Joel Veldkamp, March 28, 2004

 

And what have we to oppose them?  Shall we try argument?  Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years.  Have we anything new to offer upon the subject?  Nothing…Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication?  What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted?  Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves any longer.  Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on…It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter.  Gentlemen may cry, “Peace, peace” – but there is no peace…Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

            - Patrick Henry, in his speech to the Virginia convention, 1775

 

The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got.

 

            - President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union address, January 20, 2004.

 

·        A Task That Does Not End

·        “War is not the answer.”

·        “There were no WMDs in Iraq.”

·        “We should have given the weapons inspectors more time.”

·        “There were no connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.”

·        “The war in Iraq distracts from the true war on terrorism.”

·        “Preemptive war is unprecedented, dangerous and wrong.”

·        “It’s all about the oil.”

·        “We should have exhausted all available options before going to war.”

·        “We should not have acted without the approval of the UN.”

·        “We should have waited until we had more allies on our side.”

·        “North Korea/Iran/Syria/etc. poses a greater threat to US security than did Iraq.”

·        “The occupation of Iraq is turning into a Vietnam-like quagmire.”

·        Conclusion: The Vast, Left-Wing Conspiracy strikes again!

·        Chart A: A Just War? A Comparison of the Unprotested War in the Balkans and the War in Iraq

·        Chart B: Window Dressing? Foreign Support in Iraq

A Task That Does Not End

 

      On September 11, 2001, the world was turned upside down as Islamic terrorists launched the worst enemy attack on US soil since the Civil War.  19 members of Al-Qaeda, a shadowy Islamic terrorist network, hijacked four 747’s.  Two were flown into the World Trade Center towers, destroying them completely, one was flown into the Pentagon, and one was downed in Pennsylvania as the passengers valiantly fought back against the terrorists. 

      To ensure against such an event ever happening again, America committed itself to a “war on terrorism.” In Operation: Enduring Freedom, the US military invaded Afghanistan, the primary refuge of Al-Qaeda, and eliminated the oppressive Taliban regime – a motion which Congress approved almost unanimously.  Just as after Pearl Harbor, there was only one vote against the war.

      Yet the task was far from over.  President George W. Bush told the nation, “Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.”[1]

      And yet when he tried to, American politicians, our allies in Western Europe, the Pope, Black Eyed Peas, the Dixie Chicks and the common man alike erupted in a hot indignation unmatched in recent history – Bush wanted to invade Iraq.  According to US intelligence, Saddam Hussein, the autocrat of Iraq, was building chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and had connections with Al-Qaeda.  Invading an unstable, genocidal, terrorist-harboring nation seemed a logical course of action to prevent another 9/11, but the formidable armada of peaceniks would not hear of it.  There were millions opposed to the war around the world, but none of them could quite seem to agree why.  Arguments against the war were loud, long, and not particularly coherent.  Here are some of the best of the crop of anti-war arguments I heard.

 

“War is not the answer.”

 

      This slogan is, I believe, originally from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was opposed to the war in Vietnam.  Soon, it was showing up everywhere.  In my hometown of Des Moines, Iowa, blue little yard signs started appearing on my route home from school with “War is not the answer” written on them and a cute little dove holding an olive leaf underneath.  Sheryl Crow had a T-shirt specially made that said, “WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.” Commenting on the shirt, Crow said, “War is never the answer to solving any problems.”[2] The hostile crowd who booed President Bush as he paid his respects to Dr. King in Atlanta on Martin Luther King Jr. Day this year held signs that said, “War is not the answer.”

      War is never the answer?  What if on December 7, 1941, FDR had shrugged and philosophically said, “War is not the answer?” What if in 1775 instead of inciting the men of Virginia to action against the British occupation force, Patrick Henry had given a speech with the theme “war is not the answer?”

So, granted that war is often the answer to a problem, was it the answer to the problem of Iraq? A genocidal dictator in Iraq was manufacturing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in violation of the 1991 UN resolution and was harboring Al-Qaeda forces.  How do we deal with him?  Well, war would work pretty well.  Saddam would be removed from power, he would not be able to manufacture illegal weapons any longer, and Al-Qaeda would no longer have a base of operations in Iraq.  The obvious drawback to war is that people die.  But while we’re on the subject of human rights, Saddam’s important work for human rights and world peace included:

·        Cleansing the Iraqi government of political enemies in staged show trials.

·        Initiating a long and bloody war with Iran.

·        In his address to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, Colin Powell said, “Saddam Hussein’s use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20^th century’s most horrible atrocities: 5,000 men, women and children died.  His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to ‘89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of some 2,000 villages. He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shia Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein’s police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country, tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.”

·        Killing over a million innocent people in his own country.

·        Torturing small children with acid, electric drills, electric shocks, hot irons and rape to obtain forced confessions from their parents.

·        Judge Donald Walters, who was initially opposed to the war, said after traveling to Iraq in June 2003, “I have seen the machines and places of torture and heard the horror stories, including an account of a Shiite who, during an interrogation in his home, watched helplessly as police plucked out his three-month-old baby’s eyes.”[3]

·        As of November 4, 2003, 262 mass graves had been found in Iraq, one with the remains of 1,200 children.[4]

·        Putting his enemies through a wood chipper.

·        Persecuting Christians and Shiite Muslims for their religion.

·        As a young man, trudging twenty miles through the snow to rape and dismember a woman. (According to Baath Party legend, anyway.)

·        Shooting a general dead at a meeting after he asked to be excused because his wife was delivering their child.

·        Allowing his sons, Odai and Qusai, to rape pre-teen girls, torture the Iraqi soccer team and feed innocent Iraqis to lions in their personal zoos.

·        Invading and occupying Kuwait without provocation.

·        Attacking Israel and Saudi Arabia with scud missiles without provocation.

·        Massacring Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq after the Gulf War.

·        Maintaining ties with and providing aid to Al-Qaeda and Hamas.

·        Developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in violation of the 1991 UN cease-fire agreement.

 

In short, Saddam was guilty of war crime and crimes against humanity.  We didn’t let the Nazis get away with it, why should we let him? As far as human rights are concerned, the US had two options – allow that slaughter to continue or invade and put an end to it forever.  I think the latter is better.  After all, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” The Iraqi people certainly didn’t think so.  The coalition forces were often greeted with open arms as they liberated Iraqi villages.[5] When Saddam was captured, the streets of Baghdad were filled with joyful Iraqis cheering and firing off rifles into the air. “One Iraqi couple were so excited by the ouster of Saddam Hussein that they bestowed upon their newborn son a highly unique name for that region.  George Bush Abdul Kader Faris Abed El-Hussein was born on July 11 and weighed in at seven pounds, 11½ ounces. ‘It was only George Bush who liberated us.  Without him it wouldn’t have happened,’ said the boy’s mother as little George Bush lay in his crib screaming.”[6] As Ann Coulter has pointed out, “The peace lobby wanted to keep these people in Saddam’s prison.”[7]

      What made the peaceniks think that allowing a genocidal, terrorist-supporting regime to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons was in the interests of peace?  From the outset, President Bush said, “We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all.” War truly is the price of peace.

      A moving article in the February 2004 issue of Reader’s Digest said of Lt. Shane Childers, “In Iraq, Childers had a firm belief in the mission at hand: to take out an evil tyrant and unfurl the flag of democracy.  One day in Kuwait, [Cpl.] Jesse Odom recalls, ‘he told me, “Make sure the Marines in your squad know why they’re here.” Several months before, an American civilian had said to him, “Nothing in Iraq is worth risking a single American life.” Well, that really p_ssed him off.  He said, “There are things worth dying for.  Tell your Marines that.”’”[8] Lt. Shane Childers would later become the first combat death in Iraq.

 

“There were no WMDs in Iraq.”

 

      In 1991, Operation: Desert Storm, a coalition of 39 nations led by the United States crushed Iraqi forces in a ground battle that lasted only 100 hours.  Iraq was forced to withdraw from Kuwait and sustained 100,000 losses. (Total coalition casualties numbered 370.) As part of the official cease-fire accepted by Iraq on April 6, 1991, Iraq was forbidden to build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and was required to demonstrate that it had destroyed all of the ones it already had, along with any materials or facilities that could be used to build them.

