On March 19, 2003, U.S.-led coalition forces attacked Iraq with the stated mission of toppling the Saddam Hussein government. On April 9, 2003, coalition troops entered Baghdad and pulled down a statue of Hussein in Fardus Square, while the Hussein government fled into hiding. This marked the symbolic end of the Iraq War. On December 13, 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured while hiding in a hole near Tikrit. This marked the end of the mission known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.
That bears repeating. The Iraq War was won in less than nine months.
Since that time, however, the challenge of winning the peace has proven to be formidable. Many Iraqis are happy to have American troops still there, helping to protect from outside agitators and training Iraqis to take over their own national protection. Some Iraqis, though, bolstered by nationals of other countries such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, see the American forces as occupiers and want them evicted immediately. These insurgents use terrorist tactics to achieve that goal, and as such are no more and no less than terrorists themselves, thus bringing them squarely into the line of fire in the continuing war on terrorism.
The continuing uproar in America regarding the Iraq conflict focuses on our presence there, the reasons why we overthrew Hussein, and the reasons why our troops are still in harm's way three years after the capture of Hussein. Let's look at these last two items, and come to an understanding of why the first item (our presence there) is vital to the war on terrorism.
(THE NECESSITY OF UNSEATING HUSSEIN)
Saddam Hussein unilaterally attacked Kuwait on August 2, 1990. This attack became the reason for the U.N.-sponsored coalition that drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and all the way back to the outskirts of Baghdad in four days, during the action known as Operation Desert Storm. Hussein signed a cease-fire accord that effectively blocked his military from the ability to threaten a neighboring country, and to allow U.N. inspectors unfettered access to military sites and personnel to confirm that the military could not threaten other nations. The "no-fly zone" arose from this cease-fire, as did the "oil for food" program to assist poorer Iraqis in obtaining the necessities of life.
Saddam Hussein was in material breach of the cease-fire accord of 1991. Up until March 1, 2003 (eighteen days before Operation Iraqi Freedom began), he possessed missiles capable of striking other nations, or of going over one nation to strike another (the al-Samoud missile). U.N. inspectors frequently found that military sites were unavailable to them, and that key personnel such as scientists could not be contacted for interviews. U.S. and British aircraft patrolling the "no-fly zone" were attacked on several occasions, and the "oil for food" program became a slush fund for Hussein and opportunistic persons from the U.N.
The world intelligence agencies also believed that Hussein either actively possessed weapons of mass destruction (also forbidden by the terms of the cease-fire), was trying to obtain them, or both. Since Hussein refused to provide concrete evidence that WMDs known to have been in his possession had been destroyed, intelligence gatherers could only conclude that he still had them. It was not possible to know, until Hussein had been captured and the country was in the hands of the U.S. military, that there were in fact no WMDs present. Evidence was found that Hussein had had such weapons at one time, as shells were found with traces of both sarin gas and mustard gas still inside, but no stockpiles were ever found.
At the end of February 2003, with the coalition forces preparing to strike and the last-ditch efforts of diplomacy moving towards their ultimate failure, convoys of military trucks were seen on cable news channels leaving Iraq headed for Syria. To this day, no one seems to know what those trucks contained. Considering that stockpiles of conventional weaponry was found in Iraq after the fall of the Hussein government, it is believable that WMDs could have been on those trucks, transported to Syria just before the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The U.S. government knew that the Hussein government had WMDs, both because the U.S. supplied them to him, and because he used gas on the Kurdish population. The disposal of those WMDs, though, is still a mystery.
These were the basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Violation of the cease-fire accord, in and of itself, might not have been justification enough to remove Hussein from power, but coupled with the mystery of the WMDs, it was. The Iraq War was a conflict designed to remove from power, in an area of strategic and economic importance to America's national interests, a person who had demonstrated that he was a continuing threat not only to those interests, but to his neighboring states as well.
