Many Americans have turned on the war in Iraq. They say it was unecessary, that it did not attack Al-Quaeda, and that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat. Given the real difficulties in conducting the war, I can understand why public opinion would grow weary of it. But it was justified, and to my mind the most prudent option.
After the 9/11 attacks, we in America and the West realized that we were at war. Al-Quaeda and like-minded terrorist groups have been at war with the West for some time, but the sickening and horrific damage and loss of life in the heart of our major cities convinced us that it was time to fight back. The immediate question was, how do we respond? Al-Quaeda was not a country, so what was the legal and moral framework for attacking an amorphous and fluid terrorist network? Another question was whether we should limit our response to Al-Quaeda. Would capturing Osama Bin-Laden and dismantling Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan be enough, or should we target and disrupt the workings of Al-Quaeda throughout the world, and also the operations of other terrorist groups with similar ideologies and similar malicious intent? The Bush administration presented what I thought to be best possible framework, which was later known as the Bush Doctrine: terrorist networks are not states, but they rely on sovereign nations for funding, moral support, and grounds for training and launching attacks. Given the now obvious threat of international terrorism, we had to deal with these states, and so we gave a clear message: we will make no distinction between terrorists and the states who harbor and sponser them. You are either ‘with us or against us’. There is no middle ground.
Very few people denied this logic when applied to Afghanistan. The Taliban was harboring Al-Quaeda’s top leadership, and allowing the organization to run training camps and bases of operation within the country. We told them to hand over their terrorists, or help us to neutralize the threat, or else we would have no choice but to view the Taliban government as in collusion with Al-Quaeda, and therefore guilty. Despite great fears of a protracted Soviet like debacle in Afghanistan, the Taliban was defeated in very short order, and Al-Quaeda was dealt a crippling blow. A resounding sucess, but how would we follow it up?
Al-Qaeda was bruised but not defeated, and there was still a worldwide terrorist network of affiliated organizations (not just Al-Quaeda) that was still operative and still meant us great harm. Also, there were many other state supporters of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen…the list could go on, but you get the idea. We had struck back, but we were no means finished, and by no means safe. Using the framework mentioned above, pressure had to be brought to bear on other terror networks and other state supporters of terrorism. In addition, we had to consider the deeply disturbing possibility that Al-Quaeda or a networked group could obtain the capability to regularly use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. This threat really cannot be overstated. Two or three such attacks would cause a loss of life and suffering that is emotionally incomprehensible, not to mention the catastrophic damage that would be done to our economy and possibly industry. In the post 9/11 world , state supporters of terrorism that were hostile to free nations, could under no circumstances have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Given this reality, the Iraq situation had to be addressed. Hussein’s government was continually belligerent, attacking his neighbors multiple times, and employed chemical weapons against them and on his own population. Moreover, Hussein gave no indication that he was no longer pursuing WMD programs, repeatedly interfering with UN weapons inspectors. Such behavior was unaccetable especially because Iraq was a state supporter of terrorism, with ties to Al-Quaeda, (such as: Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of Al-Quaeda’s top leaders, and the terror group ‘Ansar al-Islam’ who was an Al-Quaeda affiliate) and other terrorist groups (i.e-giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.) Given Hussein’s defiant attitude to the United States and the United Nations, his unwillingness to be transparent in regard to his WMD program, his repeated unprovoked attacks against his neighbors, and his undeniable ties to terrorists, his government was too dangerous to be left in place. Hussein was given every opportunity to cooperate with UN inspectors, and to come clean about his WMD programs, but he did not, and he had to face the consequences. The Coalition invasion, therefore, was right, moral, and just.
It is objected that since no WMD were found, than the invasion was based on a lie. This is not the case. First of all, if it was an intelligence failure, it was a failure on the part of multiple intelligence agencies in multiple countries, not just the Bush administration and the CIA. Second, even if we knew that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD, the invasion would still be justified and necessary. Iraq’s historic aggression and defiance of the UN gave every indication that it would pursue WMD when pressure was no longer being brought to bear (and it could have created a biological weapon, for instance, in as little as a month). In any case, Iraq was still a repeated unjust aggresor, and a state supporter of terrorism, and could not be appeased, if only on those grounds.
The war has not been easy, to say the least, but it has been won, and has accomplished remarkable results. Iraq is no longer a threat to international security, and now fights terrorists instead of supporting them. As a direct result of the invasion of Iraq, Libya completely gave up its WMD programs, and, because of continuing US pressure, Pakistan shut down the nuclear proliferator Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, and Syria withdrew from Lebanon. Only force and intimidation could do this. If we did not invade Iraq, Hussein and other state supporters of terror would feel, (rightly) that they could fund and harbor terrorists, and pursue WMD programs, without any fear of consequences. The consequences for the West, however, would be dreadful, and perhaps too nightmarish to think about. In addition, Al-Quaeda, who looked at Iraq as a battlefield equal to that of Afghanistan in its struggle against the West, (as we should have all along) poured countless numbers of fighters into Iraq to make the Coalition project a failure, and for its efforts it was completely and utterly defeated by US, Coalition, and Iraqi forces.
So, in conclusion, the war in Iraq has dealt a near devestating blow, in both manpower and prestige, to Al-Queada. It eliminated numerous state-supporters of terror with WMD programs, and created a democracy in the heart of the middle east, with its own army that now fights terrorists along with the rest of the free world. Back in 2001, after the attacks, I read a great deal about international terrorism, and the WMD threat, and I was very skeptical that a large-scale attack using these weapons could be prevented. I cannot see into the future and I do not know if there will be another attack, but I will say that our enemies are clearly on the run, and for all the naysaying in the media, the West is on the offensive and has been surpassingly victorious in the battles so far. With this in mind I can honestly say that, thanks to our sucesses in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the effects of those battle on Al-Quaeda, Libya, and other enemies, I feel the safest I have felt since Sept 10th, 2001, and that is no small accomplishment.