      Part of the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq was that it still possessed these weapons of mass destruction and was seeking to build more, which could be used against the United States or the countries neighboring Iraq.  Therefore, despite the overwhelming evidence from US intelligence and other intelligence agencies that Bush’s claim was true, those opposed to the war have continuously asserted that there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq.  Was there?

Nightmare Weapons

In 1999, the United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein possessed enough materials to produce 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, which causes death by respiratory failure.  Those quantities of anthrax and botulinum toxin are enough to kill millions of people each.[9]

On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented his case on Iraq’s WMDs to the United Nations Security Council.  Powell said, “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.” That’s enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.[10]  Among the chemical weapons US intelligence estimated Saddam had were VX nerve toxin, mustard gas and sarin.[11] The Times reported, “There was little question that huge amounts of Iraqi chemical weapons remained unaccounted for — the United Nations inspectors listed their whereabouts as a mystery in a final report after leaving Iraq in 1998 — and the prospect that those chemicals could be unleashed was a major concern as the Pentagon moved to the final stages of war planning.”[12] Saddam had four months to account for them after the inspectors went in – from November 2002 until the invasion – but he did not.

Colin Powell replayed radio intercepts of Iraqi officers in November 2002 and January 2003 saying they were worried that the UN weapons inspectors would discover a “modified vehicle” and “forbidden ammo.”[13] The Times said, “From December 2002 to February 2003, the official said, ‘we began to see those materials, whatever they were, showing up in what we call a field ammunition storage area’ as Iraq prepared ‘for the potentiality of war.’”[14] US intelligence officials also estimated that Saddam had more than 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons.  UN weapons inspectors actually turned up 16 of these, despite Iraq’s constant claims that they did not exist.[15] In March 2002, the CIA began receiving reports of “abnormal activities” at sites in Iraq used to manufacture chemical weapons before the Gulf War from human intelligence sources.[16]

 According to Powell, four human sources from Iraq claimed that Saddam had several mobile biological weapons labs.  These labs were supposedly able to produce biological weapons at a high rate.  One of the defectors claimed that Iraq had already used the labs to create such weapons.[17]  Powell played an audiotape of intercepted communications between commanders in Iraq’s Second Republican Guard from just a few weeks beforehand when UN inspectors were in Iraq.  One commander was instructing the other to leave out the phrase “nerve agents” from the wireless instructions.[18]

Illegal Missiles

In November 2002, when the UN weapons inspectors returned to Iraq, Dr. David Kay interviewed detained scientists who said that Iraq was attempting to build missiles with a 600-mile range – enough to hit Israel or US troops in the Middle East – that could carry chemical weapons.[19]  Before the invasion began, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency uncovered that Iraq had paid North Korea $10 million for technology that could fix the missiles’ accuracy.  The deal fell through, though, due to the North Koreans’ fears about American surveillance.  North Korea did not return the money.[20] In October 2002, Bush claimed in a speech about the Iraq threat that Iraq had a growing fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical weapons and was conceivably capable of striking against US soil.[21]

Nuclear Advances

In the 1990’s, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium.[22] A former member of Iraq’s weapons-building program, Khidhir Hamza, testified under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Saddam had an active weapons of mass destruction program and would have developed enough enriched uranium to have three nuclear weapons by 2005.[23] This assessment was confirmed by Clinton’s CIA director James Woolesy in an on-air interview with Sean Hannity.[24]  Hamza had spent 20 years in Saddam’s nuclear program and has written a book called Saddam’s Bombmaker.  Hamza was no common defector – “I was [Saddam’s] nuclear bombmaker.  I held secrets no one outside Iraq, and only a handful of people inside the country, could know.”[25]

In addition, when UN weapons inspectors searched the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist in 2002, they uncovered 2,000 pages of documents, some of which related to an Iraqi nuclear program. Colin Powell told the UN that multiple sources claimed that Iraq was attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines for a uranium-enriching gas centrifuge program.  From 1999 to 2000, Iraq tried to purchase a magnet production plant from Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia that would be suitable for producing magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams – the same weight used in Iraq’s gas centrifuge program before Desert Storm.  Intercepted communications from 2000-2002 showed that Iraq was trying to buy high-speed balancing machines for gas centrifuge rotors.  In the year and half before the war, Saddam Hussein began to pay special attention to what the government-controlled press in Iraq called his “nuclear mujahedeen.” Powell said, “He regularly exhorts them and praises their progress.  Progress toward what end?  Long ago, the Security Council, this council, required Iraq to halt all nuclear activities of any kind.”[26]

Did Bush Cook the Books?

      Dr. David Kay said, “All of the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on WMD.  Everyone believed that [Iraq] had WMD.”[27] The Times reported that “Richard J. Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence who has been leading an internal review of the prewar intelligence, said in an interview on Friday that he believed that the C.I.A. reporting on Iraq was consistent from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration, and that there was no evidence in the finished reports of changes that were the result of White House pressure. Mr. Kerr added that C.I.A. analysts working on high-profile subjects were used to scrutiny and skepticism from policy makers.”[28] Indeed, the evidence of manipulation from the Bush administration seems to be limited to the accusations of anti-war politicians.  When Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) attacked the Bush administration’s claims as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified to a Senate hearing February 4^th, “Mr. Rumsfeld told Mr. Kennedy that his assertions were baseless. ‘You’ve twice or thrice mentioned manipulation,’ Mr. Rumsfeld said. ‘I haven’t heard of it, I haven’t seen any of it, except in the comments you’ve made.’”[29]

Then what happened to the weapons?

Most people are unaware of just how many WMD related programs and facilities the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) uncovered after the war.  David Kay (who recently resigned as head of the ISG) found “hundreds of cases” of concealed UN-prohibited weapons activities.[30]  In his 2004 State of the Union Address, Bush said, “We are seeking all the facts – already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.” Dr. Kay found the missile program described above, just as pre-war intelligence had indicated, as well as research and development until the eve of the invasion to develop weapons using the poison ricin, which was found in Senate majority leader Bill Frist’s office in February 2004.[31] According to the ISG report, Saddam’s weapons delivery systems “were already well advanced” and, if Operation: Iraqi Freedom had not intervened, “would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km.”[32] The ISG found advanced design work on prohibited longer-range missiles and covert capability to produce illegal SCUD missile propellant.[33] When the pre-Gulf War chemical weapons facilities such as Al Muthanna (where suspicious activity was observed from satellites) were inspected, Dr. Kay said, “We have got evidence that they certainly could have produced small amounts” of chemical weapons.[34] According to the ISG, “In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service.”[35] Dr. Kay found a “clandestine network of laboratories” that could be used to produce deadly biological weapons.[36] The ISG found “reference strains” of biological organisms hidden in Iraqi scientists’ homes, including a live strain of deadly botulinum, and new research on Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, ricin, and aflatoxin.[37] Even more horrifying, the inspectors found a “prison laboratory complex, possibly used for human testing of biological agents.”[38] (Why would Saddam have a facility to test biological agents if he didn’t have any biological agents, as the liberals claim?) According to the Times, “Dr. Kay told the Senate that by 2000, the Iraqis ‘decided that their nuclear establishment had deteriorated to such a point that it was totally useless.’ So they began to start over, building new buildings, beginning to hire a staff, he said. They could have made progress, eventually, he said.”[39] Dr. Kay found “a very large U.A.V. [unmanned aerial vehicle] program.” The vehicles appear to be mainly designed for surveillance, but they did have a sprayer application.[40]

Dozens of illegal weapons programs.  Missiles that could reach Israel and our troops in Saudi Arabia and could carry chemical weapons.  An entire network of biological weapons labs.  Attempts to build weapons that use deadly poison.  A brand new nuclear weapons program that “could have made progress.” U.A.V.’s that could be used to spray chemical and biological weapons over huge landscapes.  That’s what we found in Iraq.  Iraq was violating the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire and would soon be a deadly threat to the entire Middle East and possibly the US – if it wasn’t already.  That’s why President Bush took us to war, and the Kay report has dramatically vindicated that.

