Was Iraq a Bush Blunder or was it a something else?
Was there a legitimacy to the invasion of Iraq?
Put another way, is there ever a valid excuse for one nation invading the other and taking over its territory, destroying the ruling government there, and setting up a new government?
Some have jutted their lower lip and said with a sneer that Bush and America were after the oil, while others have ascribed other motives to him. But, whatever his motives, was there any justification for the actions of America? And even if one concedes (for the sake of argument) that Bush had other motives– ulterior motives–was there any justification for America and its allies to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein?
In order to answer that question, one has to step back in time a bit. Any good historian will tell you that in order to interpret historical events, one must look at a wide range of things. In this instance, it’s important to look at the mind-set of the leadership and the governments involved, as well as the facts surrounding the events.
We’re all familiar with the events leading up to the first war with Iraq. This action was headed by a multi-national force which waged war with Iraq after it invaded its neighbor to the south. The coalition, in January of 1991, began operations (Desert Storm) to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.
Those entire events, from the invasion by Iraq, to the end of that war, demonstrated a few important things. First, it showed Saddam’s recklessness. He had to know that there was a substantial likelihood that even his Islamic brethren would not sit idly by while he made such an invasion. And, if he did not know this, he surely had to know that America and other nations would be very uncomfortable with his move and might take serious actions. But, even when there was a clear indication from the U.N. and many Islamic states of their unwillingness to accept his new land acquisition, Saddam refused to budge. He refused to order a retreat. He stayed put, this in spite of the enormous forces arrayed against him by not just one nation, but 34 nations. He was warned and ignored the warnings.
Thus, if one is to understand the second invasion of Iraq, one must understand the perspective of Saddam left in the minds of America. Saddam Hussein was, to put it bluntly, either insane, or so driven by his ambitions and delusions of power, that he was willing to do anything and willing to risk anything. The American government did not trust him to behave himself after that, realizing they were not dealing with a man who was mentally stable.
Some very bellicose statements were coming from Iraq during this time. The American government recognized that any radio broadcast or news editorial had to have the approval of Saddam, since such broadcasts and editorials had to be in line with his own views and opinions. There was no “free speech” in Iraq and had been none for many years. Thus, when the following statements came from within Iraq, by state controlled entities, America had to take these as statements from Saddam, and indeed, at times they were directly from him:
- "[America] will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim Mujahideen and all the honest strugglers in the world." -Iraq News Agency, January 30, 1991.
- "What remains for Bush and his accomplices in crime is to understand that they are personally responsible for their crime. The Iraqi people will pursue them for this crime, even if they leave office and disappear into oblivion. There is no doubt they will understand what we mean if they know what revenge means to the Arabs."-Baghdad Radio, February 6, 1991.
- "Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?" -Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994
- "If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?" -Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002.
- "[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."-Babil, September 20, 2001
Now, given that rhetoric coming from a man the American government has to have deemed drunken with his own sense of power, it is no small wonder that Saddam Hussein made them very nervous. Here was constant rhetoric filled with hate, with promises of revenge, with promises of missiles, and attacks in American cities by a man who has already demonstrated how willing he was to risk everything. The American government considered carefully whether this man was willing to use weapons of mass destruction as a tool to gain political favor and everlasting glory and fame in the eyes of the Islamic world. They could not ignore his threats as idle boastings. America had already ignored one terrorist, and September 11, 2001 would always be in the minds of the government as it gave consideration to the threats and bellicose rhetoric of Saddam Hussein.
He could not be ignored.
Things only got worse. Hussein played a game that was not merely reckless, but brought absolute fear into the hearts and minds of the leadership of the American government. If this man acquired weapons of mass destruction, he was capable of inflicting severe harm upon our nation. It became paramount for the government to learn whether or not he had any such weapons. They already assumed he was capable of using them. Worse, they had to assume that if he had them, he would use them. There was no room to guess on that issue.
Once Saddam began playing “hide and seek” with the U.N. Inspectors, the end was inevitable. He’d already laid the foundation. He’d already pressed the hot buttons in Washington. If his goal was to make America afraid, he succeeded. They were very afraid of what he might do. But, if his goal was to make America back off and leave him alone, he failed miserably. Indeed, he’d made it impossible for America to ignore him.
When he ordered the inspectors out, the American government was then put in a rather unique position. If they did nothing, then Saddam would, given his megalomania, and given his prior stated positions about revenge and the hurting of America, act accordingly. It only remained for him to take chemical weapons, something he’d already demonstrated his willingness to use, or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, and reach into the heart of America with his revenge, as he’d promised.
Only a government run by sainted monks and Quakers would ignore Saddam Hussein and do nothing. And, as we all know, the American government is run by men and women who would not qualify in either group.
The American President, George W. Bush, his averment espousing Christianity notwithstanding, surely felt the rather enormous pressure of duty as he weighed his options and considered his mentally unstable opponent. He had to carefully look at the threats and whether or not Hussein was capable of carrying them out. His conclusion was that Saddam Hussein was not only capable, but if he had the weapons, he would use them against the citizens of America. Thus, the paramount questions became: (1) Does Hussein have weapons of mass destruction; and (2) If he does not, and if he is not controlled, can he acquire them?; and (3) How do we control him?
The American government’s intelligence agency made some conclusions, based on intelligence they’d gathered in Iraq, that those weapons did indeed exist or were in the process of being acquired. There was an inability for the CIA to fully vet each source. When in-place Iraqi government workers gave the CIA information on the building and/or storage of weapons of mass destruction, there was no option for that agency to do anything but take it at face value and pass it along to the President. At that point, the American government had little choice. The President, as the primary individual responsible for the safety of American lives, could not afford to gamble. The American government could not afford to sit by idly, hoping there would not be another 9-11. There could not be an “uh-oh” moment. No government official wanted to be the American version of Neville Chamberlain.
Thus, you had Democrats and Republicans coming aboard the “Let’s Stop The Madman” Express.
Al Gore’s words aptly describe the American government’s assumptions as to Saddam: “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.” And another staunch Democrat, Madeleine Albright, said, “Iraq is a long way from the U.S., but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
It is somewhat fascinating now to hear key Democrats trying to fit their positions into the framework of the current demagoguery being espoused by them against the Bush administration’s venture into Iraq.
Hillary Clinton, one who voted for the invasion, now attempts to backpedal and give a “golly-gee-whiz” reason for voting like she did, namely, that she believed that there were weapons of mass destruction. But, what she’s really saying is that given the historical scenario, the facts, including Saddam’s actions and rhetoric and threats, that she’d have not made a move to stop him unless she knew there were weapons of mass destruction. That’s scary, if one contemplates her as President. She’d not act to stop a madman from carrying out his threats. In short, she’d not take his threats seriously.
But, Barack Obama is even scarier. He knew about the rhetoric of Saddam (as did just about anyone who read the newspapers). He knew of the intelligence that was being delivered (something circulated to various congressional members, the media, and those like Obama who were in the "loop" as a potential candidate for office. He knew the threats that were made. He knew Saddam’s mental instability. And, he knew that the CIA had concluded that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction. If he were on another planet and somehow missed all the reporting being done, certainly when he came back, he got caught up on the news such that by the time he reached the hallowed doors of Congress in 2004, he knew what was being said by the CIA. While the President and most of the U.S. government realized they could not afford to assume the intelligence was wrong, and while the President and most of the U.S. government realized they could not afford to take a chance with the lives of millions of Americans, Obama says he was always against deposing Hussein and removing him as a threat to our lives. Even if Saddam was cooking up a Witch’s Brew of viruses to spread on our land, as he said he was doing, Obama would not have moved against Hussein. He would have ignored his own intelligence reports from the agencies, including the CIA, and used his own judgment.
Amazing.
Scary.
(And he's not even a Quaker.)
Moreover, given his own pastor’s rhetoric in which that man clearly has a deep, abiding anger against America, and given Obama’s decision to sit under that rhetoric, with the thunderous approvals of the congregation echoing in his ears (and presumably, the ears of his children), one must wonder what it would ever take to move Obama to take an aggressive, hard-nosed stance against an enemy. This man couldn’t even stand up to his pastor.
I’ll not tell anyone how to vote, but I cannot vote for someone who is going to stand by idly whilst a madman acquires weapons that will destroy my country and kill American lives.
I don’t know much about John McCain, but I do know this. He’s seen Hussein for what he was in terms of a threat. He’s not equivocated on the justness of the invasion. I’m grateful for that. And, this is a man who’s been tested as few Americans have been: he suffered at the brutal hands of captors. He’s proven his mettle under fire. He was a POW who turned down an opportunity to leave captivity. That speaks of his character. Whatever else he may be or not be, when standing alongside the other choices, he’s head and shoulders above them in every department.
Fortunately, I’m not very opinionated.
Like some of you are.
copyright 2008 Voyle A. Glover
