Community Blogs
Why We Went to War In Iraq.
Shortly after the war in Iraq began - in some case, even before the Iraq war began - many of our liberal politicians tried to undermine our President. It didn't matter what the truth is or was. All that mattered was the election of any democrat to office and at all cost to Americans. And now, thanks to our media and our democratic politicians who only follow the medias lead and seem to not be able to think for themselves, the U.S. is in a quagmire and very much divided. The below article was written from a man who was involved in all the war discussions with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and others. Not someone who has an ax to grind or was on the White House staff for reporting only. What you will find, if you are not a closed-minded liberal, is that Bush inherited the Iraq problem not just from Clinton but also from his own father. The so called "Bush lied" theory is and has been hogwash. But it's still to this day the main theme to get this country to hate Bush and Republicans. But yet none of it is true. We are an idiot society.
Why We Went to War in Iraq
By DOUGLAS J. FEITH
July 3, 2008; Page A11
A lot of poor commentary has framed the Iraq war as a conflict of "choice" rather than of "necessity." In fact, President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary.
President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. In the first months of the Bush presidency, officials debated what to do next.
|
Getty Images |
|
Saddam's Shiite victims: Over 2,000 bodies were found at this mass grave in Hillah. |
As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq, it was clear to me at the time that, had there been a realistic alternative to war to counter the threat from Saddam, Mr. Bush would have chosen it.
In the months before the 9/11 attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell advocated diluting the multinational economic sanctions, in the hope that a weaker set of sanctions could win stronger and more sustained international support. Central Intelligence Agency officials floated the possibility of a coup, though the 1990s showed that Saddam was far better at undoing coup plots than the CIA was at engineering them. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz asked if the U.S. might create an autonomous area in southern Iraq similar to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, with the goal of making Saddam little more than the "mayor of Baghdad." U.S. officials also discussed whether a popular uprising in Iraq should be encouraged, and how we could best work with free Iraqi groups that opposed the Saddam regime.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worried particularly about the U.S. and British pilots enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Iraqi forces were shooting at the U.S. and British aircraft virtually every day; if a plane went down, the pilot would likely be killed or captured. What then? Mr. Rumsfeld asked. Were the missions worth the risk? How might U.S. and British responses be intensified to deter Saddam from shooting at our planes? Would the intensification trigger a war? What would be the consequences of cutting back on the missions, or ending them?
On July 27, 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld sent a memo to Mr. Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President *** Cheney that reviewed U.S. options:
"The U.S. can roll up its tents and end the no-fly zones before someone is killed or captured. . . . We can publicly acknowledge that sanctions don't work over extended periods and stop the pretense of having a policy that is keeping Saddam 'in the box,' when we know he has crawled a good distance out of the box and is currently doing the things that will ultimately be harmful to his neighbors in the region and to U.S. interests - namely developing WMD and the means to deliver them and increasing his strength at home and in the region month-by-month. Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons.
"A second option would be to go to our moderate Arab friends, have a reappraisal, and see whether they are willing to engage in a more robust policy. . . .
"A third possibility perhaps is to take a crack at initiating contact with Saddam Hussein. He has his own interests. It may be that, for whatever reason, at his stage in life he might prefer to not have the hostility of the United States and the West and might be willing to make some accommodation."
The Iraq policy debate remained unresolved when the September 11 attacks occurred. Like all major national security issues, Iraq policy was re-examined in light of our post-9/11 sense of vulnerability and the heightened worries about terrorism and, especially, about the danger that terrorists might obtain WMD from a nation state.
When the president ultimately decided that the Iraqi regime must be ousted by force, he was influenced by five key factors:
1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The Iraqi dictator had started wars against Iran and Kuwait, and had fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unrepentant about the rape of Kuwait, he remained intensely hostile to the U.S. He provided training, funds, safe haven and political support to various types of terrorists. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq's official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.
