Originally posted by ThAnswr
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, the decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq were anything but unpopular. In both instances, the support for the war was around 80%.
Now, we can certainly differ as to whether or not this administration massaged the intelligence over WMD's, but what we can be certain about is that this administration knew full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. This administration also knew full well that a sizable majority of the public believed Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in 9/11 and did nothing to correct that misconception because it suited the administration's purpose.
A lie of ommission is still a lie. To withold the truth because it suits your purpose is a lie.
The decision to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan was certainly popular - the decision to go to war in Iraq was much less so.
Any president who makes the decision to commit our troops to harm's way does so with the certain knowledge that 'war is hell' and that fatalities occur and mistakes will be made. There is no perfect war - nor is there a 'sensitive' war.
But the question I think that needs to be answered is === Why did we go to war with Iraq ? Here is my answer:
1) Global terrorism exists - and it has the religious mission to kill all infidels, to convert the world to fundamentalistic Islam or destroy those who refuse. I ask you to take a globe and put your finger on the spot where you think the center of this radical thought exists. If you put it anywhere but somewhere in the Middle East, then you have basic problems that I am not prepared to discuss.
2) We are at war with this evil force - war was declared on us on 9-11 in a more unmistakeable way than any declaration from any government entity. Unfortunately there is not a single country, or coalition that we can "defeat" and sign a peace treaty with, to end this war. It will be a long and bloody struggle, lasting decades. The only way to conceive of "winning" this war is to eventually change the hearts and minds of the general public in the area. Until then, we have to stamp out local eruptions, keep the perpetrators on the run, cut off their support, prevent them from being able to train at their leisure, and kill them wherever and whenever they appear.
3) Who are the major enemy threats in this war? - If one examines the Middle East, several facts are fairly apparent. In 2001, there were four militarily significant nations in the area = Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and Egypt. Five if you count Israel, but they are on our side. Afghanistan was no military threat to our forces, but was the location that Al Qaeda had chosen as their organizational center. Of the four real 'enemies,' Eqypt was the only truly sane nation - Pakistan had recently been overtaken by a military coup, Iran continued to be the funding source for the fundamentalist Islamists, and Iraq was under the control of Saddam, a certified mad-man.
The very real accomplishments of the Bush administration have been overlooked by the general public and the media in particular. Pakistan - who possessed nuclear weapons - was one of the allies of Afghanistan. Now they are our ally, at least from a governmental point of view. Their nukes are out of the equation as a threat we must face. This was a MAJOR achievement of - guess what - DIPLOMACY. The Bush administration converted Pakistan from an enemy nation to an ally without bloodshed. And this achievement is all the more remarkable when one realizes that the vast majority of Pakistani citizens are still sympathetic to the Taliban. Much of the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus is staffed by personell who are sympathetic to our enemies. But this DIPLOMATIC victory of the Bush administration is what allowed us to wage the initial war on Afghanistan - we could not have done so without the cooperation of Pakistan.
Also, Eqypt has been taken out of the equation as a potential enemy - by DIPLOMATIC means. This leaves Iran and Iraq as the militarily significant nations to be dealt with. Diplomatically if possible, but by war if necessary.
4) Why not just attack Afghanistan? - After all, that is where the Al Qaeda was 'located.' This would be the equivalent of treating the attacks of 9-11 as a "crime" instead of a declaration of war. Those who want to treat the 9-11 event as a crime do not understand the situation. To go only to Afghanistan, and try to "arrest" Bin Laden, would have been a woefully inadequate and short sighted respons to the war that was in fact being waged by the entire Islamist world on western civilization. This would have led to nothing more than an ever-increasing swirl of attack-response with the loss of more life. And more importantly, with the increased resolve of the enemy that they are winning.
5) Conduct war, not lawsuits - What we are facing since 9-11 calls for General Patton, not Perry Mason. To actually have a plan that calls for "massive response" to any "future attack" is the worst possible position. That position alone makes John Kerry unfit to serve as our president. That is the position of a lawyer, not a leader. What is required since 9-11 is to have a strategy based on total commitment to the eradication of the evil that attacked us - to wage constant, massive, and unrelenting war on the enemy in the most effective way possible, in whatever area that we feel is most advantageous to a victory.
6) Choose sides - when war is being waged, every nation on earth has one of three decisions to make - join with us and share the risk, fight against us and share the risk, or sit on the sidelines and hope to not get hurt. Those who choose to sit on the sidelines should have the decency to thereafter keep their silly mouths shut; we do not need to listen to anything they have to say; whether they are happy or sad makes no difference. Those who choose to be on our side and fight with us are the only ones whose opinion matters. This is no longer a debate society. War has been initiated. Victory is the only mission. Debate over trivial matters can wait until it is over.
7) What is the winning strategy? - Look again at the map of the Middle East in 2001 (Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq) and try to construct a strategy for attacking terrorists where they exist. Of course we could eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, but then what? Sit and wait for another 9-11 and then go after them again in a new location? <~~~~ this is the Kerry position and it is one that is irresponsible any leader to hold - it is a strategy for eventual defeat.
No - the winning strategy is to place our military forces squarely in the region where the enemy is located, to rapidly respond to new intelligence of where the enemy units are, to destroy any enemy cell found, to deny freedom of open movement for the enemy, to put pressure on those nations in the region who are covertly supporting the terrorists, to announce to the entire world - "we are serious about this - you better take it seriously too."
8) Why Iraq - First you have to accept the fact that the entire world thougt that Iraq possessed serious stockpiles of WMD - those who say otherwise now are lying to themselves - look it up - see what Kerry and Clinton and all the other nations in the world actually said. Strategy dictates that one must consider the threat that Saddam posed to any maneuver we made in the area. He could either attack our forces with WMD - or he could threaten to attack any nation in the area who supported our efforts - or he could attack Israel with WMD to throw the entire region into a more catastrophic situation. He could do this at any time.
No - the winning strategy for waging war was to eliminate Iraq as a player on the enemy side. This puts our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, effectively hemming in Iran who is the real major threat.
The defeat of Iran has to be the next step in our war on terror. We are now in position to make this happen. We are now in position to pursue more diplomatic avenues with Iran. We sit on both sides of their border with military force. Perhaps they will listen. If not, they are toast.
9) Casualties - war is hell - people die - people are maimed - mistakes are made - lives are uprooted. Our military is the most honorable force the world has ever seen. They risk their lives to conduct their mission is the most effective and humane way possible. I love those guys.
I am out of time for this session - but I will be happy to respond to any question about why Iraq was the logical choice for our ongoing war on terror. Or any other opinion I have posted. I will not respond to insults. Those I laugh at.
There is no substitute for victory.
