Why we went to war in Iraq - WSJ

[naranjaynegro]

Why We Went to War in Iraq


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.

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 Dick 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. Douglas 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.

[sm237]

That appears to be a good article, but it flies in the face of the Bush bashers. They will continue with he lied and what ever stuff, to promote their agenda. What ever it may be!

[panhandler62]

At the very least; we rushed to war on slim evidence. The article introduces no new information, it simply puts a spin on what we alredy know.

Other than finger pointing; this debate has little utility today. We are fully engaged in the occupation/support of Iraq and no matter how much we may wish to leave, we can't do so in a mad dash without further agravating the situation.

I have an old truck that I decided to fix up. It's in about 400 peices now. Even if I were to decide I shouldn't have taken it apart there is really nothing for it but to fix it and reassemble it now.

[RxCowboy]

Originally Posted by panhandler62

I have an old truck that I decided to fix up. It's in about 400 peices now. Even if I were to decide I shouldn't have taken it apart there is really nothing for it but to fix it and reassemble it now.

That is an utterly fantastic analogy.

[bleedorange]

Originally Posted by panhandler62

At the very least; we rushed to war on slim evidence. The article introduces no new information, it simply puts a spin on what we alredy know. Other than finger pointing; this debate has little utility today. We are fully engaged in the occupation/support of Iraq and no matter how much we may wish to leave, we can't do so in a mad dash without further agravating the situation. I have an old truck that I decided to fix up. It's in about 400 peices now. Even if I were to decide I shouldn't have taken it apart there is really nothing for it but to fix it and reassemble it now.

Don't you just get sick and tired of all the morons telling you how stupid you were to tear apart the truck in the first place?

[Roman Craig]

Quote:

At the very least; we rushed to war on slim evidence. The article introduces no new information, it simply puts a spin on what we alredy know.

The word you are looking for is "classified".

[kaje]

Yup. Comparing truck parts to human beings lives is a great analogy.

[Cimarron]

Originally Posted by kaje

Yup. Comparing truck parts to human beings lives is a great analogy.

My guess is they care as much about human lives as you do! They said nothing that should make you believe or think otherwise and certainly nothing that required a comment that really wasn't necessary or in the interest of constructive debate.....

[Pokit N]

This thread is bout to esplode!!

[RxCowboy]

Originally Posted by kaje

Yup. Comparing truck parts to human beings lives is a great analogy.

No one is comparing human lives to truck parts. That is purposefully misconstruing the analogy. It is a strawman.

[okstateguy987]

Originally Posted by kaje

Yup. Comparing truck parts to human beings lives is a great analogy.

That's the best you have? Really?

[kaje]

Originally Posted by RxCowboy

No one is comparing human lives to truck parts. That is purposefully misconstruing the analogy. It is a strawman.

Human lives being lost is a very common thing that is occurring in the process of reconstructing Iraq. Was his analogy not referring to the reconstruction of Iraq? So again, it is not a great analogy because it does portray any type of meaningful loss and if it did, it would just be truck parts.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

Originally Posted by kaje

Human lives being lost is a very common thing that is occurring in the process of reconstructing Iraq. Was his analogy not referring to the reconstruction of Iraq? So again, it is not a great analogy because it does portray any type of meaningful loss and if it did, it would just be truck parts.

Considering that lives were being lost in Iraq BEFORE the invasion, I'm not really sure of the merit of you analogy... and that's when the truck was still fully assembled.

I suppose Hussin choosing which lives are lost makes it better for you.

[kaje]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

Considering that lives were being lost in Iraq BEFORE the invasion, I'm not really sure of the merit of you analogy... and that's when the truck was still fully assembled. I suppose Hussin choosing which lives are lost makes it better for you.

Oh you mean like...20-30 years ago before we invaded Iraq the first time?

[CaliforniaCowboy]

Originally Posted by kaje

Oh you mean like...20-30 years ago before we invaded Iraq the first time?

AHH...no, I'm pretty sure the first gulf war was much less than 20 years ago from the time of the 2nd war (more like 10 years); AND, he brutally killed everybody that had anything to do with the US or any symbolance of support for the US after we quit abruptly and went home.... then he proceeded to continue killing thousands AFTER the 1st war, and his two sons were the worst of the lot.

certainly you are not that naive... but then again, maybe you are, your posts sure seem to imply an extreme level of naiveity and ignorance on all political subject matters.

