Apr 26 2008

A response to the assertion of “Why the Iraq war was necessary.”

Published by Gus at 11:28 pm under Iraq

I have documented each response, where necessary, with credible sources, so I hope that upon reading this, people can legitimately take a second thought about this war and whether or not it was truly needed. And if anyone has credible evidence that disproves anything I am writing, I am more than happy to look at it.

Reasons why the Iraq War was necessary & My Response

1. Iraq’s firing on US planes in the no-fly zones.

This is a true fact, and did occur with some frequency. However, I personally don’t believe that this is justification for launching an all-out, full scale invasion of a country. A limited military response could accomplish the goal of stopping these pot-shots from occurring without causing over

33,000 US casualties (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/) and over

150,000 83-90,000 documented Iraqi civilian casualties. (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)  Estimate of actual amount of casualties: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7180055.stm) *updated  4/28*


2. Iraq’s harboring of Al Qaeda.

This is a common misconception, allowed to fester by the Bush Administration and some of the media. This is no shred of evidence Iraq ever harbored or allowed Al-Qaeda to operate within its borders. There was never any cooperation between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. In fact, the evidence clearly shows the two did not like each other whatsoever.

  1. As of the war, in 2003, the State Department listed 45 countries in which al-Qaeda was active. Iraq was NOT one of them. http://web.archive.org/web/20030403220403/http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm

  1. A CIA report “found no clear evidence of Iraq harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” and that despite “a ‘purposely aggressive approach’ in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links… [the U.S.] Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed.” http://irrationallyinformed.com//pdfcollection/20040729_Kerr_Report.pdf

  1. What was going on was that Bush Administration was hyping assumptions that were untrue about Iraq. Richard Dearlove (then head of British foreign intelligence service MI6) wrote that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the US] around the policy” of removing Saddam Hussein from power. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html

  1. The Defense Department Inspector General’s report highlighted the role of members of the Iraqi National Congress in providing false intelligence about connections with al-Qaeda to build support for a U.S. invasion. The CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials at all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

  1. The idea that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks or any previous Al-Qaeda attacks was completely denounced and eviscerated by the the Presidential 9/11 Commission which noted that “no credible evidence” existed to support that idea. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263_2.html

  1. Even George Tenet, Bush’s CIA director said there was no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: “We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”

  1. Bush received on 21 September 2001 a classified Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), indicating the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that “there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.” http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm

  1. As stated previously, Saddam and Al-Qaeda were just about enemies. The 9/11 Commission stated in its report that bin Laden had been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. Those forces mostly operated in areas not under Saddam’s control. [9/11 Commission, p. 61]

I think there are enough sources there that should at least give one pause about the idea that Iraq and Saddam was harboring or even cooperating in any way with Al-Qaeda. Again, this idea was pushed by the Bush administration for some time, I just hope that people who may have thought this was true can realize that there is no supporting credible evidence for it.

3. The Al Qaeda threat to our Saudi Arabian allies.

Now, as I am sure people are aware, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were FROM Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq. For quite some time it has been evidenced that the version of Islam, Wahabism (also known as Salafiya) that is practiced in most of Saudi Arabia has given rise and justification to violent attacks by Muslims. Saudi Arabia has also been accused of helping to spread this form of Islam and funding radical mosques, madrasas and some charities that have been linked with terrorist activities.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21695.pdf

Saudi Arabia is an important front in the struggle because Saudis have provided leadership, financing, and ideological indoctrination to al-Qaeda members.

The Saudi ruling dynasty has made a Faustian bargain with the Wahhabi religious establishment in which it lavishly funds Wahhabi efforts to spread their fundamentalist brand of Islam in exchange for the Wahhabis turning a blind eye to the corruption and un-Islamic behavior of many members of the royal family.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/hl928.cfm

I do not believe Saudi Arabia has been a great ally, in fact I think they have more to blame for the 9/11 attacks then most would think. There is no evidence the Saudi government was involved, but the Islamic culture they bred figured heavily in the 15 Saudis who took part in the 9/11 attacks. None came from Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, as even President Bush finally admitted:

“No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th,” Bush said. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html

4. Saddam Hussein’s mass torture and killings of his own countrymen.

Obviously, no one can disagree with this fact. It is well-known and documented that Saddam did terrible things to those who opposed his regime. However, if this is being used as a justification to invade Iraq in 2003, then let me ask just who is next:

Kim Jong Il in North Korea?

Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe?

Hosni Mubarak in Egypt?

The Military Junta in Burma?

Sudan?

Syria?

Somalia?

Russia?

And please tell me, when do we start the invasion of China? I just don’t believe that this is a legitimate criteria to go to war. Horrible actions by Saddam and his government? Yes. I think we can all agree on that. But economic and other pressures can be used for such cases. And if this was a criteria, then we have got a lot more warring to get involved with all over the world.

5. Iraq’s disregard for required UN inspections.

It is clear that in the seven years after the first Gulf War, UN weapons inspector destroyed more weaponry than was destroyed during the war itself. In 1998, weapons inspectors were withdrawn by the UN so that the US could follow through on its planned bombing campaign due to the fact that Saddam was not being very cooperative. What followed was a lengthy and comprehensive strike on hundreds of targets in Iraq that significantly devastated Saddam’s military capabilities.

If one is referring to the inspections prior to the 2003 Iraq War, Saddam was fairly cooperative and the inspections were not allowed to be completed because Bush decided to have a war before they could be completed with a few more months’ time.

I have to say that, were the inspections allowed to be completed the satisfaction of the International Community, a case then could have been made that either war was not needed or it was needed, but at least there would have been no doubt that no weapons or weapons programs were found.

3 Responses to “A response to the assertion of “Why the Iraq war was necessary.””

  1. # wmwon 26 Apr 2008 at 11:49 pm

    I have a question on #4: I know Saddam was known to have killed masses in the past, but I am wondering, when? I have it in my head somehow that it was mostly like 20 years ago, but was this stuff continuing at the time we were considering war? Or was Saddam on his “better behavior” (still not very good behavior of course) after the Gulf War, thinking he was being watched more closely?

    Honest question, I don’t know much about this. Thanks.

  2. # Kendraon 28 Apr 2008 at 6:34 am

    I trust the following is not too harsh a reply:

    1. No-fly Zone/Iraqi deaths under Saddam:

    Perhaps war would be an unnecessarily severe response if Iraq’s firing on US planes in the no-fly zone were the ONLY reason we launched this full-scale operation. Since no one seems to be able to credibly dispute that Iraq has perpetrated a multitude of other heinous acts, both in the past and in more recent times under Saddam’s reign, then our country’s response does not seem to be out of order based on the totality of Iraq’s actions.

    War involves death. The first Gulf War was different from most in that the US lost relatively few lives, mainly due to the lack of close-combat situations encountered. Not every war will be that way. Look at any tally (put out by liberals or conservatives) of deaths per war, and you will see that 1) they happen; 2) a lot of them happen. It is sad, yes, but death happens in war.

    To clarify the statistics you presented, let me point out to other readers that those 33,000 US casualties include the 4,052 deaths to date, while the balance of that number is injured/wounded military. The first website you link to gives a breakdown of the US deaths per war, dating back to the Revolutionary War. A quick glance at that chart shows that the number of lives lost in this conflict is quite low compared to other wars of similar duration with close combat situations. Our military is doing an outstanding job.

    The second website you cite states that the 151,000 Iraqi casualties are those who “died violently” from 2003 to 2006. (Although your source article doesn’t state this, this house-to-house survey of found 1325 deaths from January 2002 through June 2006, 90% of which were reported as “violent”, including direct results of US military action, sectarian and insurgent assaults, along with the more common tragedy of violent crimes such as shootings, stabbings, etc. Those 1325 reported deaths were then taken as indicative of the overall death rate for the entire country via a method that even the authors agree is “subject to many biases, even in peacetime. In conflict situations, the estimation of the rate of death either from violence or from indirect causes has another level of complexity: since data collection is difficult, events may be clustered in small areas, and traditional models of adjustment do not apply.” They go on to state that the methodology used is viable when there is a stable population, among other factors; an occupied country at war most definitely does not have a stable population. Read the actual survey results here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/5/484.) It is also quite impossible to determine what portion of those 151,000 deaths were enemy fighters vs. “innocent” civilians. (“Innocent” meaning they may not have perpetrated horrifying acts themselves, but by their inaction they are guilty of allowing their country to become the tyrannically-led, violence-filled, chaotic nation it was.) Like I said earlier, war involves death.

    (A word of advice: when attempting to make scientific comparisons of data and statistics, make sure to compare the same things. Otherwise one runs the risk of appearing to simply skew the truth to support one’s own opinions, resulting in one’s future statements being discredited due to a lack of trust. In other words, the Chicken Little effect kicks in.)

    If Saddam were still in power, it is widely accepted that many more than 151,000 people would have been killed from 2003-2008 based on how many people lost their lives in the 24 years he reigned. That number is estimated somewhere between 1 and 2 million deaths (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html) and includes Iraqis who died as a result of Saddam’s violent regime, foreigners killed in Saddam’s unnecessary wars, and those who died preventable deaths (i.e., from sickness, starvation, and withholding of available/offered humanitarian assistance). Note that this number does not begin to include those tortured, injured, mutilated, raped, nor displaced.

    On a related topic, even if it were true that Saddam had shaped up and been acting with “better behavior” in recent years, it would still have been unethical to allow him to continue in a position of great leadership and power considering all the human rights atrocities alone attributed to him and his regime. Leaving him in power would have been tantamount to letting a serial killer walk free and handing him a loaded gun on his way out because the killer might be nicer in the future. God indicates in scripture more than once (for example, Matthew 25:24-30; Luke 12:35-48) that people in leadership have greater accountability than those under them due to their greater responsibility.

    2. Al-Qaeda’s Iraq ties:

    See: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/21/attack/main519350.shtml.

    These two refer to Iraq’s offers of protection to al-Qaeda operatives. While those offers were not necessarily accepted due to the widely reported reason that bin Laden wanted to follow his own plans rather than Saddam’s, the offer alone condemns the Iraqi government. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/feb/06/julianborger, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/27/iraq.alqaida

    Since our own USA appears on the State Department list you reference, one must wonder if the list is comprised of countries where al-Qaeda perpetrated terrorist attacks or if the list is all inclusive of every country that freely allowed al-Qaeda to “set up shop”. Since the website doesn’t specify, and the State Dept. doesn’t have such a list currently posted on their site, it may remain an unanswered question… Regardless, if our leaders had classified or sensitive information regarding a soon-to-be launched war they were not obligated to immediately post it on the web for all to see.

    As any student of history can doubtless attest to, just because two entities are “just about enemies” and do “not like each other whatsoever” they will often work together temporarily to reach a common goal or gain mutual profit.

    Unfortunately, many Americans do not seem to realize this, and it may be the most important point of all: even if the evidence we currently have is proven wrong in the future, we cannot afford to ignore credible, verified intelligence and avoid action out of fear, nor can we “undo” what has already occurred based on that intelligence.

    3. Al-Qaeda’s threat to Saudi Arabia:

    Apparently there has been either an accidental misinterpretation of what I wrote, or a purposeful twisting of historical facts and my earlier statements. I NEITHER REFERENCED NO IMPLIED A CONNECTION BETWEEN 9/11 AND EITHER IRAQ OR SAUDI ARABIA. (I strongly SUSPECT that there are ties between 9/11 and Iraq, but my suspicions are not counted among the facts I believe makes this current war a necessity.)

    I assumed a teacher of history would realize this was a reference to the November 13, 1995 events in Riyadh (followed by several more attacks on Saudi Arabia by al-Qaeda after the war began: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html). Although I obviously don’t agree with all (or even the majority of) the policies endorsed by Saudi Arabia, they are nevertheless a US ally (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/62644.pdf). As our ally, we can’t just look the other way or ignore it when they suffer an attack on us inside their borders. If our country allows attacks on us and our allies to slide, we will find ourselves in the ugly situation where more attacks occur while we have fewer allies behind us. Not a pleasant thought.

    4. “let me ask just who is next:
    Kim Jong Il in North Korea?
    Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe?
    Hosni Mubarak in Egypt?
    The Military Junta in Burma?
    Sudan?
    Syria?
    Somalia?
    Russia?”

    So many choices…
    After we are done in Iraq, were such decisions up to me, I would start by allowing our military time to build their strength back up while taking care of any pressing domestic situations (taking care of the plank in our own eye before going after our neighbors’ splinters). After that, I would determine which region seems to be the greatest threat (probably based on potential deaths, torture, etc.), both to the US and to its own citizens, and which ones we have the manpower and money to handle properly. Of course, it would be remiss to think we could overwork our military to the point where another war would be an unwise maneuver, even though it may be necessary at some point in the future. When the time comes, I think the fight could be handled better overall than Iraq has (i.e., let those experienced in military tactics determine which ones to use). As you mentioned, there are also other tactics to try first; when those fail (and they occasionally will), that is when our country should consider military action.

