Today marks Five Years of Just War In Iraq

Cory Truax, Democrats, Iraq War, War on Terror

The War in Iraq turns 5-years-old today. In remembrance of that, I am re-releasing one of my first posts on this site entitled: The Justification for the War in Iraq On Trial. I have edited the post, though. First, this version provides my sources and documents my evidence. Second, this version is actually an argumentative paper I am turning in for a class in a few weeks. With that said, my case for the War in Iraq is as follows.

One of the defining issues of the modern generation has quickly become the War on Terror. At the center of that volatile debate stands the Iraq War. While the question concerning the War on Terror is its breadth and expense, the War in Iraq summons questions of legality and justification. The position the political Left asserts is that America’s invasion of Iraq was unjustified and executed under false premises. The argument opposing the war espouses the idea that the Bush administration lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and fabricated a connection between the Iraqi regime and terrorism.

Their position, however, lacks credibility in evidence and logic. First, the anti-Iraq War crowd ignores one full point of President Bush’s stated reasons for invading Iraq. The President’s argument for war was three-pronged, consisting of 1) Saddam Hussein’s brutality to his own people; 2) Saddam Hussein’s failure to account for WMD as well as violating United Nations resolutions concerning those weapons (Limbaugh 29); and 3) Saddam Hussein’s persistent support of terrorism (Hayes xxi). Iraq war supporters contend that the administration’s allegations were accurate, and the preponderance of evidence falls decisively on their side. Indeed, all three of the president’s cases are demonstrably correct. The questions of wisdom and effectiveness linger, but what should become clear in the following pages is that justice was not dealt disservice by the Iraq War.

The President’s first contention is also his simplest: Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant to his people. For evidence, one should peruse the October 1, 2006 edition of Time Magazine. In that issue, a Time journalist interviews former Saddam dissident and witness number one during Saddam’s trial, Ahmed Hassan Mohammed al-Dujaili (Bennett). The rebel relates his story of surviving seven of his brothers, all of whom, according to the rebel, were murdered by the Hussein regime. He further reports that during Hussein’s trial, the former dictator, using his loyalists, ordered an assassination attempt on him in an effort to keep him from testifying (Bennett).

To bolster the case further, one should read the testimonies at Saddam’s trial. The reader will be appalled at stories of rape, torture, murder, and even genocide (Sada 39). The evidence is, at the very least, compelling. But once again, little contention exists on this facet of the debate. Most parties agree that if any dictator deserved deposing, it was Saddam Hussein, and if any people deserved liberating, it was the Iraqi people. The suffering of the Iraqi populace is not enough to justify war, though. Imminent danger of mass devastation, however, may reach the justification standard.

The most contentious portion of the Iraq War debate is also the president’s second reason for war: weapons of mass destruction. The most appropriate first task in this debate is to define WMD. The term includes chemical weapons (CW) and biological weapons (BW) as well as nuclear weapons. The Bush administration never averred that the Hussein regime was in possession of nukes; however, the administration did articulate a sure belief that the country did hold CW and BW. Furthermore, intelligence reports affirmed the case for CW and BW but dismissed the possibility of nukes.

A relevant aside here would be to define “intelligence reports”. Seven intelligence agencies, including the British, Israeli, and French intelligence organizations supported the belief that Iraq had WMD (Limbaugh 30). United Nations Resolution 1441 declared all fifteen members of U.N. Security Council convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including also that Saddam had violated at least fourteen times U.N. Resolution 687, which required him to disclose his weapons’ status (Limbaugh 29). To be sure, American intelligence did not act unilaterally on this fact.

Of course, though, when coalition forces finally reached Baghdad, and all the major cities had been searched, no WMD materialized — although UN inspectors did find the components necessary to build CW and BW (Sada 249-250). That led to the question which has permeated the body politic for the past five years: where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Three theories arise from that question. One is that President Bush and other world leaders knowingly lied about WMD in Iraq to justify the war. Another is that President Bush, those other world leaders, and all their intelligence agencies simply were incorrect, and Saddam never had WMD. And finally, the truth may be that Saddam had WMD, but moved them while President Bush was asking the United Nations to sanction the invasion.

The first theory boasts little to no evidence and requires several assumptions. One such assumption is that President Bush — portrayed as an intellectual dolt in popular media — was able to concoct a fallacious story and succeeded in persuading men like British Prime Minister Tony Blair to affirm the lie (Limbaugh 235). One must also presume that the president had an ulterior motive for invading that was more valuable than his reputation, which he has summarily lost over the war. Unfortunately for the conspiratorial anti-war activists that advocate this view, no empirical evidence has surfaced to support it.

The second and third options appear much more plausible — the third proving most credible. Using the legal concept of corroborative testimony, one can reasonably judge a piece of information agreed upon by several intelligence agencies, all of which having divergent interests, reliable. Furthermore, the consensus on the presence of WMD was almost entirely universal. As noted, the United Nations joined worldwide intelligence agencies in believing Iraq had WMD. Republicans and Democrats domestically agreed that Saddam Hussein owned, had used, and may use again, weapons of mass destruction.

Pundits and observers can easily identify the Republican stance on WMD; however, some selective memory on the Democrat position seems to pervade the media. Anti-war Democrats should be reminded of their opinion on WMD before the March 2003 invasion. The most recent Democrat administration, Bill Clinton’s, is replete with claims of Hussein’s WMD. In 1998, President Clinton ordered a military air strike on what he called “Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons program.” He further said that, “He [Saddam] has already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons” (Limbaugh 14). Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright said in 1999 that, “Hussein has. . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction” (Limbaugh 15). Finally, Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berger said Saddam, “will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983” (Limbaugh 15).

But the Clinton administration officials were not the only Democrats to articulate the belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was dangerous. One of the war’s staunchest opponents now, Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, once called Iraq an “international outlaw”. Congressional Democrats Carl Levin, Tom Daschle and John Kerry all signed a letter in 1998 urging President Clinton to act decisively on Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction programs” (Limbaugh 15). Current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said before the Iraq invasion that “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction” (Limbaugh 15). (Watch video of some of these Democrats’ quotes)

And what may be the most convincing quote of all comes from the mouth of a president. Revisiting President Clinton on this debate, he said in a July 2003 interview on CNN that “People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted-for stocks of biological and chemical weapons” [emphasis added] (Sada 253).

No one should be confused: everyone thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Even with the broad consensus on WMD, though, the most compelling evidence emerged in a 2006 book by former Iraqi general Georges Sada (pronounced “Gyorg-gez”). Sada provides eye-witness testimony to accompany the corroborative testimony of the intelligence agencies regarding Iraqi WMD. Sada asserts that Saddam did have CW and BW, and that he used them on the Kurds in Northern Iraq (Sada 132). He narrates the story of the entire Iraqi weapons program, even including his firsthand account of the Iraqi military transporting CW and BW into Syria as well as destroying some weapons (Sada 259).

Students of the Iraq War can find a more detailed version of Iraq’s moving their WMD into Syria in a Newsmax column by Kenneth Timmerman. In that article, Timmerman recounts his interview with former deputy undersecretary of defense John Shaw who was tasked with tracking Iraqi WMD before the invasion (Timmerman). Timmerman quotes Shaw asserting, “They [Iraqi WMD] were moved by Russian Spetsnaz units out of uniform that were specifically sent to Iraq to move weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence” (Timmerman). Shaw’s testimony establishes a conceivable scenario that explains why coalition forces did not find WMD after the invasion.

More relevant evidence from former Iraqi officials has surfaced recently. Khidar Hamza’s book, Saddam’s Bomb Maker, exposes how Saddam procured the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds and further details Iraq’s chemical weapons depot. Hamza also clarifies Iraq’s uranium enrichment progress. In Dr.Mahdi Obeidi’s book, The Bomb in My Garden, Dr. Obeidi writes about Saddam recruiting him to help formulate a variety of weapons — including nuclear weapons. With former Iraqi officials testifying to Saddam’s arsenal and plans, doubting WMD in Iraq and remaining intellectually honest grows increasingly more difficult to do.