2) The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11. Though Saddam's regime was not implicated in the 9/11 operation, it was an important state supporter of terrorism. And President Bush's strategy was not simply retaliation against the group responsible for 9/11. Rather it was to prevent the next major attack. This focused U.S. officials not just on al Qaeda, but on all the terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism who might be inspired by 9/11 - especially on those with the potential to use weapons of mass destruction.
3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years. The U.S. did not rush to war. Working mainly through the U.N., we tried a series of measures to contain the Iraqi threat: formal diplomatic censure, weapons inspections, economic sanctions, no-fly zones, no-drive zones and limited military strikes. A defiant Saddam, however, dismantled the containment strategy and the U.N. Security Council had no stomach to sustain its own resolutions, let alone compel Saddam's compliance.
4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation - over Kuwait again or some other issue - appeared virtually certain to arise once Saddam succeeded in getting out from under the U.N.'s crumbling economic sanctions.
Mr. Bush decided it was unacceptable to wait while Saddam advanced his biological weapons program or possibly developed a nuclear weapon. The CIA was mistaken, we all now know, in its assessment that we would find chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq. But after the fall of the regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea.
5) America after 9/11 had a lower tolerance for such dangers. It was reasonable - one might say obligatory - for the president to worry about a renewed confrontation with Saddam. Like many others, he feared Saddam might then use weapons of mass destruction again, perhaps deployed against us through a proxy such as one of the many terrorist groups Iraq supported.
Thoughtful, patriotic Americans differed then and now on whether the risk of leaving Saddam in power outweighed the risk of war. But Mr. Bush concluded that it did, and that war therefore was necessary. In Congress, many Democrats as well as Republicans supported that conclusion. Debates will continue over whether the president should have balanced the risks differently. But characterizing the Iraq war as "a war of choice" sheds no light on the issue.
Mr. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, is author of "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism" (HarperCollins, 2008), the author's proceeds of which are being donated to charities for veterans and their families.
Jim:
You ascribing Machiavellian intentions to "liberal politicians" to elect "any democrat" to office at "all costs" shortly after the war in Iraq began is laughable.
First, ALL political parties Republican and Democrat, try to get their members in office.
But to the main point of my response. Doug Feith has no credibility whatsoever with anyone who has researched his background. A neo-con in the Pentagon policy office, known for overriding more knowledgeable military subordinates, he is one of those most responsible for getting us into the morass that is Iraq.
I say that he, and by extension you, are wrong.
Saddam was never a threat to the US.
Not all reasonable means short of war were tried. In fact, Iraq agreed to the visit of inspectors shortly before the US attacked (the THREAT of war worked).
However, even if all of Mr. Feith's reasons were good, AND THEY WERE NOT, he and others in the Pentagon ignored the post-invasion situation. General Shinseki told Congress that 300,000 troops were needed. His reward? Demotion.
Nice.
Poorly researched, Jim.
Victor…a typical response from a liberal who follows and can’t think outside the box. These are the exact words from those in the White House who researched the War in Iraq months before 9/11. Mr. Feith was Under Secretary of Defense from 2001-2005.
You are a small minority who doesn’t think Saddam was a threat to the US and our allies. Even the hate-filed, liberal UN said Saddam was a threat especially with his WMD’s. Resolution 1441 ring a bell?
By the way, do you have any clue as to what Sandy Berger was caught stealing from the Clinton Archives that pertained to Clinton and Iraq? Bush was kind enough to let Berger off the hook. No jail time.
To quote Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men", liberals "cannot handle the truth"!!!! Victor makes this fact very obvious.
OK, we need to get something straight, here.
I am NOT on "the Liberal Team". In fact, the only reason I call myself "Lake Country Liberal" is because you and Amy call me liberals. I have therefore chosen it as my nom d'guerre.
Since when does being in a minority make one wrong?
Sandy Berger should have gone to jail. Period. Just like Ollie North should have gone to jail.