      There’s still one thing we haven’t found yet – massive weapons stockpiles.  Finding them is of secondary importance to justify the war.  If Saddam didn’t have a lot of weapons, he was trying the build them and, until we invaded, was succeeding so far.  Why should we have waited to attack until he actually had weapons?  So he could use them on our troops?  Recently, Bush told reporters, “One thing is for certain, one thing we do know…that Saddam Hussein was a danger, he was a growing danger.”[41] That’s all we needed to know.

That said, the search for weapons is still on.  There are four possibilities at this point:

·        We just haven’t found the weapons yet.  According to Dr. Kay, the Iraq Weapons Survey is only 85% complete.  Recently, a senior official at the CIA said, “There are still millions of documents that have yet to be examined, thousands of scientists and former government officials yet to be thoroughly debriefed, and countless possible hiding sites which have yet to be searched. We find it puzzling that those who say the intelligence community reached its conclusions on limited evidence are reaching opposite conclusions on even less.”[42]

·        The weapons went to Syria.  Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, noted that a large caravan of trucks and cars was seen heading from Iraq to Syria before the invasion.

·        Saddam Hussein was trying to build weapons, but simply hadn’t succeeded yet.

·        Dr. Kay has proposed a different scenario. “Kay discovered that an increasingly erratic Saddam Hussein had taken over personal direction of WMD programs.  But because there was no real oversight, the scientists would go to Saddam for money, exaggerate or invent their activities, then pocket the funds.  Scientists were bluffing Saddam.  Saddam was bluffing the world.  The Iraqis were all bluffing each other.  Special Republican Guard commanders had no WMDs, but they told investigators that they were sure that other guard units did…Kay told the Washington Post that he had found evidence that Saddam had quietly destroyed some biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990’s – but never reported it to the United Nations.  Which was why Bill Clinton in 1998 declared with great alarm and great confidence that Iraq had huge stockpiles of biological and chemical arms.”[43] This could very well be the case, which would mean that the United Nations’ claims of stockpiled anthrax and botulinum toxin in 1999 would be incorrect, due to Saddam’s concealed destruction of these materials. (Which by the way, would be an illegal destruction – according to the cease-fire, Saddam was required to demonstrate that he was disarming, not conceal it.) Even so, the illegal WMD programs listed above would still have required military action to shut down.

The facts are indisputable and clear – Iraq was striving to build weapons of mass destruction and quite likely already possessed them.

 

“We should have given the weapons inspectors more time.”

 

      This rather unique argument was made by the French premier at the UN after Secretary of State Colin Powell meticulously laid out the intelligence on Iraq’s WMDs.  He said, “Triple the number of inspectors.  Why go to war?”

      As President Bush put it, “The 108 UN inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming.  It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.”[44] In the olden days, back in 1998, Saddam used blunt tactics like refusing to let UN weapons inspectors into sites.  In the years following, he was more subtle.

·        He deployed thousands of Iraqi security personnel to hide documents and materials from the inspectors, monitor the inspectors and sanitize inspection sites.

·        He sent Iraqi officials along with the inspectors to intimidate witnesses.

·        He ordered that scientists who cooperate with the UN inspectors be killed, along with their families.

·        He blocked U-2 surveillance flights requested by the UN.

·        He sent Iraqi intelligence officials to pose as the scientists the inspectors are supposed to interview.

·        He coached real scientists on what to say to the inspectors.[45]

 

Obviously, the inspectors were doing no good.  Saddam didn’t give a rip about what the United Nations said.  He secretly continued his weapons of mass destruction programs and tried to hide them from the world.  As Bush said, if we had not invaded, “All of the Security Council resolutions and condemnations would still be issued and still be ignored, scraps of paper amounting to nothing.”[46] The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq was disarming.  They had verified that it was not.  Saddam refused to account for illegal chemical and biological weapons materials.  The inspectors uncovered illegal munitions in the months before the invasion.  The inspections were only good if Iraq was willing to comply.  As we now know, and as we knew then, it was not and never had.

 

“There were no connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.”

 

      Part of the rationale for the war in Iraq was that Al-Qaeda was working together with Iraq.  The peace camp was particularly adamant in denying this claim, and for good reason.  Emotions from 9/11 were still fresh, and any indication that Al-Qaeda was working with Iraq was sure to increase support for the war.  Hence, the hysterical denials that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with Iraq. On September 26^th, 2002, ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings ran a report entitled, “Reality Check: No Evidence Whatsoever of Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection.” Doonesbury, a comic strip written by Garry Trudeau, ran a strip where the main character screamed, “There is NO evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11!  None!  Even the White House admits it!!!” Dennis Kucinich, US congressman and presidential hopeful (hope springs eternal) has said, “Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction.”[47] A New York Times editorial said that there was “no reliable evidence” of a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.[48]  This is interesting, inasmuch as there was.

      While the evidence that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11 is slim, there were almost assuredly connections between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.  Abu Aman Amaleeki, an Iraqi government official imprisoned by the Kurds, said, “There is a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq.  It began approximately after the invasion of Kuwait.”[49] Another Iraqi imprisoned by the Kurds, Muhammed Mansur Shihabili, stated that, “Killing is something I did.  I killed, true.  This was for the Iraqi intelligence and Al-Qaeda.”[50]    In 2002, two Al-Qaeda operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia.[51]  Saddam Hussein is believed to have maintained direct contact with Al-Qaeda through Husam Al-Yemeni, a top member of Ansar al-Islam – an Al-Qaeda linked group.  After the war, Husam led an insurgency cell in Fallujah, Iraq, west of Baghdad.  He was captured in Iraq on January 22, 2004.[52]

      Saddam did not restrict his support of terror to Al-Qaeda.  Iraq trained Palestine Liberation Front members to use explosives[53] and funneled money to the families of suicide bombers - $50,000 each.[54]  Hamas, one of the chief Palestinian terrorist groups in Israel, opened an office in Baghdad in 1999.[55]  Saddam attempted to assassinate President Bush, Sr., and made dozens of other assassination attempts as well.  In April 2003, after the war, secret documents found in the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center in Baghdad showed that Iraq funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a terror network in Uganda that has been linked to bin Laden since the 1990’s.[56] Saddam funded the Iraqi Kurdish Group (a rival faction of Kurds opposed to independent Kurds in northeastern Iraq), whose leader, Melan Krekar admitted that he had met with bin Laden and other top Al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan.[57] It was believed that hundreds of Al-Qaeda fighters hid with the Iraqi Kurdish Group after 9/11.[58]

      On February 11, 2003, George Tenet testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee, “Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to Al-Qaeda.  It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two Al-Qaeda associates; one of these associates characterized the relationship as successful.  Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence.  It comes to us from credible and reliable sources.  Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources.”[59] National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice said, “Yes, there are contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.”[60] Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated, “Iraq provided unspecified training, relating to chemical and/or biological matters, for al-Qaeda members,”[61] and, “If you’re asking me, are there al-Qaeda in Iraq, the answer is yes, there are.  It’s a fact.”[62] President Bush has said, “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda.”[63]

      In his address to the UN Security Council, Colin Powell spent lengths on the Iraq-terror connection.  According to Powell, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, a collaborator with bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and head of the terrorist organization Ansar Al-Islam, set up a terrorist training camp in northeastern Iraq.  Powell presented the Council a photograph of this camp.  At the camp, potential terrorists were taught how to produce deadly poisons, including ricin. “Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein’s controlled Iraq,” Powell admitted, “but Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al-Qaeda safe haven in the region. After we swept Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today.”

Powell went on to note that while Zarqawi was hospitalized in Baghdad, two-dozen of his Al-Qaeda linked operatives set up a base of operations there, coordinating a flow of money and supplies through Iraq for Ansar Al-Islam.  As an Al-Qaeda associate said in 2002, the situation in Iraq was “good.” Zarqawi’s network was behind the assassination of Lawrence Foley of the Agency for International development in October 2002, and has plotted terrorist attacks in Britain, Italy, Spain, France, Germany and Russia.  The US told Iraqi officials where to find Zarqawi in Baghdad.  They did nothing.

As Powell detailed for the UN, the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda ran even deeper.  Iraq and Al-Qaeda had been working together for years.  According to an Al-Qaeda source, Saddam and bin Laden reached a type of “non-aggression” treaty in the early 1990’s.  Members of Iraqi intelligence met at least eight times from the early nineties until Iraq’s fall in 2003.  A foreign security service told the US that in 1996, bin Laden met with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service in Khartoum, Sudan.  According to one of Saddam’s former intelligence chiefs in Europe, Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan in the mid-1990’s to train Al-Qaeda in document forgery.  Until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan was a liaison from Saddam to Al-Qaeda.  It gets far worse.

      According to a detained senior Al-Qaeda operative, in the 1990’s, bin Laden and Muhammed Atif, his top deputy in Afghanistan, felt that Al-Qaeda weapons labs in Afghanistan were not able to produce chemical or biological weapons, so they asked Iraq for help.  Iraq was only too happy to comply.  One of bin Laden’s agents, Abdula Al-Iraqi visited Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 to acquire poisons and gases.  Abdula described the relationship he constructed with Iraq as successful.  In December 2000, two Al-Qaeda associates were offered chemical and biological weapons training by Iraq.[64]

      Iraqi intelligence ran an Al-Qaeda training facility in Salman Pak, southeast of Baghdad.  There, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives, and even practiced on a real Boeing 707.  Colin Powell provided satellite photos of this camp before the war.[65] The chief of intelligence at the Iraqi National Congress (an Iraqi opposition group,) told Richard Miniter that there was a long history of contact between Saddam and bin Laden.[66] Bin Laden is thought to have met several times with officers of the Iraqi Special Security Organization, and had ties with Mukhabarat, another Iraqi intelligence service.[67] Iraq reportedly supplied arms and money to Al-Qaeda.[68] Bin Laden allegedly met with Iraqi intelligence agents repeatedly in Sudan, Turkey, Afghanistan and the Czech Republic.[69] In 1998, a senior officer of Mukhabarat journeyed to the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan to offer bin Laden asylum in Iraq.[70] Returning from a visit with bin Laden, an Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities.[71]

      It appears that Iraq and Al-Qaeda banded together in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.  One of the perpetrators of the attack, Mohammed Salameh, placed 46 phone calls to a terrorist living in Iraq in the month before the bombing.[72]  The two ringleaders of the attack received aid from Iraq.  Ramzi Ahmed Yousef entered the US with an Iraqi passport.  The other ringleader, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad after the bombing and was placed on the Iraq’s payroll.  The hydrogen-cyanide gas meant to be spread by the explosion – what the Nazis called “Zyklon-B” – is an Iraqi “specialty.”[73]

      How can all of this be?  After all, Iraq was a secular dictatorship; Al-Qaeda is a fanatical religious group.  They wouldn’t work together, would they?  If you listen to the anti-war crowd, you hear this all the time.  According to Richard Miniter, “In fact, there are plenty of ‘Stalin-Roosevelt’ partnerships between international terrorists and Arab dictators…The idea that Iraq would not work with Al-Qaeda on purely ideological grounds in simply a prejudice of a handful of analysts, most of whom are hostile to waging a war on terror.”[74] Indeed, after reviewing all the evidence above, the claim that Al-Qaeda and Iraq wouldn’t work together because of differing ideologies is simply absurd.  It would be like saying after Pearl Harbor, “Well, the whole ‘axis power’ idea is a fraud, because the Nazis think that the Germans are superior to the Italians and Japanese.  It wouldn’t happen.”  Indeed, Colin Powell stated, “Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein’s secular tyranny and Al-Qaeda’s religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al-Qaeda together.”[75]

I said before that the evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 was slim.  Here it is.

·        In 1999, an Arab intelligence officer personally familiar with Saddam told Newsweek, “Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis,” which would be run through front groups like Al-Qaeda.[76]

·        In August of 2001, Israeli intelligence services met with the CIA and warned them of an “imminent, large-scale attack on the U.S.” A senior Israeli official later said there were “strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement.”[77]

·        According to US intelligence, Iraqi government agents were in contact with bin Laden in the days before September 11.[78]

·        According to Czech intelligence, Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in the Prague several times in 2000-2001, the final time being five months before the attacks.  The CIA discounted this claim, but the Czech prime minister and Czech intelligence have repeatedly and publicly insisted so.[79]

 

Iraq maintained contact with Al-Qaeda, assigned members of its intelligence to kill for Al-Qaeda, harbored Al Qaeda and other terrorists and trained Al Qaeda members to use weapons of mass destruction.  These are not guesses.  These are corroborated facts.  Sounds like a terror connection to me. 

 

“The war in Iraq distracts from the true war on terrorism.”

 

      Former President Jimmy Carter said (in his noble prize acceptance speech) that we should delay the war in Iraq and “concentrate first on the obvious threat around the world from Al-Qaeda.”[80] Former VP Al Gore said, “I am deeply concerned that the course of action we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism.”[81] Apparently, neither of them was able to grasp that taking out a regime that harbored Al-Qaeda and trained them to use WMDs had anything to do with winning the war on terrorism. (Do you know why Gore lost to Bush in 2000?  Divine providence.)

 

“Preemptive war is unprecedented, dangerous and wrong.”

 

      Preemptive is the most fashionable slam-word-with-no-point in the anti-war artillery. “Preemptive!” It strikes terror into the hearts of all who value peace.  Of course, no one is quite sure exactly what’s wrong with preemptive warfare, but everyone is sure that it’s bad regardless. Preemptive, preemptive, preemptive, preemptive!!! Like “fundamentalist,” it got snarled so many times that it became an epithet in of itself.

·        “[Bush is] proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.”[82] – Former Vice President Al Gore

·        “A preemptive action today, however justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future.”[83] – Former President Bill Clinton

·        “[To act] in a preemptive manner would be a terrible tragedy and send the wrong messages to the world community.”[84] – Tom Daschle, Senate Minority Leader

·        “Regime change as a goal for military intervention challenges the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia…And the notion of justified preemption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual, not potential, threats.”[85] – Henry A. Kissinger, Former Secretary of State

·        “Preemptive war by its very nature is something that is entirely new to the United States of America and to what we call the Western Alliance.” [86] – Milt Bearden, former CIA operative

 

Preemptive basically means “first-strike.” If Nation A attacks Nation B because they fear that Nation B is going to attack Nation A in the near future, it is a preemptive strike.  In this sense, the war in Iraq was preemptive.  Iraq was building biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and had connections to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.  The United States feared that Iraq would use the weapons on neighboring countries or hand off the weapons to terrorists who would use it against the US or her allies.  There was nothing unreasonable about this fear.   Saddam had done both in the past – he is not exactly a man of peace.  As our president said, “The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.”[87] We did not want a man like Saddam Hussein dominating, intimidating or attacking anybody.  He was obviously planning to do so.  Therefore, we got him before he could.  Logical enough, don’t you think?

Apparently not.  We started to hear that going to war in Iraq was only acceptable if the threat was imminent.  Diana DeGette, a Democrat representative from Colorado, said, “We have been in briefings for the last week and we have seen no evidence of imminent danger.”[88] Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) said that there was no evidence that Saddam was an “imminent threat.”[89] Democrat Senator Tom Harkin recently called for an outside investigation into whether or not Iraq was ever an imminent threat.[90] Despite Harkin’s demand that Bush testify under oath about his claims of an “imminent” threat from Iraq, Bush never claimed such a thing.  To the contrary he quite clearly said, “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.”[91] The threat of attack from Iraq was not imminent.  The whole point in attacking was to eliminate the threat before it was imminent.  In the wise words of Ann Coulter, “By the time a threat from Islamic terrorists is ‘imminent,’ Chicago will be gone.”[92]

Other Democrats against the war came forward to make the remarkable argument that although Iraq did pose a threat, we should do nothing.[93]  Former vice president Al Gore said that, “all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region.”[94] Therefore, according to him, we should do nothing.  Former president Jimmy Carter (known for his expert handling of Islamic radicals during his term) said that even if Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, “this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.”[95] This is really complete nonsense.  Nine days before Carter spouted this garbage, Bush outlined the threat from Saddam Hussein quite clearly for Carter, Congress, the nation and the world: “Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own…Chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.  Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.  We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.”[96] Apparently, this was not true of Carter or Gore. (Once again – November 2000 was divine providence.) Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, also admitted that that Saddam had “significant quantities of biological warfare agents and some chemical munitions,” and was “striving to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.” But, she reassured us, Saddam “must surely be aware that if he ever again tries to attack another country he will be obliterated.”[97] (That’s why he’s “striving to develop nuclear weapons” – in the interests of peace.) In the words of George W. Bush, “Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”[98] Indeed, according to Khidhir Hamza (mentioned above), before the Gulf War, Saddam had a plan to develop a nuke and use it on Israel – “no matter that it guaranteed Iraq’s own incineration.  Saddam couldn’t care less for anybody else.  He planned to take all of us down with him.”[99]

As Ann Coulter has aptly stated, “The left’s reaction to nutty despots is: He might hit me, so I’ll be nice.  Rumsfeld’s idea is: He’ll hit me?  Maybe I’ll hit him.”[100] The wisdom of the first reaction was forever disproven on September 11, 2001.  The only thing the United States had done to Osama bin Laden was station our troops in Saudi Arabia.[101]  For that, he killed three thousand Americans.  When it comes to rogue states, terrorists and insane dictators, there is no “making friends.”  They hate America with an unfathomable passion.  President Bush told the nation, “I made a pledge to this country; I will not stand by and hope for the best while dangers gather.”[102]  Bush took his duties as commander-in-chief seriously.  If defending America meant waging “preemptive” war, he was and is ready to do so.

On top of all this, Gore’s claim that Bush’s doctrine of preemption was a “new, uniquely American right,” and Kissinger’s claim that regime change as the goal of war goes against international law, were completely false.  There is plenty of precedent for preemptive action and regime change war in US history.

·        In December 1998, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq after Saddam refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors, for fear that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction.  Clinton said, “someday, someway, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”[103] Apparently, that wasn’t a particularly big concern with him when a Republican was in office.

·        In August 1998, after the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Al-Qaeda, Clinton launched a missile strike on terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a plant in Sudan that was suspected of manufacturing chemical weapons and handing them off to terrorists. Sounds familiar.

·        In 1991, rebels in Haiti overthrew the island’s democratically elected government.  In 1994, Clinton threatened to invade and change the regime unless the rebels would step down and restore the democracy to Haiti.  After the rebels agreed to step down, Clinton sent troops to Haiti to ensure the safe transfer of power.

·        In 1989, George Bush Sr. ordered troops into Panama because a single US marine was killed there and because the leader, General Norieba, was suspected of drug trafficking.  Norieba was removed from power, tried in the United States and sentenced to forty years in prison.

·        In 1983, President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada after the government there was taken over by communist rebels. 

·        In 1961, President Kennedy attempted an overthrow of the communist government of Cuba, which degenerated into the disastrous Bay of Pigs incident.

 

In addition, Kissinger complained about America using force against only a potential threat, not an actual one.  But in one sense, the war in Iraq was not against a potential threat at all.  Iraq was harboring Al-Qaeda forces and training them to use WMDs.  The threat from Al-Qaeda was not a potential threat; it was an actual one.  In the last ten years, Al-Qaeda had bombed the World Trade Center, bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, bombed the USS Cole, attempted to bomb the Los Angeles airport, destroyed both of the twin towers with 747’s, flown a plane into the Pentagon and attempted to dirty-bomb an American city.  Despite Michael Moore’s terming Al-Qaeda a “men’s club,”[104] we were at war! Al-Qaeda was an actual threat, they were an imminent threat, and they were hanging out in Iraq.  What if, after Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt had opted against war, claiming that further Japanese attacks were only a “potential” threat?  In both cases, the necessary course of action was obvious.

But the war in Iraq was more of a policing action than anything else.  Daschle (quoted above) was upset about the message we would send to the world if we removed Saddam from power.  The only message we sent was addressed to the rogue nations of the world: “Hey!  There is right and there is wrong and the United States of America is going to enforce that.” On November 8, 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1441, which ordered the total disarmament of Iraq and sent the inspectors back.  This was the 17^th resolution against Iraq for WMDs since 1991.  As Colin Powell said when he addressed the council three months later, “Resolution 1441 was not dealing with an innocent party, but a regime this council has repeatedly convicted over the years. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present in voting on that day had any allusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.” Among other things, UN weapons inspectors found 16 empty chemical warheads forbidden to Iraq by the 1991 cease-fire, despite Iraq’s constant insistence that they did not exist.  On the following January 7^th, Dr. Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, reported to the council, “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it.”[105] What was the international community supposed to do?  Issue an 18^th resolution?  As Powell stated, Iraq faced invasion if they did not cooperate.  They did not.  If enforcing international law constitutes “preemptive action,” then the Persian Gulf War, the Vietnam War, the 1999 War in the Balkans and the Korean War are also “preemptive” and in violation of the 1648 treaty of Westphalia.  What nonsense.

   

“It’s all about the oil.”

 

      Ann Coulter called “War is not the answer” the winner in “a race to the bottom” in idiotic arguments used against the war.[106] I would personally nominate “No blood for oil.” Perhaps it’s just the result of my personal indignation.  My school superintendent, Dr. Bob Stouffer, got a sign that said “We Stand With President Bush And Our Troops” stolen from his yard, and a piece of paper shoved in his mailbox with the words “oil pig” written on it.  For an argument that was such complete nonsense, it sure was widespread.  An Iowan anti-war protestor wrote in an op-ed piece for the Des Moines Register, “I felt anger for the Iowa military families who had lost loved ones in the service of oil interests.”[107]  The administration never said they were going to war for oil.  There was no evidence that we were going to war for oil.  There was no reason why Bush would take us to war for oil – there wasn’t exactly a worldwide oil shortage.  Even if oil was part of Bush’s personal agenda in Iraq – for which there is not a shred of evidence – we would still need to go to war for all the reasons listed above.  And even if we needed to go to war for oil, the war would still be justified!  The Western World cannot function without oil.  If Saddam were to take control of the world’s oil and extort us with it, we would have to use military action. (Let’s see indignant protestors get to their protests without gasoline cars.) The entire argument is a tree-hugger propaganda stunt.

 

“We should have exhausted all available options before going to war.”

 

      This gem came from senator and leading Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry (D-Massachusetts).  Although Kerry voted for the war, he criticized the war so much that he received 41% of the anti-war vote in the 2004 New Hampshire Democrat primary – Howard Dean, who actually was anti-war, received only 30% of the anti-war vote.  Kerry explained his blatant flip-flopping by saying that he did not expect President Bush to go to war “until we have exhausted the remedies available.”[108] Exhaust the remedies available.  Unfortunately, the Vietnam Vet Against the War neglected to mention which remedies were available. 

      Let’s review the remedies that were exhausted before we went to war:

·        UN resolutions.  17 of them, to be exact.

·        UN weapons inspections – useless when Saddam refused to cooperate. (In other words, all of the time.)

·        Trade embargo – Indirectly caused the starvation of thousands of Iraqis.  Saddam didn’t give a rip about his people’s well being – inasmuch as he killed a million of them.  The embargo was also costly and dangerous: the USS Cole was on embargo duty when it was bombed.

·        Repeated bombing raids under Clinton – obviously, did not work.

 

We were running precious low on remedies, and the candidate who’s tough on national security had no suggestions.  Endless anti-war op-eds suggested that we should find other solutions, but none ever ventured any.  As Captain Kirk said to Dr. McCoy in Star Trek IV, “If you have a better idea, the time is now.”

 

“We should not have gone to war without the approval of the United Nations.”

 

Before the war, Walter Kronkite said, “It is, I hope, the intention of the United States to take the matter back to the United Nations and work with the United Nations.”[109] Anti-warrites were outraged that the United States thought it could use force without the approval of the UN.  One of Rekha Basu’s “incentives to change presidents” in her column the Sunday before the Iowa caucuses was that Bush had waged “pre-emptive war on Iraq without U.N. backing.”[110] Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) said of the war, “The difference is, I would have worked with the United Nations.” Worked with the United Nations.  What exactly did Kerry mean?  Secretary of State Colin Powell took the intelligence information he was at liberty to share from the United States and several other countries, placed it before the UN Security Council, and implored them to help the cause against terrorism.  They did nothing.  What exactly would Kerry have done differently?  Beat them over the head with his ‘Nam AK-47 until they agreed to cooperate?  Or simply not have defended America without their approval?  I have a feeling it’s the latter. (In case you’re wondering, I don’t like John Kerry very much.)