Thus, the president’s first two charges against Iraq, brutality and possession of WMD, feature convincing evidence for their validity. His last accusation, however, has been almost as controversial as the second. Nevertheless, just as with the WMD question, the preponderance evidence fosters more confidence in the administration’s position.

The question is simple: did Saddam Hussein support terrorism? The most comprehensive source on this topic is Stephen F. Hayes’s 2004 offering, The Connection. Space does not permit an in depth analysis of Hayes’s evidence to the affirmative, but a brief summary would be valuable. For example, according to Hayes, Osama Bin Laden’s Taliban and the Hussein regime contacted one another concerning asylum for the world’s most wanted terrorist twice (Hayes 114). Iraq allowed senior al Qaeda officer Abu Musab al Zarqawi to operate openly in Baghdad and even gave him medical attention charged to the state (Hayes 173-174). American and Israeli intelligence reported that al Qaeda and Iraqi officials convened several meetings all over the Middle East (Hayes 42, 65-66, 101, 103).

All of that evidence, albeit, specifically connects Iraq to September 11th perpetrators, al Qaeda. Hayes also presents broader evidence of Hussein’s government funding and housing terrorists at large. A prime example of Hussein’s accommodating wanted terrorists comes from Abu Abbas. Abu Abbas led the high-jacking of the Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro, in 1985 and killed several Americans and Jews on board. Saddam Hussein extended safe haven to Abbas until American forces found him hiding in Baghdad in April 2003 (Hayes 37). Hussein also allowed Palestinian Liberation Front and Taliban terrorists to live in Iraq (Hayes 125). Abdul Rahman Yasin, the terrorist who created the bomb for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, also found a friend and a home in Iraq (Hayes 178).

Hayes has demonstrated thus far Iraq reaching out to al Qaeda and housing known terrorists, but Iraq continued its support of terrorism with monetary resources. Hayes reported a verified transmission of $20,000 per year from Iraq to Pilipino terrorist group Abu Sayyaf since 2001 (Hayes 155). Moreover, the Hussein regime was negotiating support for a Ugandan terrorist group before the U.S. invasion (Hayes 156-157). Indeed, the evidence posits that Saddam Hussein fostered relationships with al Qaeda, housed terrorists, and funded terrorists groups worldwide.

The case is clear. The president presented three arguments, and all three prove true. Was Saddam Hussin brutal to his people? Absolutely, no contention exists on that point. Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? According to the United Nations, Congressional Democrats, seven intelligence agencies, a former high-ranking Defense Department official and former Iraqi officials, the answer is clear and is in the affirmative. Furthermore, those Iraqi officials provide a reasonable alibi explaining the absence of those WMD upon the invasion. Was Saddam Hussein actively supporting terrorists? Through meetings, extension of asylum, and funding, Saddam Hussein proves guilty of that offense as well. The administration’s rationale is unassailable; the administration did not mislead America into war.

Now, the truthfulness of the arguments has been established. Nevertheless, whether the accurate allegations justify war is another question. Many of history’s philosophers have attempted to define a just war. Consensus has been difficult to attain. As best as the modern American public can judge, though, America has waged the Iraq War under veritable premises. Whatever the requirements are for a war to be just, factual reasons must be a central pillar. Therefore, while the justification, wisdom, and effectiveness of the invasion remain in limbo, the grounds under which the war originated are indisputable.

Bibliography

Bennett, Brian. “Saddam’s Revenge”, Time Magazine, 1 October 2006.

Hamza, Khidar. Saddam’s Bomb Maker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda. New York: Simon &Schuster, 2001.

Hayes, Stephen F. The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America. New York: HarperCollins Publishing, 2004.

Limbaugh, David. Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing Inc., 2006.

Obeidi, Mahdi. The Bomb in My Garden: The Secret’s of Saddam’s Nuclear Mastermind. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.

Sada, Georges. Saddam’s Secrets: Sada: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein. Brentwood, TN: Integrity Publishers, 2006.

Timmerman, Kenneth. “Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam’s WMD,” www.newsmax.com, 19 February 2006.

Please Share This Story!

Cory Truax @ March 19, 2008