Posted by
mgraves on Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:51:20 PM
Posted this reply at Unpurereason to the discussion of 2003 and 1939:
Saddam may have been unable to project conventional power, but rather than a reason to leave Saddam in power, that is a reason to remove him.
Saddam had sponsored terrorism (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, assassination attempt of former Pres Bush), subsidized terrorism (financial assistance to PIJ, HAMAS, PLO), provided a base of operations for terrorist groups (ANO, twice), and provided safe haven for terrorists (Abbas, Yasin, Zarqawi).
By attempting to farm out terrorism in 1998 (RFE/RL), Saddam had demonstrated the propensity to use terrorism as a means of Statecraft (to say nothing of his State terrorism, used to exercise control over his citizens/victims).
Sanctions were failing to box in Saddam--the only people harmed by the sanctions were those already harmed by the regime. The sanctions regime was in imminent danger of collapse. France, Russia, and Germany, as well as neighboring Arab states, were all avoiding the sanctions.
The time and treasure spent to protect 2/3 of Iraq from Saddam were rather non-sensical if one thinks about it. If Saddam is a responsible actor, why should his people need to be protected from him? Further, Saddam was almost daily committing acts of war against the U.S. and U.K. by firing anti-aircraft missiles at planes patrolling the no-fly zones.
The cease-fire of 1991 required Saddam to affirmatively demonstrate the destruction of his WMD stocks. This, he did not do. Even ignoring the fact that he maintained the capability to restart his WMD programs, rapidly, after the fall of the sanctions regime, Saddam did not show the destruction or prove the destruction of his WMD. I realize that a negative cannot be proven, but Saddam acted in such a way as to guarantee that the destruction of the WMD program could not be affirmatively demonstrated.
I remember sitting in law school in January 2003 arguing that the best case to be made for war in Iraq was Iraq's connections to terrorism (Abbas, Yasin, RFE/RL, PIJ, etc). I later remember being mobilized and the company being aware that this war would involve troops in Iraq for over a decade (disclosure: bumped 24 hrs from wheels up; spent a period NTE 365 days stateside). I've been trying to make the same arguments for the last 3.5 years. It is rapidly becoming frustrating.
I know that you are not attempting to argue that Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power. I understand the arguments that Iran is better off for the invasion (Pre-emption and Iran).
UN weapons inspectors were not disarming any weapons until a quarter million troops stood on Saddam's doorstep. That was an untenable situation. If we had left the troops there to guarantee Saddam's co-operation, eventually the troops would have lost their value as a threat and Saddam would have started obstructing again (he wasn't exactly forthcoming as it was, anyway). We would have come to the same pass that we entered anyway. We were able to do so on our terms this way. We were able to dictate the conditions under which the war would be fought. That is a good portion of the battle. Look to the example of Fallujah. We permitted the terrorists to dictate the terms of the battle and ended up losing far more troops than we would have otherwise.
Further discussion of why the invasion of Iraq was a necessary part of the War on Terror: Iraq 2 and Iraq. Not entirely creative titling, I know. Sue me. (Not really, I can't afford an attorney).