The lack of adequate defense for the Iraq war by conservatives and the Bush Administration has prompted the left to step up their misguided criticisms of a just and necessary battle. Support for the war has waned in the polls and hurts America's ability to effectively fight the war on terror; a fight dependant upon the result of the battle of Iraq. It is important to remember not only our purpose in staying the course, but how we found ourselves on it. If we do not, the entire world will suffer from the impotence that the lefts "honest assessment" of the war will bring.
The Battle for Iraq was not the brain child of Dubya and his alleged clan of "neo-cons," but the culmination of over a decade of hostility, frustration, failed diplomacy, and a re-awakening of America's global importance. The 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement outlined numerous restrictions Saddam's regime had to comply with it to keep its power. If he violated the restrictions on pursuing or using WMD's, became a threat to its people or its neighbors, or working with terrorists groups, we could dissolve the cease fire agreement at our discretion and re-engage military action to enforce those restrictions.
Saddam's weapons programs, and desire to acquire greater offensive power evolved into a grave threat, coupled by his history of support terrorist's and terrorist networks. Hussein, according the David Kay weapons report released in October of 2003, had "a network of laboratories and safe houses" that could be used for WMDs. Kay also discovered a "prison lab complex" that would be used for testing Biological agents on humans (ergo, Iraqi citizens), along with biological organisms found in scientists homes. The report also verify' s President Bush's claim that Iraq was apart of a greater "axis of evil" in its attempts to obtain ballistic missile technology from North Korea between 1999-2002. The evidence of Saddam's weapons programs was complied long before 2003, however and their existence was acknowledged by President Clinton on several occasions. Most notably, Clinton cited there existence in 1998 when, without UN approval or the left's beloved "coalition," bombed a Sudanese Aspirin factory on the eve of his Grand Jury hearing.
It was well known Saddam funded Israeli suicide bombers, but his real goal was to influence a terrorist attack on the "Great Satan" of the United States. The 9/11 commission reported in 2004 that there had been several contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda, most notably a 1994 meeting with an Iraqi intelligence official and Mr. Bin Laden. No Bush administration official ever stated that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, but a 1993 FBI report noted that Hussein had assisted Al Qaeda in getting passports to bomb the World Trade Center. In 1998, a justice department indictment noted a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, including when it came to acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction. In the mean time, Saddam had also given sanctuary to Abu Nidal, and training facilities to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi after our invasion of Afghanistan in 2002. Iraq had been a breeding ground for a clash between the goodness of freedom and the evil of tyrannical terrorism at the request of Saddam's actions for well over a decade. We had been justified under our Ceasefire agreement to take action against him on several occasions. Yet, in spite the demonstration of the terrorists intentions through the bombings of our embassies, the kicking out of weapons inspectors in 1998, the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, the only action the Clinton administration would take was making removing the Saddam regime a "National Security" priority. It is no wonder terrorists didn't take our empty promises of "serious consequences" seriously- we never followed through.
This cue to step up the violence resulted in the deaths of 3,000 innocent people on 9/11. This tragedy proved we could never stand idle behind the rhetoric of diplomacy that only encouraged terrorists such as Saddam Hussein. Terrorism needed to be fought at its roots, not on our city streets. Societies such as Hussein's Iraq that keep power through torture chambers become a threat to the world when their society promotes and harbors terrorists. The "serious consequences" promised to Hussein by all seventeen violated UN resolutions needed to be implemented.
The left goes to great pains to paint a picture of President Bush "rushing" to war with Saddam. The opposite is true. President Bush recognized that the war on terrorism is a global war, one that affects every country in the world. He went to the United Nations to pursue two more UN resolutions: Resolution 1441 which sent inspectors back into Iraq, and another putting Iraq in a state of "material breech" and calling for the International Community to disarm Saddam. When campaigning for Resolution 1441, our State Department told the French delegation only to consider voting for this resolution if it would endorse one calling for war. France agreed, and then led the opposition against the U.S.'s calls for disarmament for fear of loosing the economic payoffs Saddam was giving them to oppose us. Yet the left still insists we could have done more at the UN. The deck was stacked against us. A corrupt organization with dictators pulling the strings is hardly the channel for peace we want it to be.
President Bush also took his case to the American people. The 1991 Ceasefire, and the National Security Strategy of removing Saddam put in place by the Clinton administration made a Congressional resolution redundant, but he did it anyways. Saddam now became a noted threat by senators such as John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman. It's no surprise that most of them changed their tune come election time, especially to secure an increasingly liberal Democratic presidential nomination. Once again, the deck was stacked against action and peace. The left contradicted the stances of its own party members to oppose the President and regain the White House. Thank God the American people knew better.
Iraq was essential geographically as well as politically to terror. Anyone with a map knows Iraq sits comfortably around Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The prospect of a free and democratic Iraq frightens the regimes around it. The "Great Satan" is no longer thousands of miles away, it has a friend in their next door neighbor. Thanks to the amazing progress Iraq has made in its elections and constitution, Libya has given up its weapons programs, and the seeds of democracy have begun to spread all through the Middle East. Iraqi democracy was necessary to disarm a brutal and untrustworthy dictator, and essential in winning the war on terror. The UN has proven through the inability to enforce its resolutions, and declaration of human rights that at present it is little more than a corrupted, dictator-run institution, dragging its feet at self-reform. The left of this country has proven it's willingness to endorse the same cut and run mistake that left our country disgraced after Vietnam. It's desire for political gain by discrediting the fastest and most successful war in American History is inaccurate, hypocritical, and sometimes borders on shameful. When it comes to the left and Iraq, that is THE "honest assessment."
Will Haun is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs, and the Eagle's conservative columnist.
