THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume V, Issue # 289, December 1, 2003
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE SITUATION IN IRAQ: LIES & PREDICTIONS
By Alan Caruba
Predicting the future is the job of soothsayers. Still, something must be said about the future of Iraq, if we are to remain confident
and resolute enough to see our venture there through to the finish.
Let us begin with the partisan Democrats' claims that the President “lied” us into the invasion which has seen the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein and the end to what was arguably the most horrid regime since those of Nazi Germany and the Stalinist
Soviet Union.
Who said, “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat
posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program”? Answer: former President Clinton on February 17, 1998.
Who said, “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a
rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face”?
Answer: Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright on February 18, 1998.
In November, 2002, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy said, “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction.” However, on September 18, 2003, he said, “There was no imminent threat. This was
made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership, that war was going to take place and was going to be
good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.”
If the intelligence that the U.S. Senate committee was receiving was wrong, then the intelligence upon which the President
based his decision was wrong. We have learned, however, that there was a direct Saddam-Osama bin Laden connection.
Indeed, the only other explanation was that Saddam engaged in an elaborate WMD bluff. Meanwhile, defectors from Saddam’s
regime repeatedly said he was seeking to build a WMD program. Who do you believe? The lies and distortions of politically
ambitious and opportunistic Democrats, who are denying what they said previously, or the testimony of Iraqi defectors and
information from other sources confirming Saddam's use of poison gas against the Kurdish population in Iraq and against
Iranians during his war with Iran?
Even Arab pundits who initially opposed the invasion of Iraq have revised their views. Fawaz Turki, a columnist for the
Jidda-based Arab News, recently wrote, “No, I don’t believe that, by going to war, America had dark designs on Iraq’s oil
or pursued an equally dark conspiracy to ‘help Israel.’ I believe that the United States, perhaps willy-nilly, will end up helping
Iraqis regain their human sanity, their social composure, and the national will to rebuild their devastated nation.” The mass
graves of Iraqis confirm the inhumanity of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
In early November, a Gallup poll taken in Baghdad reported “virtually without exception (98% agree, 1% disagree), Baghdadis
agree that the new constitution should guarantee all Iraqis the right ‘to express their opinion on the political, social, and
economic issues of the day.’ No demographic group appears to view freedom of speech as anything other than the most basic
of civil rights.” In this Muslim nation, “the vast majority of Baghdad’s residents agree that the country’s next constitution
should include a provision ‘allowing all Iraqi citizens to observe any religion of their choice and to practice its teachings and
beliefs.’” The notion that constitutional democracy cannot take root in Iraq or any other Middle Eastern nation is wrong.
In late October, the libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, issued a policy analysis by Charles V. Pena, its director of defense
policy studies. He expressed the view that “Much of the anti-American resentment around the world, particularly in the Islamic
world, is the result of interventionalist United States foreign policy.” Such experts have been wrong in the past. It strikes me
that the U.S. has had a long history of trying to stay out of wars in other parts of the globe. We resisted going to war in both
World War I and World War II. We responded, under the aegis of the United Nations, to the 1950 North Korean attack on
South Korea and entered the Korean War. While we did blunder into (and were lied into) the Vietnam War, we were very
hesitant and slow to become massively involved in that military conflict. Time and time again, the U.S.A. has leaned over
backwards to stay out of foreign conflicts, consistently trying its best to resist military action in favor of diplomacy.
I suspect the United States is more resented for previously championing constitutional democracy as the answer to conflicts
because U.S. action was often seen as having the effect of strengthening the political status quo and involing very liiile
encouragement and promotion of constitutional democracy. That “status quo” policy is now dead.
“It is too late to stop al-Qa'ida from targeting America and Americans,” wrote Pena. “The United States must do everything in
its power to dismantle the al-Qa'ida terrorist network worldwide, but the United States must also avoid needlessly making new
terrorist enemies or fueling the flames of virulent anti-American hated. In the 21st. century, the less the United States meddles
in the affairs of other countries, the less likely the prospect that America and Americans will be targets for terrorism.” Wrong!
Wrong! Wrong!
First of all, al-Qa'ida is not a national movement that has a geographic location. Destroying it will require a change of mind and
policy on the part those nations that have funded, supported, and accomodated. Al-Qa'ida. Lacking that, the U.S.A. will likely
have to resort to force and compulsion, i.e., invade and effect regime change in the rogue nation-states that aid and abet
Al-Qa'ida and thereby enable it permit it to function. When we finish our work in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will have to turn
our attention to Iran, where credible reports say al-Qa'ida is setting up its new headquarters with the blessing of the ayatollahs.
Our policy toward Saudi Arabia is also changing.
As U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently stated, “Our exit strategy in Iraq is success; it’s that simple."
Rumsfeld said: “The objective is not to leave”, but rather “to succeed in our mission.” As proof that others share that mission,
thirty-two nations are now providing on-the-ground support for Iraqi reconstruction efforts.
Noticeably missing is the United Nations! The U.N. is a useless doppelganger of World War II. It is the failed dream of
establishing an international institution to achieve and maintain world peace.
The Cato analysis, to its credit, calls for greater emphasis on preventing terrorists from entering the U.S.A., as well as
preventing the widespread possession of weapons of mass destruction or the components of WMDs. It calls for greater
protection of critical facilities. I will, however, disagree with the Cato Institute’s essentially isolationist analysis.
I will oppose the cowardly response of the leadership of the Democratic Party. The Democrats offer no “exit” strategy other
than our abandonment of the Iraqis to chaos and our surrender to al-Qa'ida.
Lastly, it is worth noting that, since 9-11, there has not been a single terrorist attack in America. This does not mean one is not
being planned, but it does mean that projecting our power in Afghanistan and Iraq has thus far protected the lives of Americans
within the borders of the U.S.A. Most people would call that a success.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
Page Two
Page One
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
The Middle East & the Arabs
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Alan Caruba is a veteran business and science writer, a Public Relations Counselor, Communications Director of the American Policy Center,
and Founder of the National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns. Caruba writes a weekly
column, "Warning Signs," posted on the Internet website of the National Anxiety Center
(www.anxietycenter.com). A compilation of his past col- umns, entitled Warning Signs, is published by Merril Press. In addition
to Warning Signs, Caruba is the author of A Pocket Guide to Militant Islam and The United Na- tions vs. the United States,
both of which are available from the National Anxiety Center, 9 Brookside Road, Maplewood, New Jersey, 07040.
Copyright 2003 Alan Caruba
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume V, 2003
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights, Page Two
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights, Page One
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity