U.S. 2003 Iraq Invasion? Justified! But This Time…?

Saddam Hussein was a national security threat to the United States and the U.S. had legitimate reasons for invading Iraq in 2003, but America should not fight in Iraq now since it doesn’t have the leadership, the will or the strategic reasons to do so.

Allegations that Bush lied or the intelligence community was entirely wrong about Hussein having weapons of mass destruction have become so common that they now are accepted as facts—even by those on the right. Yet they aren’t true.

Jim Lacey wrote an article and a blog post for National Review Online in 2011. Both are worth reading. He wrote the following in his article, “Saddam: What We Now Know:”

When American tanks smashed into Baghdad, Saddam had already completed construction of an anthrax production facility, which was a week away from going live. If it had been permitted to go into production, this one facility could have produced ten tons of weaponized anthrax a year. . . .

Anthrax, however, was far from the only WMD Saddam was actively researching and working assiduously to acquire. He also had teams working overtime to create a stockpile of some of the most deadly biological weapons possible. Several years ago, the press had a field day when two suspected mobile bio-labs, presented at the U.N. as evidence of Saddam’s continuing WMD development programs, actually turned out to be weather-balloon stations. That same press, however, then ignored the fact that postwar investigators found five actual mobile bio-labs in and around Baghdad. One of these labs was discovered in a mosque, which had been placed off-limits to prewar U.N. inspectors. Another was found in Baghdad’s Central Public Health Laboratory. One can imagine the anguished cries from the Left if we had bombed what the Iraqis claimed was a public-health facility. Saddam even had a huge bio-warfare production facility masquerading as the Samarra Drug Company. This facility would have been capable of producing up to 10,000 liters of deadly pathogens a year. It was less than a month from going into production when the invasion of Iraq began. If this plant had turned its attention to botulinum toxin, it could have produced enough in a few months to wipe out the world. Again, how would bombing a plant that Saddam would claim was producing life-saving drugs have played in the media?

Lacey had much more to say on the subject—all based on official government reporting.

Therefore, I believe the U.S. had legitimate reasons to invade Iraq in 2003 (even as I utterly condemn nation building). So why don’t I support U.S. involvement in Iraq now?

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) controls parts of Iraq and might temporarily overtake Baghdad and some other heavily Shia areas. Civil war could break out and Iraq might even split into multiple nations. But ISIL won’t conquer all of Iraq. In fact, ISIL is already experiencing problems in advancing.

Furthermore, ISIL is getting its power from a mix of Sunnis (Baathists, Sunni tribesmen, support from Saudi Arabia, etc.) and they don’t agree with the fundamental goals of the terrorist group. These other Sunnis eventually will turn on ISIL.

Then there is the problem of the Iraqi armed forces running from a fight. Why should U.S. troops again die for Iraqis when they aren’t willing to die for themselves? Also, how is it that a reported 60,000 Iraqi troops fled while civilians are now supposedly signing up to fight? Something is seriously wrong when those specifically trained for war flee even as civilians itch for it.

On top of all this, the U.S. has neither the leadership nor the will to fight and win wars any longer—not for anything good, at least. Current civilian and military leadership is in the midst of celebrating sodomy. And leadership embraces other insane things as well, such as the idea that so-called climate change causes terrorism. Do we really want these people to “do something” in Iraq? What did they do when everyone demanded they “do something” about the Taliban holding Bowe Bergdahl hostage?

I support monitoring and killing jihadists that leave the Saudi-Iranian War and attempt to move their terror to other parts of the world. And I would even support killing everyone and destroying everything in the Saudi-Iranian War if that were possible. But that cannot happen in our progressive world. Americans who want justice for what happened in Benghazi can’t even talk about that without other Americans accusing them of “Islamophobia.” So what makes anyone think the U.S. can solve a Sunni-Shia war in Iraq?

People can continue debating the wisdom of invading Iraq in 2003 if they want but it doesn’t erase the fact that there were legitimate reasons for doing so. However, there is no reason to further our involvement in Iraq today. Half of Americans hate the U.S. and undermine any attempt to do the right thing. Nothing good can come from the current U.S. leadership sending more troops to fight in a nation where we didn’t want to win the first time.

Image: Courtesy of: http://msmonterossosfacebookpage.wikispaces.com/Saddam+Hussein

image

Paul Hair

About the author, Paul Hair: Paul Hair is an author and national security/intelligence expert. He writes fiction and nonfiction under his own name and as a ghostwriter. He provides his national security and intelligence insight as a freelance consultant. Connect with him at http://www.liberateliberty.com/. Contact him at paul@liberateliberty.com if you are interested in his professional services. View all articles by Paul Hair

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment