« My "Dear Uncle John" letter | Main | THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR (Part II) »


Note: What follows is the first of a six part series examining success and failures of the Bush Doctrine and the conduct of the war in Iraq and the aftermath. Please note that I served as editor for this article; the author isn't interested in publicity and will remain anonymous.


On September 11, 2001, we were forced to view the world in a new light. Most of us realized two things. First, we realized that Islamic fanatics were now willing to die in an organized effort to exact their punishment on the United States of America and that America could never win the "hearts and minds" of these Islamofacists without changing the culture that created them. Second, we realized that there were only two ways to change the culture that created the hate.

  1. We could relent to the Islamofacists' demands and seek their approval for all future foreign policies.

  2. We could fundamentally alter the landscape of hate by eliminating the terrorists AND replace the regimes that continue to harbor, fund and assist the terrorists.
We could have pulled a "Clinton" and attempted to merely eliminate the terrorists responsible for 9/11. That strategy in dealing with terrorists (employed by Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton in previous terrorist strikes) had the fatal weakness of leaving the culture that created them, the regimes that harbored them, and the leaders who funded them alive to fight another day. Most Americans now understand that the next terrorist strike could be utterly devastating to the United States.

So, President Bush acted nearly immediately. Within days of the attack, the president put the world on notice that the United States was no longer going to look the other way while regimes continued to fund, harbor and assist terrorist organizations. In the aftermath of this ultimatum, a significant amount of terrorist funds have been frozen worldwide, operatives have been arrested in countries which never before had made concerted efforts and many terrorists have been forced into hiding.

And, within 26 days of 9/11, the Bush administration moved a massive number of troops into position, pulled over 40 nations into a coalition, negotiated extraordinary concessions from Pakistani President Pervez Musharef, including flyover and basing rights, planned humanitarian efforts to avoid human catastrophe and commenced the air war to remove al Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan. All within 26 days of 9/11.


A little background is necessary to understand the decision to topple Saddam. Immediately after the first Gulf War, the United Nations imposed heavy sanctions against Saddam's regime. These sanctions were devastating and, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam was on the verge of losing power. Iraqis were on the cusp of revolt against the dictator responsible for their misery.

But, in 1996, Europe came to the rescue by offering the vaunted "Oil for Food" program. Bill Clinton succumbed to enormous European pressure and, against everyone's better judgment, agreed to the program. This gave Saddam new life, allowing him to provide for his citizens and illegally siphon off billions to rebuild his regime and his grip on Iraq.

All the while, Saddam thumbed his nose at more than a dozen years of U.N. Security Council resolutions, he bugged the phones and rooms of weapons inspectors, he forbade weapons inspectors to privately interview scientists, he had armed "minders" escort the inspectors 24/7 and he blocked the U.N. from entering dozens of sites they wished to inspect. He had also kicked the inspectors out multiple times before finally in 1998, after the inspectors located Saddam's stash of deadly VX, the U.N. was kicked out for good. And, from 1998 to 2002, the U.N. inspectors were never allowed to return.

So, the last thing we knew, the inspectors had found the deadliest chemical to date, VX, and had not been able to destroy the stockpile before being escorted out of the country. Meanwhile, Saddam was busy bribing France, Russia and China (each of which are able to single handedly veto any Security Council resolution) to keep the U.N out and fight for the end of all sanctions against his regime.

By September of 2001, all attempts to renegotiate U.N. re-entry had failed and there was a major push by, you guessed it, France, Russia and China to lift ALL sanctions against the non-compliant Saddam. The Duelfer report stated that, if sanctions had been lifted, Saddam would have been in a position to restart his WMD programs and certainly would have done so.


A lot has been made that the ONLY reason Bush gave for his invasion of Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. Although this was a big part of the reason, it most certainly was not the only reason. There are two factors you need to understand in order to fully appreciate Bush's rationale.

First, whether you agree with it or not, President Bush set out a policy to topple the Taliban, work with countries willing to help on the war on terror, freeze terrorists' assets and replace regimes that continue to support terrorism. In his stirring State of the Union speech, he identified the top culprits, Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Secondly, you might find it interesting to reread Bush's speech in Cincinnati which outlined the Iraqi threat. This was THE speech justifying the invasion of Iraq. Many on the left would have you believe that the only justification President Bush gave was WMD. That's why it is so important that you reread the transcript. This speech is so long that I will not excerpt it in earnest here, but here is the link to the speech. You would be well served to reread it.

WMD was indeed a large part of the speech, but you have to remember that the last time inspectors were allowed in Iraq, they had just located deadly VX and had not had the opportunity to destroy the stockpiles. Additionally, the CIA, Britain, Russia and Jordan all said that intelligence confirmed that Saddam still had WMD stockpiles and the programs to create more. The intelligence was overwhelming.

But when you reread the Cincinnati speech, you will see that possession of WMD was not the only reason Bush gave for invasion of Iraq.

