We
are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism.
We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page
for you.
Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions
|
|
Majority of Americans Now Question Justification for Iraq War
by David T. Pyne, Center
for the National Security Interest
11 July 2003
In
retrospect it is painfully clear that Saddam and Iraq never posed any threat
either in terms of intention or capabilities against either American civilians
here at home or even to US troops which were invading their own country.
|
|
According
to a poll conducted last week by the University of Maryland, 52 percent of
Americans believe the Bush administration either "stretched the truth" about
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or told outright lies. Only 32 percent
said they thought the government was being "fully truthful" about the Iraqi
arsenal. Similarly, 56 percent of those polled believed the US government
stretched the truth or made outright false statements about Hussein's ties
to al-Qaeda.
As witnessed by this latest poll, the American people are finally beginning
to realize the truth about the war in Iraq and how the Bush Administration
deliberately deceived the American people on Iraqi WMD and other issues to
attempt to justify a war, which could not be justified on that or any other
grounds. This war represented a marked departure from America's previous
227-year Judeo-Christian just war tradition. For one of the first times in
US history, America was the aggressor against a country that our Secretary
of State admitted posed no threat to the United States and which has since
been proven to lack even a rudimentary capability to even defend itself against
invasion let alone threaten another.
This policy, far from being conservative in nature, represents a continuance
of the Clinton foreign policy of transforming the United States into an aggressor
power that attacks countries that pose no threat to it as was the case when
the Clintonites targeted Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Sudan, Kosovo and Iraq for
military action without even the most rudimentary justification back in the
1990s. Only in Afghanistan in 1998 was the application of US military power
by the Clinton Administration justified, although even then it represented
an attempt to 'wag the dog' and divert attention from the House vote to impeach
him. Ultimately, it resulted in a couple dozen million dollar cruise missiles
hitting a bunch of empty tents in the desert at an Al Queda training camp.
Likewise, the Bush Administration's invasion of Afghanistan was amply justified
and properly executed in response to the Al Queda suicide bomber attack against
America on 9-11 under the time-honored rules of just war. However, as in
the case of Iraq, the Administration has signaled no plans to ever withdraw
the US military presence from that beleaguered country or its neighbors in
Central Asia, and American troops are increasingly paying the price with
their lives as they continue to be subjected to attacks from local insurgents.
Today US troops, whose primary constitutional role is defense of the US homeland,
find themselves deployed in nearly 200 nations the world over. The US military
and particularly the US Army is suffering badly from imperial overstretch
even as calls to further slash its force structure continue to ring out from
Rumsfeld and his chief lieutenants at the Bush Department of Defense.
Testimony by the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, and a CIA intelligence
report issued last fall confirmed that Iraq did not pose an actual or imminent
threat to the US but merely a "potential threat" which might emerge several
years from now. At the time, Mr. Tenet testified to Congress that "it appears
that Iraq had drawn a line in the sand against targeting the US with terrorist
action or WMD attack," but that it might change its policy were the US to
invade it. Why then did Bush choose to invade it and presumably provoke the
very kind of action which he was supposedly fighting to prevent? We can all
be very thankful that Saddam chose to destroy his weapons of mass destruction
prior to the invasion rather than use them against our brave US fighting
soldiers. In retrospect it is painfully clear that Saddam and Iraq never
posed any threat either in terms of intention or capabilities against either
American civilians here at home or even to US troops which were invading
their own country.
As casualties continue to mount against our heroic troops in Iraq, rather
than do the right thing and set a near-term time table for the withdraw of
our armies of occupation, the Administration has declared that they will
remain there indefinitely. If they do, they will almost certainly be subjected
to an increased tempo of guerilla and terrorist attacks from the understandably
resentful citizens of Iraq, who prefer self-determination and democracy to
occupation by a foreign power. America was not meant by its founders to be
an aggressor state or an empire, but rather a constitutional republic under
God.
Nearly three months after our victory over Iraq, and after untold thousands
of searches, the Administration has been unable to locate a single weapon
of mass destruction in Iraq. Over one-hundred and fifty of our brave fighting
men and women have been killed in action and an equal number of families
have suffered immeasurable loss, not to mention the loss of several thousand
lives of Iraqi soldiers who died defending their country and Iraqi civilians.
Has the price of empire been worth it? The price has already been far too
high for too many American families who have had loved ones die without a
just cause to console them and justify their heroic sacrifice.
The American people believed the President and were willing to give him the
benefit of the doubt with regards to his unconfirmed allegations of possession
of threatening weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. However, their patience
is wearing increasingly thin as the evidence comes out that the Administration
may have knowingly deceived them and manufactured intelligence to support
their unsupportable claims. Ultimately, this unjust war may well be the undoing
of the Bush presidency. Given that the alternative outcome of a Democrat
presidency would almost certainly result in even greater harm to the American
republican system of government, hopefully that will not be the case.
David T. Pyne, Esq. is a national security expert who serves as
President of the Center for the National Security Interest, a national security
think-tank based in Arlington, VA. This article published originally at EtherZone.com; republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.
Email David T. Pyne
Send
this Article to a Friend
|