    In conclusion:

    We obviously have different opinions. Since those opinions seem to be based in incompatible worldviews and neither of us is inclined to change our belief systems (regardless of the truth and facts I presented today and could continue to do day after day), I feel no further obligation to waste my precious little free time arguing for no reason here. If anyone had serious inquiries (rather than a need to spout off spun news stories in an attempt to placate their own consciences), continuing this discussion might have been a meaningful undertaking, but, alas…

  3. # Guson 28 Apr 2008 at 11:10 pm

    I don’t find this a useless dialog at all, in fact it has provided an interesting point of view to consider. I don’t think I’ve cited any sources that are not credible, they have all been from government reports, investigations or fact based news stories, nothing from slanted or biased sites (other than the Heritage citation which is conservative). A few rejoinders to the previous comment:

    Let’s not forget that the US armed Saddam during the 1980s.

    Thankfully, one of the major reasons there have been so few deaths compared to Vietnam is the relative shortness of actual combat and mainly the advances in medical technology that has probably saved thousands who may have otherwise died of their wounds in an earlier age like the 1960s.

    It is hard to know how many Iraqis have actually died, but I have revised the source of that info to a place that actually tallies real deaths.

    I am in no way defending Saddam, but the fact is that the vast majority of deaths under his regime came prior to the first gulf war in 1991, during the war with Iran and his killing of Kurds. The estimate that “more than 151,000 people would have been killed from 2003-2008 based on how many people lost their lives in the 24 years he reigned” is unfounded as there is no way to project what happened in the 1980s to the completely different circumstances between 1998-2003. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but one has to admit that there wasn’t sectarian conflict or terrorists running around bombing thousands of innocents in the 1990s, which has been the case since 2003. Clearly the world is better off without him around but its skeptical as to whether more Iraqis would have died in the last 5 years if he was still in power.

    Interesting link in the previous comment about contacts between AL-Qaeda and Iraq in 1998. For the record, I never argued there was never any contacts. And I believe the fact lay themselves out even in that link that the two were mutually oposed to each other’s goals. Saddam was a secular ruler and felt threatened by Bin Laden’s group and Bin Laden wanted a Islamic state, not like secular Iraq.

    In any case no information has been provided that Iraq ever harbored Al-Qaeda within its borders.

    The problem the “intelligence” provided about the supposed threat from Iraq and/or implied links with Al-Qaeda is that the source of that intelligence has been completely discredited. It was wrong, made-up in many circumstances and absolutely dismissed by several investigations.

    I wasn’t sure what the reference to Saudi Arabia was, I see now. The attacks in 1995 were aimed at the US forces inside Saudi Arabia. Still not sure what that has to do with the war in Iraq since Al-Qaeda is based out of Pakistan, a supposed ally itself.

    I would love for all those in power in the countries I listed to be removed and democratic governments installed in their place. But I don’t see the US as the world’s policeman. We can’t just send troops all over the place because some dictator said something bad about us. The biggest threat to the US in its history was the Soviet Union. Never had a war with them, beat them through other means. Frankly, comparing some Iraqi threat to that is very small potatoes.

    The facts bear out that Iraq just was not much of a threat to the US, in particular. Didn’t have WMDs, no nuclear program at all, no harboring of Al-Qaeda, no missiles that could even reach Europe let alone the US. I just don’t get it. This war was fought for some reason, I just don’t know what it really was that Bush-Cheney had in his mind. Seriously, what was it? Or was he just paranoid, fearful, insane? We removed a horrible dictator from power, but at what cost?

    The men and women who have served in this war are to be commended for their service to this country and bravery for fighting the mission they were given. I just want the next President and all future presidents to have a real reason for going to war like this. In my mind there are reasons that justify a war: to prevent genocide or respond to an attack against the US, a NATO ally, or Israel. Making up a threat–like Iraq threatened the very existence of our country in some way, our livelihood, our freedoms and liberties–is just abominable.

    “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”
    Matthew 5:9

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.