Posted by
Michael on Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:31:43 PM
This article was written a month ago, and of course in this ever changing world, much of what I talk about in it has changed. Anyway, the article never saw the light of publication so read it and let me know what you think.
In many ways, it appears the world is unraveling. A shaky ceasefire stands in Lebanon, with neighboring Syria uncooperative and Hezbollah chanting victory. Iran continues to shrug off worldwide concerns about its uranium enrichment. Japan is moving towards re-militarizing itself in order to defend itself in case North Korea throws caution to the wind.
Oil prices continue to skyrocket. While signs point to Afghanistan enjoying a level of stability and progress that no one would have predicted during the days of the Taliban, the death toll continues to mount in Iraq and the American people are concerned that they are stuck in a Vietnam-like quaqmire.
It’s easy now to point the finger at President Bush. In the minds of many people, he took over from Bill Clinton peace and stability and responded by acting like a cowboy, starting wars, destroying diplomatic relations and squandering the surplus. Bush obviously got us into this mess, right?
The facts tell a different story.
It’s often said that the Bush Administration wanted “regime change” in Iraq since they got into power in 2001. George Bush himself said that regime change was always official policy. Critics such as former Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill have taken this to mean that Bush misguided American policy in an obsession to oust Saddam Hussein.
The fact is that regime change in Iraq was US policy since 1998, when Saddam Hussein kicked weapons inspectors out of Iraq. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which was signed by President Clinton stated as much.
In a statement he made upon the passing of the Iraq Liberation Act, Bill Clinton uses much of the same language Bush uses when talking about the universality of democracy and freedom:
“The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.”
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a continuation of this policy in a post-9/11 context. While not in any way involved in the attacks of 9/11, the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein had offered sanctuary to known terrorists, including deceased insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Abdul Yasin, a suspect in the first World Trade Center bombing.
Hussein also provided aid to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and his government was the only one in the world to openly celebrate the attacks of 9/11. When you combine this with the fact that in early 2003, no one really knew what Saddam Hussein had in regards to weapons of mass destruction, the case that the Bush administration concocted the Iraqi threat starts to unravel.
Iraq now is a central front in the war on terror. It is not something abstract that we can just leave to its own devices. Instead of pointing fingers and engaging in an obsession with politically hurting President Bush, we should try our hardest to make sure that Iraq becomes a stable, democratic society and not a launching pad for future terrorist attacks.