Al Qaeda wouldn't have been in danger of taking control of Iraq had we not eliminated its previous strong man.
I suppose you'd also be against arresting a gang leader who had violated his parole and was engaged in his previous murderous criminal enterprises.
Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power in 1991 because any person of average intelligence recognized he wasn't going to behave, and that Iran was STILL going to be a threat with, or without, Saddam in power.
The man violated every term of the 1991 cease fire that permitted him to remain in power. And when a cease fire is materially breached, it defaults back to the previous state of hostilities.
What you are advancing as logic is as ridiculous as believing that Hitler would be satisfied with the Rhineland and/or the Sudetenland. Saddam CONTINUED to be a threat to regional stability. Saddam was directing his intelligence service to coordinate and carry out acts of terror against US personnel and interests. Saddam was undermining UN sanctions via the Oil for Food scandal and making a laughingstock out of the UNSC. And ULTIMATELY Saddam refused to fully disclose (or outright lied about) the gaps in information regarding his WMD programs.
There was more than sufficient "probable cause" to carry out the "suspended sentence" that his actions in 1990 justified with regard to his removal from power.
Could it have been done more efficiently? Was it a mistake to disband the Iraqi army? Should our plans have incorporated the tribal shayhks, rather than trying to undermine that traditional power? The answers to all of these are yes.
However, the necessity of removing Saddam was based upon the post-9/11 analysis that there were no longer any guarantees that WMDs would not be made available to willing terrorist groups.
And btw, after discovering in 2003 that Iran had been engaged in 17 year program to achieve a nuclear capability, we're taking the same stance with Tehran that we did with Saddam.
Regardless of the price, there's a vested interest in maintaining the Persian Gulf as a WMD free zone. It matters not if it's Iraq, or Iran, or any other country in the region. It's bad enough having Pakistan possessing Nukes.
You are like the man who sees weeds sprouting up on his lawn and pours gasoline on it and lights it on fire to kill the weeds.
Actually, I'm like a man who sees a raging range fire on the horizon heading his way and recognizes that we need to set a "controlled burn" in advance of that fire in order to defeat it.
That's exactly what we did by engaging and defeating Al-Qaida's forces in Iraq. We set a (un?)controlled fire, either by accident, or design, which forced the enemy to defend it's home turf or be humiliated. And it has worked (thus far).
One other thing you should think about. What was the nature of the conflict between Saddam and Iran? What were they fighting over? Iran was fighting over the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf, so necessary for asserting their domination of the entire shi'a community. It's very similar to the battle the Saudi's and Hashimites waged in the 1920's over Mecca and Medina. Whoever controls the holy cities controls the tone of the religious constituency.
And after Saddam was overthrown, we saw the rise of Muqtada Al-Sadr, a disciple of Iranian (Persian) Ayatollah Al-Haeri, who later criticized MAS for abusing his patronage. But not only was Al-Qai'da attempt to control Iraq defeated, MAS's attempt was also thwarted and his Mahdi Army defeated and humiliated.
And now, Karbala and Najaf, still firmly under the control of Ayatollah Al-Sistani and ARAB shi'ites, are in a position to create an element of moderate change within Iran.
If Al-Sistani and his followers can assist in fostering a more moderate Shi'ism, as well as well as undermining the power of the fanatical mullahs in Tehran, it will be well worth the $800 Billion that was spent over the course of 6 years.
Hawk |
