Why We Went to Iraq

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 6/4/08 | FOUAD AJAMI

[Dawnsblood]

Nor is there anything unprecedented, or particularly dishonest, about the way the rationale for the war shifted when the hunt for weapons of mass destruction had run aground. True, the goal of a democratic Iraq – and the broader agenda of the war as a spearhead of "reform" in Arab and Muslim lands – emerged a year or so after the onset of the war. But the aims of practically every war always shift with the course of combat, and with historical circumstances. Need we recall that the abolition of slavery had not been an "original" war aim, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was, by Lincoln's own admission, a product of circumstances? A war for the Union had become a victory for abolitionism.

America had not been prepared for nation-building in Iraq; we had not known Iraq and Iraqis or understood the depth of Iraq's breakdown. But there was nothing so startling or unusual about the connection George W. Bush made between American security and the "reform" of the Arab condition. As America's pact with the Arab autocrats had hatched a monster, it was logical and prudent to look for a new way.

"When a calf falls, a thousand knives flash," goes an Arabic proverb. The authority of this administration is ebbing away, the war in Iraq is unloved, and even the "loyalists" now see these years of panic and peril as a time of exaggerated fear.

It is not easy to tell people of threats and dangers they have been spared. The war put on notice regimes and conspirators who had harbored dark thoughts about America and who, in the course of the 1990s, were led to believe that terrible deeds against America would go unpunished. A different lesson was taught in Iraq.

[ETL]

Pre-war quotes from "lying" House and Senate democrats...

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. Hillary Clinton
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10288&position=all

John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)

John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all

John Kerry on the floor of the Senate
October 2002:

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question:

Why?

Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up?

Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community?

Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?

Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke?

Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits?

Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously?

Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified?

Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10171&position=all

“The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10090&dbname=2002_record

John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)

John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”

John Kerry: “I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (October 2002)

John Kerry: “If You Don’t Believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” (January 2003)

John Kerry: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. (March 2003)

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."..."Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." –
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John Edwards
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10325&position=all

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." –
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm

"We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer – Public Broadcasting Service
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Congressional Record – Robert Byrd
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S9874&position=all

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record –Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" –
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Rep. Henry Waxman

MY SOURCE FOR ALL FOR THESE QUOTES:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/4694

[MNJohnnie]

Iraq will be studied in Military Staff Colleges for decades as the most successful counter insurgency mission in history.

And the vast bulk of Americans will never know just how great their victory has been because the President at the time wasn't "fashionable" with the dominate Media culture.

History's judgment will be very kind to GW Bush and savage to his foes. Not given to many men to be the lever who moves history off one political/economic track onto another. His opponents will come off looking, ignorant, bigoted and clownish. Much like Howard Taft is portrayed by History.

Is Bush the to belived perfect? Far from it. But he gets less credit and more blame then any President in history from his foes. Most of that is his fault for being such a lazy lackluster communicator faced with a completely unprincipled, wholly manufactured media machine.

History which looks past the emotions of the day to the fact will see quite a different picture 50 years from now

[ETL]

"David Horowitz talked about his book Party of Defeat: How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America's War on Terror Before and After 9-11, published by Spence. In his book he criticizes members of the Democratic Party that, he says, are undermining the U.S.'s efforts in Iraq. This event was held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C."

Watch now on c-span video: Party of Defeat: How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America's War on Terror Before and After 9-11
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=205154-1&highlight=

[woofie]

bp

[Billthedrill]

The Sunnis also have broken with al Qaeda, and the Shiite-led government has taken the war to the Mahdi Army: Is it any wonder that the critics have returned to the origins of the war?

A rather perceptive point. Obama characterized it this evening as a war that never should have been fought, and tactfully forgotten was his incorrect insistence that the surge would never work. The real difficulty with this is that too great an emphasis on the beginnings of the war will bring to the fore some fairly embarrasing statements on the part of Democrats well before Bush was even President. And, as well, the not altogether futile diplomatic maneuverings that went on for 14 long months leading up to the war. These are things that don't fit the Democrat narrative about the war very comfortably and have been shoved unceremoniously into the recesses of memory. The MSM will do everything they can to keep them there.

[Retain Mike]

The ceasefire ended and war resumed, because Hussein behaved in material breach of international obligations as reaffirmed in Resolution 1441. Nowhere in Congressional resolutions of 1991, 1998 and 2002, or U.N. Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 can one see possession of stockpiles of WMD’s as a reason for confronting him with military action. Behavior in terms of threats, evasion, intimidation, and past use, not possession, was always the key. He was to unconditionally accept destruction or removal of all stocks and programs for WMD’s and for all missiles over 150-kilometre range. He was enjoined from committing, supporting or providing safe haven for international terrorism.

Resolution 687 incorporated 678 and 19 previous resolutions without amendment, and offered Hussein a conditional ceasefire in 1991. Instead he ignored the responsibility to submit a comprehensive declaration of all WMD stockpiles and programs, and missiles with greater than 150 kilometre range. He thwarted the program envisioned by menacing, eluding, and deceiving inspectors. The U.N. resorted to surveillance, analysis, and investigation to destroy material and disrupt programs until Hussein expelled them in 1998. He also continued forbidden involvement in international terrorism. In response, Bush #1, U.N. and Clinton ignored their responsibilities to deal with Hussein’s ongoing material breaches.

None of these resolutions were cobbled together like a middle schooler’s term paper. Diplomats and politicians laboriously parsed each phrase for clear focus on verbs instead of nouns, behaviors not stockpiles. The key words were guarantee, reaffirm, accept, submit, declare, yield, forgo, agree, inform, comply, cooperate, lie, omit, and thwart. The U.N.’s ultimatums in Resolutions 678 and 1441 authorized disarming Hussein’s regime through military operations in Iraq “to restore international peace and security in the area”, and did not instruct the coalition to merely expel Hussein from Kuwait. U.N. precedent from the Korean War ensured the above phrase intended invasion of Iraq. The term “in the area” used phraseology, confirmed by Congress, authorizing military action above the 38th parallel to disarm North Korea. Everyone in the Security Council and Congress understood that a further material breach required ending the ceasefire, and resuming the war authorized by Resolution 678.

The war against Saddam Hussein was resumed because Bush #2 finally obeyed U.N. and confirming Congressional mandates. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill envisioned re-establishment of collective security when founding the U.N. in San Francisco. Finally in 2003 the United States, heading a coalition exceeding that Churchill and Roosevelt assembled to confront Hitler’s Germany, toppled Hussein’s regime and forced the U.N. to confront the reason for its’ existence.

After 9/11 and Taliban defeat in Afghanistan, Iraq remained a haven for terrorists. Hussein’s domination over oil wealth and 25 million citizens provided the supportive environment cherished by degreed professionals for planning extravagant slaughters utilizing modern science, engineering and sociological incites. Hence, his rule always constituted a greater threat to international peace and security, than pariahs such as bin Laden or Zawahiri, who emerged from the Salafi/Wahhabi heresy. David Kay’s inspections confirmed an extraordinary dangerous Iraq, where freelance as well as state sponsored WMD programs were underway, and terrorist groups moved about freely.

Osama bin Laden contends the most important issue for the world now is his winning in Iraq. Zawahiri says al Qaeda victory restores the basis for a Caliphate encompassing the Middle East. Expatriate Muslims tell us the Salafi/Wahhabi heresy disregards traditional family, tribe and cultural Muslim allegiances; regards other peoples as sub-human, legitimate objects for slaughter whether Jew, Shi’a, Sunni, or Christian; and provides no caveats for economic or human remnants.

Persevering for viable Iraqi government delivers a crushing, irreversible defeat to al Qaeda by allowing political domination by constituencies committed to national/international harmony. Risking victory in Iraq means choosing a world where other countries become emboldened to exclude brutal, depraved elements from their societies, and where terrorists find no safe haven for planning a technologically advanced Dark Age. Allowing our troops to win means destroying the capacity for malevolent fantasies to become incalculable miseries within our country.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

True, the goal of a democratic Iraq – and the broader agenda of the war as a spearhead of "reform" in Arab and Muslim lands – emerged a year or so after the onset of the war.

Why do opponents and supporters of the Iraq invasion both say this? I clearly remember reading the argument of a democratic Iraq as a catalyst for change in the Mideast and the Muslim world in the months before the Iraq invasion, though not from the White House and State Dept. Indeed, it was the most persuasive and compelling part of the invasion case for me, and probably many other people.

It's a pity that President Bush and his people didn't do more to highlight the other reasons to depose Saddam both before and after the invasion - but then it's pretty clear that the Administration has done a lousy job of keeping the American people informed and persuaded about the war effort. With mainstream news organizations and the Democrats dedicated to seeing the US withdraw in defeat, a strong, constant argument by Bush and his people was essential and has been missing. Even today, as a clear victory in Iraq looms, most Americans are convinced that there is no end in sight unless we give up and flee Iraq.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

With mainstream news organizations and the Democrats dedicated to seeing the US withdraw in defeat, a strong, constant argument by Bush and his people was essential and has been missing.

The "sixteen words" were, and still are, absolutely defensible! Yet the administration backed off of them instead of running the truth down the Democrats' throats, as was its only politically viable option. Ditto for the Valerie Plame fiasco - allowing the DoJ to name a special prosecutor when DoJ already knew that Richard Armatage was the responsible party!

. . . and not only on Iraq, but on Katrina, where in real time Bush pushed Louisiana officials as hard as he could to do what proved to be right - but retrospectively he allowed the Democrats to establish the meme that Karl Rove somehow steered the hurricane to strike New Orleans!

Even today, as a clear victory in Iraq looms, most Americans are convinced that there is no end in sight unless we give up and flee Iraq.

Where is George Bush today, when he should be ramming the success of the surge down the Democrats' throats?

. . . the Administration has done a lousy job of keeping the American people informed and persuaded about the war effort.

. . . and about just about everything else, as well. Bush is the one who set us up for McCain. Thanks, George!

[grb]

ping

[mojito]

Another great article by Ajami, who has been far and away the best commentator on the war. Thanks for posting it.

[r-q-tek86]

ping

[neverdem]

Nice catch!