Very frightful that such things happen in the bastion of democracy. On another note, here is a OP-ED:
Doubts about Iraq invasion persist one year later
Friday, March 19, 2004 - OUR OPINION
ONE year after the American-led coalition invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein from power there is little doubt that his fall was a tangible benefit of the hostilities. Beyond that, though, one has to seriously question whether the Bush administration's primary stated objective of the war, that is, making the world safer from terrorism, is a mission that has been accomplished.
When up to 300,000 allied troops began their assault of Iraq one year ago today, the White House touted the military campaign as an extension of the war on terrorism and claimed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Aside from the fact that no WMD's have been found in Iraq the administration's focus on Iraq robbed resources from the need to neutralize al-Qaida and its associates, who are the world's most threatening agents of mass destruction.
The administration should have redoubled its efforts to capture Osama bin Laden and his minions after U.S. forces toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and bin Laden slipped away. Instead, the White House found Iraq a convenient target for venting its frustrations -- and diverting attention from its failure to capture the father of the Sept. 11 horrors.
But the humbling of Saddam has come with a heavy price for the United States in the form of frayed relations with several of our traditional allies, continuing terrorist attacks, and 566 dead American soldiers -- including 428 since the president declared major combat was over May 1.
The president characterized the war against terrorism as one that demanded declared allegiances of being either for us or against us. Understandably, most nations have managed to find common cause with the administration against terrorism and few have been eager to line up against Washington -- although many have expressed their differences with the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive force. On the other hand, unfortunately more and more people around the world have turned against the United States, particularly since the White House decided to circumvent the United Nations and invade Iraq.
As the murderously effective devastation unleashed in Madrid's rail stations last week and Wednesday's deadly hotel bombings in Baghdad most recently attest, terrorism has broadened its scope, in spite of -- and perhaps because of -- the invasion of Iraq.
And while there has been much progress in rehabilitating and improving Iraq's infrastructure the country remains a daunting socio-economic project littered with political minefields. As a result, Iraq will likely require a stabilizing commitment from U.S. troops for years to come.
Even an administration with a go-it-alone penchant now recognizes the urgency of getting international cooperation to deal with Iraq -- and going back to the more pressing matter of combating terrorism. Regrettably, the White House didn't seize the synergy of nations that was there for the taking a year ago had it allowed U.N. weapons inspectors to continue their work instead of rushing into conflict.
In that respect former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix was poignantly correct in comments he made Wednesday at UC Berkeley. In assuming allegations of American and British bugging of U.N. offices extended to his own, he said, "I just wish they had listened to what we said."
theargusonline.com |
