by Klaus Rohrich
august 2, 2004
The war in Iraq was a very necessary component of the overall war against terrorism for a number of reasons.
First, it eliminated a dictator who was growing bolder and bolder in his efforts to become the ruling force in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein’s demise as leader of Iraq was an absolute necessity in that he posed a danger to the West, and particularly, Israel. Why was he such a danger to the peace of the region? Because he did not mind shedding blood, a concept to which most of us in the West cannot relate. His adventure in Kuwait in 1991 and his unrepentant and bellicose attitude in the decade following are clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was not finished with the world. Therefore it was wise to deal with him at a time of our choosing, rather than a time of his choosing.
The second reason is that Saddam Hussein was involved in terrorism and terrorist activity to a degree that many of his apologists in the West refuse to acknowledge. But, the fact that he paid each of the families of Palestinian suicide bombers that killed themselves during forays into Israel $25,000 and the connections between his intelligence and security apparatus and al-Qaeda are well documented. The fact that Saddam was secular and al-Qaeda is essentially religious does not preclude their cooperation. anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional at best and in denial at worst.
Third, by projecting its power into the region, the United States has had a profound effect on some of the region’s rulers. a case in point is Muammar Ghaddafi, who surrendered his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program to the West, when he saw what america was willing and capable of doing. Certainly, young assad, the Baath’ist ruler of Syria has kept a much lower profile than prior to the invasion of Iraq. again, he understands that if it can happen to Saddam, than it can also happened to him. In short, it destabilized the geopolitics of a region that had become dangerously volatile.
Fourth, a presence of american troops in Iraq positions the West to deal with Iran in a forthright and peremptory manner. I do not believe that anyone in the Bush administration has any delusions about the inevitability of Iran’s WMDs, and moreover, their willingness to use them against what they consider enemies. By having troops available in the region, if a crisis does develop, the U.S. will be able to deal with it in a much more timely manner without the ponderous and time-consuming need to mobilize a response from halfway around the world.
Finally, it has demonstrated to all enemies of the United States that the current administration will do what’s necessary in its fight against militant Islam and its corollaries.
What I do not understand is how most of the liberal establishment, as well as most of the entertainment industry are vehemently opposed to the idea of defending one’s self. I don’t think it’s necessary for them to be able to grasp the finer points of geography or politics. But one might think that at the very least the idea of survival should have some appeal.
Perhaps having spent the last 60 years free of major world conflicts and the last 15 years without he mutually assured destruction of the Cold War to be concerned about, it’s possible that many people are taking their security for granted. This, despite repeated reminders that security is something one can never take for granted, appears to be the state of the liberal mindset today.
While many liberals are paying lip service to the tragedy of the World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the Pentagon and the loss of Flight 93 in a Pennsylvania field, it seems that too many of them are buying Michael Moore’s Orwellian vision of these events and are consequently attempting to lay the blame at the door of George W. Bush.
One of my favourite games to play with liberals is "what if". I always win this game because it goes something like this: "What if al Gore were in the White House on Sept 11, 2001?" Inevitably my liberal friends get a shocked expression on their face, which quickly changes to a sheepish smile and a half-hearted admission that I have a point.
One can play the same game substituting John Kerry for al Gore. Would you feel any more secure if John Kerry was responsible for the policies that ensured the survival of america? Given his track and voting record, I can’t imagine anyone answering in the affirmative. In fact, if it weren’t such a Michael Moore-ish thing to say, I’d proclaim Kerry to be al-Qaeda’s candidate of choice. But then, I wouldn’t want to stand accused of being like Michael Moore.
In the final analyses, I don’t believe that there is a seriously rational argument against deposing Saddam. Yes, it establishes a new doctrine of pre-emptive intervention, a concept that may be hard for liberals to understand, but certainly one most arab states can relate to. But consider the alternatives: continued genocide, rape, wholesale torture, as Saddam cleanses Iraq of his "enemies"; the continued theft of Iraq’s resources by a cabal of French, Iraqi and UN criminals; the ongoing encouragement to terrorism against Israel; the eventual need to meet Iran’s nuclear position from half a globe away.
On balance, the invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam was the right thing to do. But then, no one ever said that doing the right thing is easy.