I’ve had several comments in the past which draw the following conclusions: bin Laden was in Afghanistan, so we had no business going into Iraq; We have increased terrorism and the goal should be to reduce terrorism.
The most unstable area of the world right now is the Asian subcontinent. This includes India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and the Middle East. This area is unstable because of the disenfranchised populations and fundamentalist Islam. I don’t think there is any argument about that. And the US didn’t cause it. As a nation we’ve done some stupid things, but this one isn’t our fault. And don?t blame our support for Israel. Most of the people in these countries couldn?t find Israel on a map.
But we have to deal with it for our own security. The UN cannot, and would not even if they had the authority and power. They have neither.
Let’s go back to September 10, 2001. We have forces stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, primarily to protect those two nations and preserve free trade in oil. The Saudis don’t much care for us, and the feeling is mutual. But we have the military power to protect them, and they have the largest oil reserves in the world. Kuwait is similar.
If you look at the map, where would be the most logical place to base our forces in the area? I would say that the head of the Persian Gulf is the best strategic location–Kuwait and NE Saudi Arabia. In the past we had applied diplomatic pressure on Saudi Arabia to end their support of radicals. Like other diplomatic efforts not backed up by power, it failed. We needed a base in the region, so we had little leverage to force any change. We need a base in that area, and we need to break the hold the Saudis have on us because we could not prosecute a war on terrorists with troops in Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan and India (not really visible in this map) have had a running conflict since Great Britain pulled out of India and Pakistan was created. In all fairness to the British, Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) were formed to provide a home for the Muslims separate from the Hindus of India. Of course, there is always a merging of cultures in what becomes a border area, and so it is with Kashmir. India is relatively stable. Pakistan never was. Both have nukes. For the last 20 years I have believed this was where WWIII would begin. Perhaps it has.
Iraq is funding Palestinians who like to blow up Israelis. They also provide safe haven for known terrorists, and (at the minimum) turn a blind eye to terrorist training within their borders.
Syria has occupied Lebanon for two decades. They also harbor Palestinian terror organizations which have open offices in Beirut and Damascus. Syria is also home to the largest Palestinian refugee camps. They do not allow Palestinians to wander freely in the country. These are little more than internment camps which feed the animosity toward Israel.
Jordan sits in the middle. No oil. Little influence.
Dubya is elected in 2000 and takes office in 2001. Bush came into the Presidency with little interest in playing World Leader. He showed no inclination to get involved in anything other than the longest-running peace process ever–Israel and the Palestinians. He had an economy on the decline, and wanted to get his education plans in operation. He went so far as to partner with Ted Kennedy in an attempt to build bridges across the divide. Ted played nice for a week or two.
September 11 changed all that.
The Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden. No surprise. Bush sent in the troops, although not nearly as many as some folks wanted. From Day One, news broadcasts and articles whined about how we didn’t send in a large enough force. There was talk of quagmire and Vietnam and the Soviet failures in Afghanistan. Three weeks later, it was all pretty much over.
I think many Americans expected that to be the end of it all. But Bush had made it quite clear that regimes that supported terrorists were future targets. The four most prominent are Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
We pulled all our forces from Saudi Arabia. This gave us the freedom to operate as we saw fit. We offered Saddam several more chances to disclose his programs as required by the cease-fire accord from 1991, and numerous UN resolutions since. The concern was his support for terrorism might lead him to provide nasty things to the terrorist groups for use against us. And everyone was sure he had them and was willing to use them or provide them to others. Anyone who says otherwise now is lying. The time had come for a reckoning.
“But we took emphasis away from finding bin Laden, and that should be our main goal!” Congratulations. You think just as Saddam did. Surprise!
Osama bin Laden is now a non-entity. He is probably already dead. If not, his publicized death or capture would simply provide his followers with a martyr or subject of kidnappings and murders to gain his release. Whether we ever get him or not is irrelevant in the larger picture. Bush would certainly like to take him out, but Americans would think, once again, that this war is over if that happened.
Iraq is an ideal location for prosecuting the war on terrorists, and Saddam’s removal is a wonderful side benefit.
As Bush 41 ended conflict with Iraq in 1991, many decried our failure to put an end to Saddam at that time. I concur. Unfortunately, the stated goal, and the UN mandate, was to get Iraq forces out of Kuwait and nothing more. In fact, that very fact is one reason we were so successful. Most people, including Saddam, expected US forces to simply try to push Iraqi forces out. They didn’t expect us to sweep around behind through Iraqi territory. Even my cadets at USAFA were surprised when I told them this was how we would do it, then acclaimed me as a military genius when it happened. I wasn’t, but I could read a map.
Had Bush 41 sent troops on to Baghdad, the entire world would have reacted just as they have during this fight. We would have heard about exceeding the mandate, and unilateralism. Nobody else, especially the Saudis, wanted Saddam deposed. They just wanted him spanked. People today who say we need UN approval are many of the same folks who thought we should have taken out Saddam at the time. Right now, it just isn’t convenient for them.
Now take another look at the map. Pakistan has settled down. That government, although not our most ardent supporter, is providing assistance at great peril to its current President. Saudi Arabia has had to revise its domestic policies. Syria is certainly feeling the heat. Iran, which has a large population of young people who are not particularly happy with the current political structure, is facing some tough decisions. And Yassir Arafat is isolated, with nobody interested in helping him except the French.
If only we had a united front here at home, much of the uncertainty in this area would be eliminated. Right now, no change will happen in any of these places as they await the results of our election in November. But that election would mean little to affairs in the region if there were unanimity of purpose here. Iraq is key to the strategy of eliminating supporters of terrorism. We are not looking to reduce terrorism, but to eliminate its supporters and the conditions which cause the philosophy to grow. It is not a three-hour job. It will take time. Not every terrorist must be killed, but the mentality can be.
It never will be as long as there are people in this country willing to berate the President for doing what needs to be done. Afghanistan was the first step. Iraq the second. There will be more whether Bush is reelected or not. The issue is whether we wait to be hit again in hopes that it doesn?t happen, or attack first knowing it will happen eventually if we wait.
And I would rather see things change peacefully. They will, but only if we keep pressure applied, with a unified policy at home.
