Iraq: The Inevitable War

My fellow Americans, I beseech you, discontinue this asinine discussion. Iraq never was nor will it ever be Vietnam. Nor is Iraq a “war of choice.” To say so displays a profound lack of recollection. How quickly the most astute of us is struck with historical amnesia. And even more quickly that collective stupor has inflicted our political “leaders.” So, allow me to share with you the storied past that has brought us here today. And, hopefully, you will see as well why we must face this inevitable war.

Nearly 40 years ago, the United States with support from the United Kingdom installed as the unchallenged leadership in Iraq a malignant political party and its “heir-apparent,” the just and genial Saddam Hussein. A decade later, the blundering Jimmy Carter convinced Saddam that an invasion of Iran to overthrow the Ayatollah Khomeini was paramount,being both economically and politically beneficial.The evidentiary basis,we know now,was fabricated. The resulting war between Iran and Iraq would last almost a decade and cost both countries over a million and a half lives.

In my mind, this charade should captivate even the most casual citizen. Clearly, some amount of culpability rests with the United States. But if this chronology were not enough, American leadership supports my argument further. The consequences of the 1991 Gulf War were disastrous and far-reaching. United Nations sanctions decimated the Iraqi people. As a result, Saddam usurped power from every sector of the private economy. Quite literally, every aspect of Iraqi life was under the control of this psychotic despot. The state became a bastion of terror and a safe haven for wanted terrorists like Abdul Rahman Yasin, the man responsible for the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Moreover,a battle over succession had begun between Saddam’s two sons Uday and Qusay creating a schism in Iraqi leadership. We can rest assured, authority in either of those individual’s hands would have been extraordinarily disastrous. A Sunni-Shia-Kurdish civil war was on the cusp of detonation and an utter implosion of Iraq was not only believable, but also likely.

As The Nation columnist Christopher Hitchens put it:“Was the timing [of this war] for Saddam to pick or the responsible leadership of the international community?” The question is a loaded one and the answer apparent. Does anyone seriously believe that this engagement would have been any better ten years, twenty years, and thirty years down the road? Relations between regional powers revealed to a veritable certainty that Iran, Turkey,or Saudi Arabia would have attempted to seize power in Iraq. Shall we leave the fate of this populous and geopolitically important country in the hands of such clods? I should think not. It is unambiguous. The United States has a responsibility to Iraq and its people. If we are to truly regain our place as a global leader, as both presidential candidates have inexhaustibly championed, then we need to grow up and accept accountability for our actions.

Allegiant liberals unabashedly disregard this duty by pointing towards the convenient notion of “national sovereignty.” Interest-
ingly enough, this apprehension to intervene disappears in the liberal forum when issues like Darfur arise, as it rightly should. But, let us embrace consistency for once and abolish this double standard. That way, we can at least seem rational.

There are,generally,four criteria by which a country can forgo its sovereignty and be subject to international punitive measures. These standards are not arbitrary nor are they obscure. In other words, the United Nations and its 192 member states developed and supported their creation.

(1) A country or government invades or occupies a territory or neighboring country;
(2) A government harbors or aids international terrorists;
(3) A country violates the 1951 Convention concerning genocide;
(4) A government violates the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT);

I say, with great displeasure, that Iraq has defied all four. To claim that Iraq “occupied” Kuwait shows colossal ignorance. Kuwait, an attested, legitimate member of the Arab League and the United Nations, was essentially annexed. I need not iterate the ruinous aftermath of this absorption.

The flouting of the Genocide Convention (if I could use such an innocuous term) requires little to no explanation. Saddam’s chemical massacre of 180,000 Kurds was, in his words, both “legal” and “justified.” On the subject of the Anfal campaign, I repose.

Saddam’s disregard for the NPT,however,necessitates slightly more explanation. The late and valiant Dr. David Kelly, a former British Arms Inspector, was clear in his dossier with journalist Andrew Gilligan. According to the posthumous report, Dr. Kelly and others found evidence of an “enormous and consistent concealment plan.” In mid-2003, inspectors found plans for missile designs that far exceeded the established UN limits.Furthermore, toxic materials were discovered in numerous Iraqi scientists’houses, including one toxic weapon buried in a garden. Iraqi scientists found to be cooperating with the UN inspectors incurred intimidation, physical violence, and even death.The circumstances were not exactly inviting.

Ancillary benefits of UN inspection materialized though. Iran finally became subject to mediation and examination by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).As a February 2007 article in The New York Times reported, the IAEA confirmed that Iran had indeed violated the NPT by pursuing “enrichment activities.” None of this transparency would have been possible had Iraq not been opened up fully to UN weapons inspectors.

Finally,and most evidently,Saddam has given aid and shelter to international terrorists. Abu Musab al-zarqawi, formerly the most wanted man in the world next to Osama bin Laden, fled to northern Iraq after U.S. intervention in Afghanistan. This alone should be beyond sufficient evidence for intervention.But I proffer further support.The New Yorker’s Jeff Goldberg reported earlier this year that Ansar al-Islam,a fundamentalist faction over which Saddam had joint control, received funding and training directly from al-Qaeda. Husayn Al-Kurdi, a prominent Middle Eastern journalist, argued in January 2008 that Saddam’s connections to Islamic extremism should be obvious.Besides his jihadist rhetoric, the Ba’athists espouse an enmity towards American “imperialism.” The two go hand-in-hand.

Defying not one but all four international norms speaks to the portentously maniacal authority which Saddam believed he possessed. The killing of his own people coupled with his 1993 attempt to take a former U.S. President’s life in broad daylight demonstrates his deranged disposition. In unelaborated language, he was a madman that threatened his people, the surrounding region, and peaceful lands abroad.

But hesitance remains. Both conservatives and radical liberals point toward current unrest and violence in Iraq as a reason to exit, abandoning the task at hand.That is fine. If I am to support this war,then I need to defend our current situation, including the consequences of the troop surge. I do not (because I cannot) deny the recent inflammation of U.S. casualties. Nor do I ignore the increase of attacks on U.S. allies in the region. From these trends, talking heads and pundits alike push for the termination of a U.S. presence in Iraq.

But their syllogism could not be more misconceived. To argue that fighting terrorism causes more terrorism is circular logic. Are we really to believe that the root cause of terrorism is the resistance to it? In that case,how are peaceful nations ever to combat these heinous foes?

Victory means denying al-Qaeda and its supporters political, social and economic dominance. It also means supporting those groups,namely the Kurds,which have made great strides in establishing secular autonomies.

We must internalize reality.Certain religious and ideological groups want Americans dead. And they will stop at absolutely nothing to carry out their radical thoughts. I agree, the war has had its missteps, failures, and oversights. Certainly the way the initial justification was presented to the American people calls for some form of inquest, which I would adamantly support.

But these grievances should not blind us to the unfortunate circumstances that pervade our world. Extremists pose a grave danger to our future way of life. And the fact that we are responsible for their rise to power should give us charge to take them down. It is time to grasp the buck and grasp it tightly.