One more thing...you say "these are the exact words from those in the White House who researched the War in Iraq months before 9/11". 2 things: Why would these people have credibility, given how poorly they executed the post-invasion, and why was the Bush White House researching invading Iraq before 9/11 if they weren't planning to do so? Sounds like 9/11 provided a convenient excuse.
Remember: dictators are concerned with maintaining their power, of rational. One of the reasons Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 was because we didn't clearly signal we would oppose it. But really, WHY would Iraq want to threaten us? It is not rational.
Amy...calling me liberal is not a bad thing. In fact, reactionaries like you weaken any meaning for words whatsoever.
And I believe you are paraphrasing Colonel Jessup from "A Few Good Men," not quoting him...
Victor…your response pretty much summed it up and answered our questions. You say you are “not on the liberal team.” But you sure seem to except the lies and ideology that comes from the liberal media and our liberal politicians. Word for word.
Here’s my point: you say, "These are the exact words from those in the White House who researched the War in Iraq months before 9/11". 2 things: Why would these people have credibility, given how poorly they executed the post-invasion, and why was the Bush White House researching invading Iraq before 9/11 if they weren't planning to do so? Sounds like 9/11 provided a convenient excuse.”
You, along with the hate-filled liberal politicians and media over the Iraq war, say that Bush and co. poorly executed the invasion and are not credible. However, that was determined by liberals even though facts like this existed. You are trying to put the cart, full of lies, before the horse. And if for some reason your opinion of Doug Feith is correct, his proof of those meetings have yet to be proven wrong. Even our liberal courts allow criminals to testify if they have some facts to back their testimony. But Mr. Feith served America honorably (unlike the Clintons) and is not even close to a criminal. This is one of many reasons why liberals can not impeach Bush - which is still another “dogs of hate” liberal myth since most liberals are still hurting over Clintons mess and impeachment. Most of Congress did try to avoid war. But the evidence to ALL was too overwhelming (reread the blog please. The main choices were NOT war).
You also said the UN wanted to go in one more time to inspect Saddam’s WMD factories. However, you forgot that Saddam, even though he agreed, he didn’t agree to WHERE the UN wanted to go: as he did for 10 years after the invasion and then the rapping and killing of innocent Kuwait people. What part of this evil empire do you not understand? Maybe a biscuit and tea party would have worked?
Victor…sorry, but I didn’t reply to your comment “Since when does being in a minority make one wrong?? I don’t know who ever said that or even suggested it.
Victor: Thanks for your nitpicking on my comment. I should have said "paraphrase"... So sorry, but glad you were so concerned with correcting me.
I think the President has to do what they think is best at that time.
jim, would you please stop telling the people you're talking to how they feel about things? victor will make clear when he's hate-filled without you announcing it, and such unconstructive criticism serves only to irritate.
gregg...please explain. Not sure what you are talking about.
He is essentially saying, stop making unwarranted attacks on people who don't share your view point. If you can't handle criticism or other people's dissenting view points, maybe blogging is a bad idea. When you write something and put it out for public consumption, you just hurt your own case when you personally fire back at people who don't agree with you. You can obviously see other people with your same basic view points lapping it all up, but it doesn't make you correct.
From any outsiders view, Victor looks to have formed a better argument essentially because he doesn't take shots at you or any group of people, he sticks to criticising your facts and ideas.
You use the phrase "follower" in a nagative tone all of the time to call out so-called liberals, however you would flip you sh*t if someone used that same term negatively explaining your faith in God. Because one doesn't follow the basic policy preferences of one administration doesn't mean they came to this conclusion because their mind was warped by the liberal media. I get about 5 hours of conservative talk radio at work on 620, but I don't follow what they say or believe every single thing I hear to be the truth.