  1. Saddam used chemical weapons against his own citizens and in his war against Iran.
  2. Saddam launched unprovoked wars against both Iran and Kuwait in a diabolical effort to dominate the Middle East.
  3. Saddam possessed ballistic missiles which were banned by the U.N. and which we subsequently DID find.
  4. Saddam was harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Although the president does not name him by name, he clearly states that "Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks." This could only be a reference to Zarqawi.
  5. Saddam harbored world-renowned terrorists Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal.
  6. Saddam's regime gleefully celebrated the 9/11 attacks on our country.
  7. Saddam was scamming the U.N. mandated Oil for Food program and side-stepping sanctions.
  8. In 2002 alone, the Iraqi military had fired on American and British pilots enforcing the U.N.'s no-fly zone over 750 times.
  9. "On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured."
  10. Saddam continued to fund terrorists organizations and even rewarded the families of Palestinian homicide bombers by sending each family $25,000 for their son or daughter's act of terrorism.
In order to fully appreciate the Iraq rationale, you have to remember that Bush, after 9/11, had put the world on notice that the United States was no longer going to look the other way while regimes continued to fund, harbor and assist terrorists and their organizations. Saddam continued to do all three. He was a loose cannon ready to explode as soon as France, Russia and China could manage to get U.N. sanctions dropped.

What President Bush understands, that neither Senator Kerry nor the loony left seems to, is the same thing President Kennedy understood in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."


Unlike Saddam Hussein and Iraq,

  1. Neither Iran nor North Korea had a 12 year track record of ignoring and defying U.N. Security Council resolutions.
  2. Neither Iran nor North Korea had, in recent history, invaded their neighbors for regional domination.
  3. Neither Iran nor North Korea had a history of utilizing chemical weapons.
  4. Leaders of Iran and North Korea have a vital interest in self-preservation (Saddam wants to become an historical icon).
  5. The world is currently involved in negotiations with both Iran and North Korea.
  6. Invading Iran with madman Saddam next door would have been entirely too unpredictable.
  7. Invading Iran, visually on a world map, would have made it look like America was on the march right across the Middle East. From Afghanistan to Iran... Where next, Iraq? It would have appeared to be a crusade.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR (PART I):

» Phony Kerry linked with The Global War on Terror

» Hold The Mayo linked with Make an Informed Choice

» The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill linked with A brilliant explanation of the Iraq war that shoul

» Mental Hiccups linked with More recommended reading...

Comments (4)

8. Irans Mullah's do not ha... (Below threshold)

8. Irans Mullah's do not have the absolute support of a fair number of Iranians. They are pursuing Nuclear for the very reason they believe without it they won't be able to maintain power, particularly with even "psuedo" democracies on both sides. Without the bomb they can't agress.

So what's wrong with a litt... (Below threshold)

So what's wrong with a little crusading now and then?

Seriously I think your last point is stretching things: yes the US would have been accused of that. Who cares, we're accused of that anyhow. The people who would have been (and are) accusing are known shills; they've been accusing the US of one transgression or another since the '70s.

In reality, the US is positioning itself for Iran, their nukyular program's been in place for a long time now. Iran knows this and will be easier to deal with diplomatically. The US has effectively surrounded Iran. On the east the US has cooperation with Pakistan and a fledgling elected Afganistan government. There is some level of agreements with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan on the north, but the probability of northward movement is low. To the south is water, and in west Turkey --although falling under EU influence-- and Iraq, under temporary control of the US.

This is a very orga... (Below threshold)

This is a very organized compilation of facts that is greatly appreciated by me a'right brainer'.I look forward to the next segment.

The big thing that I think ... (Below threshold)

The big thing that I think that you are missing about why we did not invade North Korea is China's influence in the region.

Many people tend to forget that we invaded North Korea in the 50s and that it was China that got anxious and pushed us back to the 38th parallel. Since then, North Korea has basically been China's puppet state because it is the country's only supporter.

Because China has been willing to put their military might behind the North Koreans, the only way to deal with North Korea is to go to the Chinese and quietly say, "If you can't stop Pyongyang from developing nuclear weapons, then we might not be able to stop Tokyo or Taiwan."

This puts pressure on China to contain North Korea’s nuclear program because they do not want to see a nuclear Japan or Taiwan for obvious reasons. If Taiwan becomes a nuclear nation, the MAD doctrine falls into place and the Chinese will never be able to retake the republic. If Japan becomes a nuclear nation, (do you think with their technology they are not able to?) there will be no immediate harm done to China’s plans for the future but it would make them very nervous. You need a reason why? A quick glance at the results of a Google search “Japan China War” will quickly explain.

Overall, you cannot just add up the offenses a country has committed and decide to invade them based on their rap sheet. It would be foolish to underestimate that the geopolitical power structure and history of the Far East had in not taking any type of military action in the Korean Peninsula.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy