Justifying the war in Iraq

Justification of Operation Iraqi Freedom is once again a hotlycontested topic.

President Bush’s speech to the U.N. General Assembly threeweeks ago led to ongoing debates in Congress concerning the $87billion requested for continued military efforts in Iraq andAfghanistan.

Presently, the tide favors those who opposed the war. Few aresatisfied with the progress of Iraq reconstruction, and guerrillatactics continue to claim American lives. Critics argue that theUnited States invaded without a developed post-war plan, while theadministration claims that their plan underestimated the level ofanarchy and squalor in Iraq.

Decades of ruthless dictatorship has left the nation with anantiquated and crumbled infrastructure, so slow progress isexpected.

However, the Bush administration should have had sufficientinformation to comprehend the level of dilapidation in Iraq.Claiming to be unpleasantly surprised is inadequate.

The increasing casualty figures are also concerning manyAmericans. Every day, another skirmish involving Baath loyalistsand U.S. troops is reported.

Besides inflicting unimaginable anguish upon the families ofcivilian and military victims, guerrilla tactics disrupt ouroptimistic notion that all Iraqis would welcome American forceswith outstretched arms.

Examine Iraq more carefully, however, and a promising pictureemerges.

Coverage of post-war Iraq is a prime example of the famedjournalism adage, “if it bleeds, it leads.” Themedia’s infatuation with violence allows opponents of the warto suggest that Iraqi attacks on Americans are unexpected andwidespread.

But, these incidents are extremely isolated, and militarypersonnel undoubtedly expected some residual backlash fromSaddam’s followers. No promises were ever made that U.S.soldiers were completely out of harm’s way.

Eighty-five soldiers have died during attacks since May 1, whenmajor combat was declared finished.

The loss of nearly 100 heroes is immensely upsetting andunfortunate, but many opponents exaggerate the truth by drawingparallels with Vietnam or otherwise suggesting that America islosing control in Iraq.

The reality is that only an infinitesimal minority of Iraqis areattacking U.S. forces (didn’t we already learn this lessonabout gross stereotyping in the wake of Sept. 11?).

Meanwhile, admirable progress has been accomplished.

Granted, the Iraqi people are still living in deplorableconditions, with a 50 percent unemployment rate and rollingblackouts throughout the nation.

But compared to their pre-war state, reasons for optimism areobvious.

Engineers work tirelessly to repair an antiquated and ransackedpower system, and as a result, one-third of Iraq’s 8,000megawatt production capacity is now operational.

Safe drinking water flows through recently stagnant pipes.Children are freely attending schools and playing soccer in publicfields. Unemployment figures are steadily improving, and as oilproduction continues to recapitulate, the poverty rate willdecrease dramatically.

Although few reports ever make the connection, slow progress inIraq is a direct result of the same loyalists responsible forattacks on troops.

Federal judge Donald E. Walter, who recently toured Iraq forthree months, noted, “The [oil] pipeline between Kirkuk andBayji has been repaired, although the Baathists keep trying todisrupt it.”

Additionally, these henchmen have severely impeded the turnoverof Iraq sovereignty via repeated assassination attempts on membersof the Iraq constitution committee.

And yet, President Bush is somehow blamed for the lack ofprogress in fully handing over the reigns of Iraq to itscitizens.

Narrowly focusing on the setbacks in Iraqi reconstruction alsoconveys a sense of disapproval to American forces, who make greatsacrifices to assist Iraqis.

Many U.S. troops express amazement in the difference betweentheir experiences and those reported by the media. “To hearthe media tell it, America has done nothing to improve …security, and the Iraqi public is volatile and seekingrevenge,” scoffs Marine Eric Knapp in a letter written fromNajaf and published in the New York Post. He and countless othersoldiers write about extraordinary progress and overwhelming Iraqigoodwill in their letters.

Above all, the war is still easily justifiable for the solereason that Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Freneticanti-war demonstrators censure Bush as a war monger and terrorist,but the only two alternatives they could provide were leavingHussein in power or using non-military tactics to remove him.

Both possibilities were ludicrous.

Saddam was a ruthless dictator, and his removal from power couldnot have come sooner.

In addition to murdering hundreds of thousands of citizens,Hussein’s actions and selfish indulgence ensured that nearlyevery Iraqi would live in squalor for decades. He strengthenedIraq’s military and oil industry only to benefit himself, andhe brutally assassinated innocent victims, including children.Reports of his evil methods — such as watching his enemiesbeing eaten alive by dogs — are well documented bydefectors.

Many anti-war individuals agree with this assessment of Husseinbut believe less aggressive methods could have removed him frompower. To initiate a pre-emptive strike, they say, wasunacceptable.

Alas, the world has employed generous patience when dealing withSaddam in the past, and he reciprocated with deception, treachery,and continual noncompliance. For 12 years following the first GulfWar, containment, sanctions, and inspections failed to generate anypositive results. Hussein has disregarded no less than 16 bindingU.N. resolutions. Claiming that these non-military actions wouldhave any effect in the future is naive.

The notion that the war is unjustified because no weapons ofmass destruction have been located is equally fallible. Hussein isa proven liar in weapons matters, having balked at his promise to”get rid of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons andprograms, to scrap long-range ballistic missiles, and to stopbrutalizing his people” after the first Gulf War.

Here’s a story that anti-war protesters don’t enjoyhearing. During the 1990’s, Saddam denied having produced VXgas, a deadly nerve agent. Following an irrefutable discovery, headmitted to making 200 liters, but a later U.N. inspection showedthat at least 3,900 liters had been produced in Iraq.

With such evidence, claims that Hussein had no weapons of massdestruction before Operation Iraqi Freedom require either anoverzealous contempt for America’s president or a blindoptimism in the nature of Iraq’s former dictator.

The inability to locate weapons indicates not that Saddam wastruly innocent, but rather, that too much time was wasted in afutile attempt at appeasing the United Nations President Bushsigned the congressionally approved war resolution on Oct. 16,2002, yet military actions were delayed until March 19, 2003 sothat Hussein could have one last chance at compliance. Theever-defiant Saddam had no intentions of changing his ways, but hecertainly appreciated a five – month opportunity to ensure thatthese weapons were out of sight.

America made a sound and brave decision to liberate the peopleof Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Our greatest mistake was hesitating toincur the censure of the United Nations. While we fruitlesslystruggled to win U.N. approval, Saddam was undoubtedly hiding— or worse, exporting — his stockpile of weapons.

In the end, the countries determined to oppose the war did sovehemently, and thus, delaying our invasion to dance with theUnited Nations yielded few benefits but enormous costs.

Nevertheless, the world is a safer place without Saddam Husseinin a position of power. The vast resources of Iraq will no longeraid terrorism, and the threat of Middle East hegemony has vanished.The welfare of Iraqis has undoubtedly improved and will continue toincrease.

Soon, these long-suffering people will fully embrace their newfreedom and prosperity, and the war-opinion tide will again havechanged.