Here’s how the UN Security Council works: The Council has 15 members, five of which are permanent: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China.  The other ten are elected to two-year terms by the General Assembly.  It takes nine members to authorize an action, but a “no” vote by any of the permanent members can defeat a motion.  In short, if the UN were to authorize action against Iraq, France, China and Russia would have to be all for it.  Needless to say, this did not happen, and was not likely to happen anytime soon.  Meanwhile, Saddam was busy building doomsday weapons.

The preamble to the Charter of the United Nations reads, in part, “We, the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained…and for these ends, to…unite our strength to maintain international peace and security…”

The UN made a mockery of these words on February 5^th, 2003, when it refused to commit to military action in Iraq: Iraq was planning to scourge succeeding generations with war, trampled on the dignity and worth of the human person, and did not respect international law.  The UN’s own charter declared that it would unite the strength of the nations to maintain peace and security against a threat like Iraq.  Why on earth should the US have let an organization that trampled on its own charter determine whether or not America would defend its safety?

The UN had negotiated the cease-fire in which Iraq said it would destroy its unconventional weapons.  The UN had declared in 1999 that Saddam still had the materials to build 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.  The UN had issued resolution 1441, which sent the inspectors back in and said that if Iraq did not comply, it would face regime change.  The UN’s own weapons inspectors had confirmed that Iraq still had dangerous weapons and was refusing to destroy them.  And yet, when the moment of truth came, the UN chose to do nothing.  It was busy issuing resolutions demanding that Great Britain repeal a law that permitted parents to spank their children, while letting a genocidal dictator who tortured children with acid run free.[111] According to Charles Krauthammer, “until Bush got serious, threatened war and massed troops in Kuwait, the United Nations was headed toward loosening and ultimately lifting sanctions, which would have given Saddam carte blanche to regroup and rebuild his WMDs.”[112] Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) said that if we went to war without the UN’s approval, we would “make a mockery of the efficacy of the UN.” In the apt words of Ann Coulter, “Perhaps the United Nations should have been more worried about that eventuality than we should.”[113]

President Bush took a very reasonable stance towards such an increasingly absurd organization: “America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.  The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5^th to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.  We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.”[114] Sounds reasonable, right?  We were going to do the right thing for America whether or not France and Russia agreed.  That used to be called patriotism.  Now it’s “the most arrogant, inept, reckless, ideological foreign policy in modern American history.”[115] (That quote is from my pal John Kerry.) In the words President Bush: “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.” All who complain that we went to war without UN support apparently disagree.

 

“We should not have gone to war without our allies.”

 

It is a rare moment when you hear President Bush use sarcasm – which is incredible, considering the nonsense he’s had to put up with. Here’s one time that I can remember: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.”[116] That’s 35 countries, including the United States.  For the record, only 39 nations committed troops to Operation: Desert Storm in 1991, and there were only 51 allies in WWII.  35 countries is almost ¼ of the members of the United Nations. 

And yet, this is one of the most popular criticisms of the war.  John Edwards and Joe Lieberman, despite being pro-war, have consistently accused Bush of alienating the world. (They can’t actually approve of anything he does – I mean, c’mon, that’s just unnatural.) In her response to Bush’s 2004 State of the Union Address (where the above quote from Bush is from, by the way) Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, said that Bush had taken us into Iraq “alone.” “Unilateral,” as an epithet for the Iraq war has become almost as fashionable as “preemptive.” LIES!!!

That said, anti-Americanism in Europe is alive and well. “In the days before George W. Bush traveled to Britain last fall, Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, described the American President as ‘the greatest threat to life on this planet that we’ve most probably ever seen.’”[117] I would personally nominate the nuclear standoff in the Cold War, or maybe doomsday asteroids, but you know, that’s just me, growing up in an arrogant superpower of a country.

A poll of Europeans conducted by the European Commission asked which countries posed the greatest threat to world peace.  Israel came in first.  The United States, Iran and North Korea tied for second.[118] “Supporters of France’s National Front party reportedly celebrated with champagne as they watched the World Trade Center collapse…Less than two months after 9/11, the French writer and public intellectual Jean Baudrillard wrote this of the terrorist attacks: ‘Everyone without exception dreamt of this event, for not one can avoid dreaming of the destruction of any power that has become hegemonic to this extent…It is they who acted, but we who wanted the deed.’”[119] Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) said that on a trip to Europe she was embarrassed to wear an American-flag pin because the anti-American feeling was so strong.[120] No one in the peace lobby has yet explained why we should have waited for the approval of nations that hate us this much before we defended ourselves, yet the anti-American rage does force us to ask a question: Why do they hate us?

Of course, many opposed to the war claimed that it was Bush’s foreign policy that caused the Europeans to hate us. (Why won’t they help out in Iraq?  Bush has alienated them.  How did he alienate them?  By wanting to go to war in Iraq.  That has got to be the screwiest logic I have ever heard.) According to Thomas Friedman, “The unilateralist message the Bush team sent from its first day in office – get rid of the Kyoto climate treaty, forget the biological treaty, forget arms control, and if the world doesn’t like it that’s tough – has now come back to haunt us.”[121] Yes, Bush’s policy of doing what’s best for America whether the French like it or not probably didn’t help anti-Americanism, but I suspect that it’s not the root cause.  James Carville said on CNN’s Crossfire, “The Koreans hate us.  Now the Germans – you know that’s one against Germany.  You know what?  You know what?  If we had a foreign policy that tried to get people to like us, as opposed to irritating everybody in the d-mn world, it would be a lot better thing.”[122] Yet Carville cannot point to one thing (other than Kyoto) that Bush did to irritate the Europeans.  In fact, going to war against Iraq was in Europe’s best interests as well: as noted above, Ansar Al-Islam, the terrorist network harbored by Baghdad before the war, plotted terrorist actions against Great Britain, France, and Germany.  In December 2002, three members of Ansar Al-Islam were arrested in France with plans for explosives and toxins![123]  France was willing to let its people live under the threat of terrorism because Bush “irritated” them?

No, the Bush administration is not the sole cause of anti-American sentiment in Europe.  The Democrat presidential candidates seem to think that once they’re elected, everyone in the world will automatically flock to their side.  It’s not like that – anti-Americanism has been alive and well since the 1980’s.  So much so, in fact, that in April 1986, when Libyan agents set off bombs in West Berlin to kill American troops and Reagan ordered a bombing strike against Libya in retaliation, our good ally France refused to let the US use their airspace for the attack.  Doris Goodwin hit the reason for anti-Americanism on the nose: “Now the reaction against America being this superpower, launching itself around the world, the anti-Americanism is probably higher than it’s ever been.”[124] That’s just it – Europe is jealous of America’s power. As Tucker Carlson wrote, “European elites are angered not simply by American power, but also by their own weakness.  Paris and London used to be at the center of the world.  But they’re not anymore.  If you’re a European intellectual, that’s frustrating.  And yet hating America doesn’t make Europe more powerful.  If anything, it makes Europe more irrelevant.”[125]

 

“North Korea/Iran/Syria/etc. poses a greater threat to the US than did Iraq.”

     

      Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) said on CNN, “Our principal focus and attention today ought to be what is happening in North Korea.  North Korea has produced nuclear weapons.  It has a missile that can reach the United States.”[126] Senator Charles Schumer (D – New York), “You don’t have to have a Ph.D. in foreign relations to understand that North Korea poses a greater danger to the United States than Iraq.”[127] Maureen Dowd quoted a German reporter who noted that, “Syria, too, in U.S. terminology, is a state sponsor of terrorism.”[128] Howard Dean has said that North Korea and Iran pose greater nuclear dangers than did Iraq.[129] None of these people were specific about whether they wanted Bush to attack Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria simultaneously or ignore the threats from all of them.  But, the argument does deserve our attention anyway.

      In 1994, former President Jimmy Carter negotiated a treaty between the United States and North Korea: North Korea would get 500,000 tons of fuel oil every year and the funds to build two nuclear reactors for energy from the US, and North Korea would not build any nuclear weapons.

