Nov 13, 1995
1995 Kashmiri Hostage taking, July 4,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1996 Sudanese Missionarys Kidnapping, Aug 17,1996
1996 Paris Subway Explosion, Dec 3,1996
1997 Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept 4, 1997
1997 Yemeni Kidnappings, Oct 30,1997
1998 Somali Hostage taking crisis, April 15,1998
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered
2000-2003 Intifada against Israel - 100's dead and injured
2000 Manila Bombing, Dec 30,2000
2001 4 Commercial airliners hijacked, 250+ murdered
2001 World Trade Center attacked, 2800+ murdered
2001 Flight 93 murders
2001 Pentagon attacked, 180+ murdered
2002 Reporter Daniel Pearl, kidnapped and murdered
2002 Philippines American missionary, Filipino nurse killed
2002 July 4, El Al attack Los Angeles LAX, several murdered
2002 Bali bombing - 200 dead, 300 injured
2002 Yemen, French Oil Tanker attacked
2002 Marines attacked / murdered in Kuwait
2002 Washington D.C. sniper
2002 Russian Theater attacked, 100+ dead
2002 Nigerian riots against Miss World Pageant, 200 dead, dozens injured
2002 Mombasa Hotel Attacked, 12 dead, dozens injured
2002 Israeli Boeing 757 attacked by missiles, fortunately no one injured
2002 August Hotel bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia. 12 dead, dozens injured.
2003 Rusian concert bombing
2003 Phillipines airport and market bombing
2003 Foiled SAM plot in the USA
2003 UN Baghdad HQ Bombing
2003 Ticrit Mosque Bombing
2003 Neveh Shalom Synagogue Bombing in Istanbul, Turkey

---

[sauropod]

We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it.

This needs to be stated over and over and over and over again.

[Huck]

We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it.We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it.We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it.We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it.We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it.We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it.We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it.We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it.

[sauropod]

Appreciate it. Although paragraph tags are your friend.

[Huck]

It's subliminable.

[FreedomPoster]

Ping

[prion]

The plain truth is this. We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East.

Excellent. I was dubious about an Iraq invasion, and it was this argument that persuaded me. We have to change the Middle East, so we go into Iraq and make a clean spot and...see what happens.

The argument about Saddam's own personal dangerousness is a lot less compelling.

[countrydummy]

Excellent. I was dubious about an Iraq invasion, and it was this argument that persuaded me. We have to change the Middle East, so we go into Iraq and make a clean spot and...see what happens. The argument about Saddam's own personal dangerousness is a lot less compelling.

Bye! I can't imagine a human being on Earth that does not understand why Saddam did not have to go!

[countrydummy]

Excellent. I was dubious about an Iraq invasion, and it was this argument that persuaded me. We have to change the Middle East, so we go into Iraq and make a clean spot and...see what happens. The argument about Saddam's own personal dangerousness is a lot less compelling.

Bye! I can't imagine a human being on Earth that does not understand why Saddam did not have to go!

[prion]

Bye! I can't imagine a human being on Earth that does not understand why Saddam did not have to go!

Double negatives are not your friends.

[countrydummy]

double negatives. Now that is interesting. I don't recall seeing such in my post, unless you meant that by my "Bye" I can tell you are a troll, or my statement about Saddamn......which, if you can enlighten me of some great wonderous thing he ever did for humanity, man , lay it on me.

I suspect it it just not there. So again , I do not understand your concept or idea of my double negatives! \

[westerfield]

Bye! I can't imagine a human being on Earth that does not understand why Saddam did not have to go!

Umm, because it's going to cost the American taxpayer several hundred billion dollars and there is no guarantee that the country won't dissolve into civil war or turn into an Islamic regime once they are allowed free elections? Without the WMD argument, I'm betting that there is going to be alot less enthusiasm for our hemorrhaging money on nation building over there.

[astounded]

Dio:

In your "Partial List of Terrorist Actions" you forgot to note it is a partial list of "Muslim" terrorist actions. I'm sure it was an honest error on your part, but the truth and specificity are needed here.

[prion]

Webster. Double negative: a now substandard syntactic construction containing two negatives and have a negative meaning ("I didn't hear nothing" is a double negative).

As would be the "does not understand...did not have to go" when I assume you meant Saddam did have to go. A double negative can say what you intended (a "not unwelcome" circumstance), or it can say the opposite of what you intended.

[countrydummy]

Umm, because it's going to cost the American taxpayer several hundred billion dollars and there is no guarantee that the country won't dissolve into civil war or turn into an Islamic regime once they are allowed free elections? Without the WMD argument, I'm betting that there is going to be allot less enthusiasm for our hemorrhaging money on nation building over there.

Your point? I don't believe that. These folks are learning for the first time, what freedoms are. Freedom is the greatest motivationally idea there ever was and is!

What is your idea of the cost of a single human life, especially if attacked again on American soil? Can you tell me that you can and would put a price tag on assurances that US citizens, especially on US soil, would not be harmed again? There is a spending limit for safety for our loved ones?

Go eat some more peyote!

[countrydummy]

ok, I will fall for that one!
lol

[countrydummy]

Oh, and you need to learn how to speak hillbilly! lol lol

[westerfield]

I guess you haven't seen recent polls showing that support for the war is starting to slip under 50% for the first time. Nation building is expensive and there is no guarantee that we can transform some third world Islamic backwater into a stable and free society.

[countrydummy]

I guess you haven't seen recent polls showing that support for the war is starting to slip under 50% for the first time. Nation building is expensive and there is no guarantee that we can transform some third world Islamic backwater into a stable and free society.

No concerning the polls. I know that the people I know, totally suppor the war, just wish we would kick some more butt harder, yes Nation building is exensive, but if it saves the lives of our children it is worth it? I say , Hell yeah! No, there is no guarantee, but it was and is worth the attempt to do so..

[nicollo]

Great rant, Huck!

It's all in a word: power.

My favorite analogy, for both the WOT and the Cold War is "Keep pressure on Schwab," something out of the movie, "O.C. & Stiggs." Schwab was an insurer whose company canceled O.C.'s grandfather's policy. For revenge, he and Stiggs spent their high school summer putting "pressure" on the Schwab family, i.e., making life hell for them through tricks, games and making fun of them. We were everywhere in the world, including Korea, Vietnam, and El Salvador, to keep the pressure on the commies. If we didn't pressure them, they'd have pressured us much more than they did, and much closer to home.

Hope you're well, Huck!

Nicollo unmasked: Bromleyisms here

[Huck]

Hey. Long time. Nah, I ain't well. This geopolitical stuff is over my head, like most things. Ole GWB set me off with some spending proposals that I gagged on, then the Kay testimony left me befuddled and feeling like things turned out some other way than they were supposed to, and I just got ornery about it. (See my tagline.)

To tell you the truth, I don't know what to think about any of it. Good thing I don't have to. Glad to hear from you.

[nicollo]

There's no longer time than the present tense, Huck.

If I were sitting around in 2040 writing a history of 2004, I'd read the 2004 newspapers to see the issues, the debate, and the angst. Then I'd look at the 2005 papers and see how it turned out.

Kay, Congress, budgets, and the DNC are much larger now than they will be tomorrow. It's the overriding vision -- and who controls it -- that matters. We're on top.

Thanks for writing!

[Chances Are]

Umm, because it's going to cost the American taxpayer several hundred billion dollars and there is no guarantee that the country won't dissolve into civil war or turn into an Islamic regime once they are allowed free elections? Without the WMD argument, I'm betting that there is going to be alot less enthusiasm for our hemorrhaging money on nation building over there.

This demonstrates the great fallacy of the Left. All things geopolitical are seen in a vacuum, never in context, and never with historical reference, except in rare cases when it is deemed to help support a position (not when it actually does support them, only when it is deemed to).

More than cost (when did that ever deter them?), it is the prospect that we've done the right thing, for all the right reasons. Not unlike Vietnam (there's that double negative again!), where the argument was, "we're there to support a corrupt puppet regime", or "we're engaged in a bloodbath by war criminals eagerly suppressing agrarian reformers", not to save a people from the crushing weight of a totalitarian state, or to prevent a much larger bloodbath, the cry today ranges from "No More Blood For Oil" to "occupational forces there to install yet another puppet regime to suppress the people".

Yes, this is nation-building. Who else is prepared and capable enough to do this most necessary task? It has become necessary because letting things go on as they were had become an intolerable alternative. Most people realize this.

No, there are no guarantees. There are no guarantees in life, period. They may well elect another Islamic regime - who knows? But the point being missed here is that they now have that possible choice to make on their own, for the first time ever. I'm pretty confident that little fact will not be lost on them, nor on other neighboring countries.

The fact that the WMD argument appears to be fading away is of passing consequence only. (I think the Kay report, and it's timing, was a bit unfortunate. Whether these weapons are found tomorrow of 10 years from now, whether they be found in Iraq or Syria or someplace else, the fact that they exist and will be found is almost a given, and it would be rather remarkable indeed if Saddam and the Baathists fully succeeded in hoodwinking the entire world's intelligence community.) The WMD issue was only one of 4 points the administration gave as it's justification for the war.

The fact, too, that polling numbers are down is hardly surprising, given the drumbeat against the war by the left (read:Dems) and their supplicant lackeys in the media. But I've always been distrustful of polls, especially in today's landscape. Remember, for example, that Dean was the "people's choice" in the polls, at least until the people had to actually make their choice known. 'Tis then we found he was not really the people's choice, only the media's.

In early November we'll have a plebiscite on the issue which will go a long way in determining not only that region's future, but ours. For now, the near-constant shrill attacks will continue from the left, seeking to voice an agenda with unthinking compliance that is borderline libelous, historically inaccutate, and totally inamicable with this country's best interests. Meanwhile, the Bush administration by necessity must engage in statecraft. But from that point in September when the Republican Convention begins until election day, there will be a corresponding redressing of the rhetoric balance that gives every indication of being a tsunami. The war effort will be put in context of the times. Historical realities will expose historical revisionism for the sham that it is. And the fallacy of the Left will find itself facing stern reality with unfortunate consequences, crippled by the inadequacies of pre-9/11 thinking in a post-9/11 world.

Then we will see what kind of enthusiasm we have for these things.

CA....

[westerfield]

If Iraq were to stabilize and at least cooperate with us over the long term, than you can say that this war was worthwhile, but frankly I have serious doubts about things working out that way. Bush has been a strong and resolute leader and for that I credit him, but this administration hasn't shown the necessary finesse in winning the propaganda war in the mideast and there still remains the potential of an ugly quagmire should a civil war break out among the different ethnic factions. I guess we are pretty much stuck over there now whether we like it or not, and I think even the democrats realize that we can't cut tail and withdraw, but I still don't see the majority of Americans having much patience expending vast sums of money on a situation where the final outcome is so unpredictable.