[Epperley28]

Originally Posted by naranjaynegro

1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The important word here being BEFORE. Like ten years before. 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 paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers when they attacked Israel, but I must have missed when one of them attacked the US. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. In the 1980's with financial and military support of the US. Iraq's official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Along with dozens of other government and non-government groups. It doesn't justify all-out war. 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. Not any terrorism that threatened the US, but terrorism nonetheless. 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. We focused on all terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism, then decided to attack one that posed the least amount of actual threat to our national security? Brilliant! 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 What threat? The non-existant WMD program? I've got an imaginary death ray that can destroy the moon, better send out the troops!: 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. Risks to who? Saddam could barely control his own country, much less threaten the rest of the world. Giving the families of suicide bombers $30,000 and praising 9/11 hardly rises to the level of "threat to national security". 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. Then why let him out? Where's the CIA helping Iraqi dissidents topple Saddam? They've done it dozens of times in the past. Hell, we did it right next door in Iran. Mr. Bush decided it was unacceptable to wait while Saddam advanced his biological weapons program or possibly developed a nuclear weapon. He had dismantled the bio-weapons program and Bush knew he didn't have nuclear capabilities (although he told the country he did, anyway. Liar.)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. The dreaded "hypothetical threat". Woo, scary! They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. I'm intent on nailing Megan Fox, but that doesn't make it likely. 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. Well, if they do, we blow it up from the air. Ta-da! Look, I just avoided war AND stopped a nukular (sic) threat. 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. America was scared and that paranoia was taken advantage of by a president intent on attacking Iraq because, "Let's not forget, they tried to kill my dad."

This is a sad attempt at revisionist history by Donald Rumsfeld's lapdog.

[kaje]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

AHH...no, I'm pretty sure the first gulf war was much less than 20 years ago from the time of the 2nd war (more like 10 years);

Oh. I'm sorry. I was talking like today's date was 7/2/2008. I apologize for not posting as if it were 2003. Let me pack on three more years so that you feel better while still referring as if I'm posting in present time. 17-30 years ago.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

AND, he brutally killed everybody that had anything to do with the US or any symbolance of support for the US after we quit abruptly and went home....

WHATTTTTTT? You mean a dictator who was at war killed people from that country when there was never a peace treaty? Noooooooo, you don't say!

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

then he proceeded to continue killing thousands AFTER the 1st war, and his two sons were the worst of the lot.

And we seemed to only think this was a problem 10 years after the fact when we were attacked by someone else and needed a scapegoat.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

Originally Posted by kaje

Oh. I'm sorry. I was talking like today's date was 7/2/2008. I apologize for not posting as if it were 2003. Let me pack on three more years so that you feel better while still referring as if I'm posting in present time. 17-30 years ago. WHATTTTTTT? You mean a dictator who was at war killed people from that country when there was never a peace treaty? Noooooooo, you don't say! And we seemed to only think this was a problem 10 years after the fact when we were attacked by someone else and needed a scapegoat.

are you whack?

1) Hussien hasn't been in power for the past 6 years.. count any way that you want, but at least try to be sensible.

2) I wasn't aware that a Dictator needed a peace treaty WITH HIS OWN PEOPLE... Wow... just wow.

3) ah, no... go read the WSJ thread... he was a problem for 30 years; he invaded Iran, he invaded Kuwait, he bombed Saudia Arabia, he bombed Isreal, he committed genocide against his own people, he brutally killed and repressed those opposed to him, he disregarded the UN sanctions and repeatedly attacked our airforce enforcing the UN no-fly zone, ten years after the fact, are you totally mental?

[Roman Craig]

Originally Posted by Epperley28

This is a sad attempt at revisionist history by Donald Rumsfeld's lapdog.

The sanctions were doing the trick!!!! Yeaaaaah, thats the ticket!!!!!! Aaaah the league of nations. errrrr the UN!! Huge teeth!!!

[CaliforniaCowboy]

Originally Posted by Roman Craig

The sanctions were doing the trick!!!! Yeaaaaah, thats the ticket!!!!!! Aaaah the league of nations. errrrr the UN!! Huge teeth!!!

yeah, and to think that somebody that was actually there (under secretary of the defense) would "revise history" by coming out with the FACTS, as they were at the time they were made by the people that were there.

Wow. The total nonsensical statements being made by the lefties in this thread are beyond comprehension.