      Of course, as is now well known, when North Korea was confronted with American intelligence in October 2002, it admitted that it had been conducting a “major, clandestine nuclear-weapons program for the past several years.”[130] “A few months after that, U.S. intelligence forces tracked an unmarked ship carrying Scud missiles from North Korea to Yemen.”[131] Along with Iran and Iraq, President Bush included North Korea in his “axis of evil.”

      Here’s the deal – as Senator Kennedy (I like him almost as much as Kerry) pointed out, North Korea has probably produced nuclear weapons and has a missile that can reach US soil.  That’s precisely why Bush did not take military action against North Korea – it would’ve nuked us!  Duh!  Bush outlined his plan for dealing with North Korea as the nation was preparing for war in Iraq: “Different threats require different strategies. America is working with the countries of the region – South Korea, Japan, China and Russia – to find a peaceful solution and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation and continued hardship.”[132] What more did Ted want?

On the other hand, the situation in North Korea gave yet another reason for the war in Iraq: “Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq.”[133] You would think that would be obvious.  On the other hand, when you’re hysterically dedicated to keeping Saddam Hussein in power, these things tend to slip past you.

      President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union Address, “In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.” Iran has supported terrorism since the days of the Iranian revolution.  Iran was behind the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.[134] Early in 2002, a ship was captured delivering fifty tons of rockets, guns and mortars from Iran to the Gaza strip. “During the 1990’s, the United States became especially concerned about Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear technology.  The United States feared that such technology might give Iran the ability to produce nuclear weapons and that such weapons might then become available to terrorists or be used against Israel.  In May 1995, U.S. President Clinton issued an executive order that barred all U.S. trade with Iran.”[135] I think that Bush perhaps chose to attack Iraq over Iran because it was more of a threat at the time – it supported Al-Qaeda and intelligence indicated that it had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons.  Iraq had the capability of delivering its chemical arsenal; Iran did not.  While Iraq was close to becoming a threat and harbored the terrorist group behind 9/11, Iran was struggling to build nukes and supported terrorist groups that limited themselves mainly to suicide bombing.  

      In the Cold War, the “domino theory” of Communist expansion was demonstrated again and again.  After we left the South Vietnamese hanging out to dry, South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to communism almost instantly.  Soon after Cuba was declared communist by Fidel Castro, Nicaragua and Grenada also fell to communism.

      In the war on terrorism, we have witnessed a different kind of domino effect.  In December 2003, seven months after Operation: Iraqi Freedom ended, Colonel Moammar Qadhafi of Libya “voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime’s weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons.”[136] Libya recently gave UN weapons inspectors plans for a nuclear weapon.[137] As David Horowitz has said, the “war has brought Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi to heel [and] made the Syrians and Iranians more compliant.”[138] Iran has committed itself to not develop nuclear weapons[139] and agreed to spot inspections.[140] The vice president of Syria, Abdul Halim Khaddam, recently said that his nation intended to resume peace talks with Israel.[141] Why is it that all of these nations the peaceniks insisted were far more dangerous than Iraq are now falling over each other to meet the will of the international community?  According to Ann Coulter, “There’s nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics…Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once, too.  A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention.  Now they are gentle little lambs.”[142]  And, as President Bush said (in slightly nicer terms), “Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible – and no one can now doubt the word of America.”[143] Indeed, Qadhafi’s own words confirm this: He said to the Italian Prime Minister on the phone, “I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.”[144]

“The occupation of Iraq is turning into a Vietnam-like quagmire.”

 

      Vietnam!  The very name fills the soul of every American with horror. “Not another Vietnam!  Anything but that!  In fact, we should just withdraw all our troops right now and let Iraq be destroyed by Baathist insurgents.” This is not an exaggeration.  Dennis Kucinich has said, “Unfortunately, even Howard Dean says we have to keep our troops there [in Iraq] for years.  Sounds like another Viet Nam.  Let’s not fall into that trap again!  The occupation of Iraq has turned into a quagmire.  Our troops are the targets of terrorists flowing into Iraq.  The cost of the occupation is $155 billion with no end in sight.  As Commander-In-Chief, I will take a new, precise plan to the U.N. to bring in U.N. peacekeepers and bring our troops home in 90 days.”[145] Or, as my buddy Senator John Kerry put it (with his usual eloquence), “Did I expect George Bush to f*** it up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did.”

      To be sure, the occupation in Iraq is not a primrose path.  No one expected it to be.  But it is far from Vietnam – the biggest difference being, we’ve already won the war in Iraq, whereas we lost in Vietnam.  Many columnists have been busy comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam, too. (You know, the place where they just passed the new constitution in January?  That Afghanistan.)

      Judge Donald Walter, mentioned at the beginning of this paper, who visited Iraq in June 2003, says that, “The Iraqis I keep in touch with tell me that each day is better than the day before.”[146] By the September after the invasion, 2,000 repairs had been made to Iraq’s 143 water networks, electricity generation had reached 3,700 megawatts, all of Iraq’s universities and most of its secondary schools were open, all of Iraq’s major hospitals and 95% of its clinics were running, stocks of medicine and medical technology had been replenished, and Iraqi oil production had reached 1.7 million barrels per day.[147]  By the middle of October, Iraq had begun circulating a new currency, the dinar.[148] TIME magazine reported, “When people in the north and the south were asked whether life has improved since the war, the answer, in Arabic, often came automatically: ‘Tab’an ahsan’ (‘Of course, better).”[149]

      Ambassador Paul Bremer’s 7-point plan for Iraqi autonomy is

1) Creating an Iraqi Governing Council

2) Encouraging the Governing Council to develop a system to develop and adopt a constitution 3) Putting day-to-day governmental functions in the hands of Iraqis

4) Writing the constitution

5) Achieving popular ratification of the constitution

6) Electing a sovereign government

7) Ceding remaining coalition authority to the Iraqi government.

     

      By September 2003, the first three steps were implemented.  The Arab League has recognized the Iraqi Governing Council, which is at this moment drawing up an Iraqi bill of rights.[150]^{, [151]} The Coalition Provisional Authority is planning to field 27 battalions of the New Iraq Army by September 1, 2004.[152] As of February 8, 2004, 150,000 Iraqis have been recruited as army soldiers, civil defense personnel and police officers.[153] The date for ending the coalition occupation in Iraq is set for July 1^st, 2004.[154] In October 2003, the UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution defining “the role that the United Nations can and should play in rebuilding Iraq, and makes it clear that all governing responsibilities will be turned over to the Iraqi people as soon as it is feasible.”[155]

      And now, to discuss the horrendous inability of coalition forces to deal with the raging, unwinnable, Vietnam-like guerilla war in Iraq, here’s our commander-and-chief, George W. Bush: “Having broken the Baathist regime, we face a remnant of violent Saddam supporters. Men who ran away from our troops in battle are now dispersed and attack from the shadows.

These killers, joined by foreign terrorists, are a serious, continuing danger. Yet we are making progress against them. The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell. Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day, and conducting an average of 180 raids every week. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein’s evil regime.”[156] 180 raids per week!  Yes, the entire civilized world is shaking in its boots at the ominous and growing threat from Saddam’s thugs!  Indeed, a 17-page memo allegedly written by insurgent Abu Musab al-Zarqawi found by American forces said, “Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases. By G-d, this is suffocation!”[157]

      Rebuilding a country is not an easy task.  No one is saying otherwise.  The middle east, including post-war Iraq, is not a nice place.  There are religious and racial issues to overcome, as well as the Iraqi insurgents and a legacy of working-class poverty in the region that dates back to the Genesis Flood.  All things considered, President Bush and our troops are doing a fantastic job. The rationale behind the “quagmire” argument is, “It’s too hard.  Let’s give up and go home.” Yes sir, anti-war patriotism is growing by the minute.