So JD543211 is Gregg?...whoever JD is, you obviously don't read much of these blogs. Especially the liberal blogs and comments who attack with outright lies and smear campaigns along with swear words. And yes, if you too would use other sources for your news than the liberal press, you will find that my comments about sheep and or “followers” is dead accurate. And yes, I am a follower of God and Christianity. Sorry.
JD...sorry, I forgot this response to your words, “From any outsiders view, Victor looks to have formed a better argument essentially because he doesn't take shots at you or any group of people, he sticks to criticising your facts and ideas.” From any outsider? Wow. Even despite the fact that much of Victor’s comments are factless? Factless is using Victor’s own words by the way. Can I send you to other blogs where Victor does take shots at me and a few other people? I don’t mind because I believe his and the other liberal bloggers, with the exception of one, do it in fun and give back what they receive.
By the way, maybe you should practice what you preach? No pun intended.
No, Joe, I wasn't saying Jim shouldn't blog or even that he shouldn't be combative. Though I do agree that Victor has so far done the better job of attacking the facts and not the arguer. Less broad than any of that, I had just noticed that a significant portion of Jim's argument is relaying as fact things he can only infer--particularly telling the person he's talking to what their feeling are--because A) feelings are a topic with no end for a political discussion and B) it's baiting; I would expect Jim to react negatively if anyone called all conservatives hate-filled. It's just not something anyone should have to ever argue against. To broaden that to the scope you took it, I'm less arguing that Jim should stop fighting and more saying he needs to clean up the fight and be a boxer, not a brawler. I want to be able to support him when I think he's factually right, without joining in his revulsion for all things liberal.
Gregg and JD... You two talk a nice game, but maybe JD should take Jim's advice and practice what he preaches. His comments are very poor in taste and very bitter. Jim seems to give back what he gets from these bloggers.
And in regards to Victors facts vs. Jim's? Jim sites his research and never uses Rush, Coulter, etc. (I may be mistaken since I only stared a few weeks ago, but I have gone back to April and read many blogs) I have not seen any liberal, Victor included, who could answer his questions and comments with any truth or much proof. That, my good neighbors, is fact!
I do take shots at Jim sometimes...but you're right, I'm smarter than he is...
;-)
Now Now Victor...you may put words on paper better than I, but I don't think you are smarter. I passed the Wonderlic test!
greg...reread my comment that you quote me as saying Victor is "hate-filled." My comment talks about liberal politicians and the liberal media. Many are full of hate for Bush and conservatives. That's no secret if you happen to watch or read any mainstream news outlets. Here’s my exact words: “along with the hate-filled liberal politicians and media over the Iraq war.”
Greg, also reread the comments from liberals. So many put words in my mouth and other nonliberal bloggers. Why have you not jumped all over that? Is that OK for liberals but not conservatives?
Gregg and JD…you two would make great journalists: ignore the facts, deny the truth, and make sure honest, fairness, and balance are not part of your bible.
Have a happy 4th. This day of freedom is what allows you to make those accusation and comments without punishment. At least not from our government!
Happy 4th of July to all! And to all the America-haters out there, and we know a few from "livinglakecountry.com", appreciate what you have and that you have the right to spew your hateful rhetoric without any repercussions. If you were in Iraq during the Saddam Hussein years, do you think for an instant that Hussein would have allowed you to complain about him or his leadership? We all need to thank our military men and women - especially on this day - for the sacrifices they make. God Bless America!
Ditto!!
I say we thank our long deceased Founding Fathers, children of the Enlightenment, for the radical gift of the United States of America.
advertisement
- Common Sense: Not so Common!
- How's Iraq now?
- Obama: "We must rein in the deficits."
- The State of the “I’m in trouble” Address.
- Ali Hassan al-Majid was finally executed.
- Can Obama turn all this around and make good on his promises?
- Big Bird is one smart dude!
- Obama???s latest failure. This one will also come back to haunt us.
- A Little Humor Never Hurt.
- Brown vs. the corrupt liberal democrats in Washington
Permalink | Email This Blog