To conclude, here are some words from President Bush: “The work of building a new Iraq is hard, and it is right. And America has always been willing to do what it takes for what is right…And tonight we are honored to welcome one of Iraq’s most respected leaders: the current President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Adnan Pachachi. Sir, America stands with you and the Iraqi people as you build a free and peaceful nation.”[158]  

Conclusion: The Vast, Left-Wing Conspiracy

      When the twelve anti-war arguments listed above are critically examined (meaning, you try to think them through for once), they either prove to be false or turn out to be nonsense.  Yet these absurdities came not from the average Joe, uninformed citizen – they came from former presidents, former vice presidents, senators, representatives, foreign leaders, etc., who (I sincerely hope!) knew better.  Why?  Did they have an all-consuming desire for peace that simply overwhelmed all reason?

In December of 1998, President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia began attacks against ethnic Albanians living in the province of Kosovo, driving many from their homes and killing about 3,000 of them. “Clinton said there was no alternative to military intervention because Yugoslavia refused to halt its attacks. But in June 1999, Yugoslav military leaders agreed to withdraw their troops. NATO stopped the bombing and sent an international peacekeeping force to Kosovo. The United States pledged 7,000 troops.”[159] (Who are still there, in a very Vietnam-like sort of way.) The attacks were led by General Wesley Clark (who was also against the war in Iraq.) If the current anti-war lobby cared at all about peace, we would still be hearing about that ol’ warmonger Clinton.  As I recall, there were a few scattered protests in China. (This was after we accidentally bombed their embassy.)

The US attacks after a dictator kills 3,000 Albanians and banishes thousands more.  No complaints from the political left.  In fact, it’s “America at its best,” comparable to stopping a “hate crime.”[160] Yet when President Bush takes out a genocidal dictator, who had probably killed millions of people, tortured and killed little kids and forced the Kurds to flee their homes after the Gulf War, it’s the “worst mistake in US history.”[161] Only one thing changed – the party of the commander-in-chief.

Again, when in 1998, after the UN weapons inspectors left Iraq with 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin unaccounted for, President Clinton preemptively launched missile strikes on Iraq, we should’ve heard cries of outrage from the peace lobby.  To the contrary, Tom Daschle said, “This is a time to send Saddam Hussein as clear a message as we know how to send that we will not tolerate the broken promises and the tremendous acceleration of development of weapons that we’ve seen time and time again in Iraq.”[162] When a Democrat was in the Oval Office, he thought it was wise to send a “message” to Saddam.  But five years later, when we had a Republican president, and Saddam was still breaking promises and developing weapons, Daschle was hysterical about sending the wrong “messages” to the “world community.” [163] He was perfectly willing to tolerate Saddam, as long as it made his political nemesis look bad.  It was the same story with Madeline Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state.  When Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998, she had this to say: “Month after month, we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation, and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action.  We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq’s misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world.”[164] When, five years later, Iraq had not moved to cooperation, was not abiding by the will of the world or the rule of law and we had exhausted every diplomatic action, she breezily reassured us that, although Iraq had weapons of mass doom, Saddam “must surely be aware that if he ever again tries to attack another country he will be obliterated.”[165] Why the sudden change of heart?  We had a Republican commander-in-chief.

David Horowitz summed up the problem fairly well: “Democrats have been so seduced by their ‘hate Bush’ passions that they will oppose anything he has done.  In the process, they have forgotten that Bill Clinton and Al Gore called for regime change in Iraq and got congressional endorsement for that policy…The facts are that Clinton and almost every Democrat now whining about the war in Iraq were on record calling for regime change in Iraq and believing that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  Senator John Kerry was privy to the very intelligence reports he now attacks the president for believing.”[166] (Emphasis mine.  I just love John Kerry.) Of course, all that changed when a Republican got elected.  Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Albright and the whole crew did a 180° on their position on Iraq.  Gradually, the fury and misinformation trickled down to the common man, and sooner than you can say “sheer political hatred,” you’ve got millions of protestors worldwide outraged at the thought of Bush defending America.

      The vast, left-wing conspiracy had struck again.  If it had succeeded, 23 million Iraqis would still be living in constant fear, a dictator would still be developing ricin, anthrax, nerve gas and nuclear weapons, Al-Qaeda would have one more base of operations, and the civilized world would not be safe.  When political interests come before defending the country, it’s time for a change.

      But the ignorance is still growing at a rapid rate.  When was the last time you heard about Saddam’s network of WMD laboratories, his nuclear program, his UAV’s, his missiles, his ricin or his biological strains on the news?  When was the last time you heard about Iraq training Al-Qaeda to use chemical and biological weapons on the news?  The number of Americans angry at Bush for no reason is growing daily.

      Let’s think about this.  President Bush was faced with the following scenario: Iraq had weapon of mass destruction programs, refused to account for 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, our intelligence agencies estimated that it had 500 tons of chemical agents, a defector said it would be a nuclear power by 2005, and it was a well-known fact that it had connections to Al-Qaeda and was training them to use the above.  The bombing raids and embargos had done nothing, and the UN was heading towards lifting the sanctions. “The United States could have retreated and allowed Saddam free rein – or gone to war and removed him.  Those were the only two ways to go.”[167] Bush had only two choices – cut off the threat now, or let it grow until it was unstoppable, until Al-Qaeda members walked the streets of America with biological weapons in their briefcases.  C’mon, folks.  These are the people who flew 747’s into buildings.  We need a president who will take the fight to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WAR:	The War in the Balkans March-June 1999	Operation: Iraqi Freedom March-May 2003
TARGET:	Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia	Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq
JUSTIFICATION:	Serbian forces launched a campaign against Kosovo’s Albanians, driving many from their homes.  Approximately 3,000 Albanian men of fighting age were killed.	Saddam Hussein killed well over a million of his own people: men, women and children, political enemies, Kurds and Shiite Muslims.  In 1999, the United Nations found him to be in violation of the 1991 resolutions that forbade him to construct chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.  He neither disclosed his weapons nor gave evidence of having destroyed them.
THREAT TO U.S. SECURITY:	None	In 1999, the United Nations found that Saddam Hussein had the materials to construct 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of bolitium toxin.  US intelligence indicated that he had the materials to produce 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and nerve toxin.  In the 1990’s, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Hussein had a nuclear weapons program and was working on methods of enriching uranium.  Intelligence also indicated that he had 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.  After the war, a nuclear program and a well-developed biological weapons laboratory network were found, as well as an extensive UAV program.  Two Iraqi government agents imprisoned by the Kurds confirmed that Iraq was working with Al-Qaeda, the terrorist group behind 9/11.  A detained senior Al-Qaeda official said that Iraq had trained Al-Qaeda operatives to produce and use chemical and biological weapons.  Iraq harbored Ansar Al-Islam, an Al-Qaeda-linked terrorist organization in Baghdad and northern Iraq.
UN SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVAL:	None	None
ALLIES:	North Atlantic Treaty Organization	A coalition of 35 countries lent troops to the operation.
WORLDWIDE REACION:	Limited protesting in China (after the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia was bombed.)	Millions of protesters worldwide, especially in the US and Europe.
DESCRIPTION:	“America at its best” – President Clinton	“The worst mistake in US history” - Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF:	William J. Clinton, 1993-2001	George W. Bush, 2001-
PARTY OF COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF:	Democrat	Republican

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presidential contender John Kerry has repeatedly called our allies in Iraq “window dressing.” Here is a list of our 34 “window dressing” allies, from A-Z, who have contributed 1/5 of the troops in Iraq.  It should be noted that even though the invasion of Iraq was well-supported internationally (except in certain European countries), the worthiness and justice of a cause does not depend on the amount of people who support it.

 

Source: “Spain Shifts Away from US Iraq Policy”, March 15, MSNBC News Services

 

NATION	NUMBER OF TROOPS CONTRIBUTED
Great Britain	11,000
Albania	70
Australia	1,000
Azerbaijan	150
Bulgaria	470
Czech Republic	92
Denmark	496
Dominican Republic	300
El Salvador	360
Estonia	55
Georgia	70
Honduras	370
Hungary	300
Italy	3,000
Japan	1,000
Kazakhstan	25
Latvia	120
Lithuania	105
Macedonia	28
Moldova	2
Mongolia	180
Netherlands	1,100
New Zealand	60
Nicaragua	230
Norway	150
Philippines	290
Poland	2,400
Romania	400
Singapore	200
Slovakia	189
South Korea	3,675
Spain	1,300
Thailand	473
Ukraine	2,000

ENDNOTES