(THE NECESSITY OF THE AMERICAN PRESENCE IN IRAQ)
As the primary component of the coalition that unseated the Hussein government, America has a moral duty to rebuild Iraq to the level it had before March 19, 2003, and to establish a functional government. The first part is still in progress, and the second part has been achieved. The important part of the first objective that has not been achieved, however, is that Iraq is as of yet unable to defend itself from both internal and external attack. This is the reason that American forces are still on the ground in Iraq, and will continue to be there as both police and training advisors, until enough Iraqi forces are ready to defend their own nation.
There are several "private militias" in Iraq, most notably the one controlled by the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. These militias are not answerable to the central al-Maliki government in Baghdad, and as such cannot be counted upon to defend the country in case of attack. In fact, some believe that these private militias actively assist the insurgent activity in Iraq. Therefore, these militias are a danger both to American forces and to the Iraqi citizenry, and should be disbanded or brought under the control of the elected government.
The importance of Iraq strategically in the war on terror cannot be overemphasized. Look at a map of the Middle East. Iraq borders three countries known to be havens for terrorists, including one currently governed by a man believed to have been part of the U.S. Embassy takeover/hostage situation of 1979 (Mahmoud Ahmedinejan, the Prime Minister of Iran). To the northwest, Iraq borders Syria, home of Hezhbollah and Islamic Jihad (two terrorist organizations), and a danger to neighboring states in its' own right, as witness the takeover of Lebanon starting in 1976 and continuing today with known members of Hezhbollah in the Lebanese Cabinet. To the south, Iraq borders Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 20 terrorists who brought about the 9-11 attack on America, and whose Crown Prince Abdullah is an outspoken foe of America. To the east, Iraq borders Iran, which is led by the aforementioned Ahmedinejad, and which is currently seeking to bring on-line a breeder reactor to produce enriched, or weapons-grade, plutonium, thus immediately making Iran a member of the nations that possess nuclear weapons.
Obviously, then, Iraq is of prime importance in terms of positioning if America is to successfully continue the war on terrorism.
(WHAT AMERICA SHOULD DO NOW)
There are several tasks that remain unfinished in Iraq. The al-Maliki government does not have any semblance of internal control with purely Iraqi forces, but must depend on American forces to maintain even a token peace. This is insupportable. For the al-Maliki government to be effective, it must have its own peacekeeping force ready and able to do the job. Therefore, American forces must step up the pace of training to get Iraqis ready for this task. If a civilian in the United States can be taught to be a soldier in six months or less, surely we can do the same in Iraq.
The private militias cannot continue to be autonomous units in Iraq. American and Iraqi leaders must make it plain to these militias and their leaders that if they do not recognize the authority of the central government in Baghdad and be controlled by the orders of that body, they will be regarded as insurgents and dealt with appropriately. Troop presence in Iraq will have to increase as a result of this, but that will surely be forthcoming, along with an increase in the standing military of the United States. Simply put, we need more people in order to accomplish the task that has been set; increasing the standing (volunteer) military is the best way to accomplish this.
Finally, America must establish permanent bases in Iraq. As discussed earlier, Iraq is very probably THE best strategic place from which to conduct the war on terrorism, and thus permanent bases will be required. America can only do that, however, with permission from the Baghdad government. Two bases would be needed, one in the northwest (Kurdish territory, and reasonably near the Syrian border), and one in the southeast (near the borders of Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia). These bases would have to be located and built with both defensibility and troop staging in mind; small enough to be locked down on a moment's notice, yet large enough to handle bomber runways and up to 50,000 troops.
In sum: America is engaged in a war on terrorism. The Afghanistan attack following 9-11 was designed to flush out the mastermind of that particular attack, but this war will not end with the death of Osama bin-Laden. This war will only end when terrorists are no longer able to bring random death and destruction to people around the world, and when the mindset of enough people are changed in the Middle East so that they desire peace and the prospect of a successful future, rather than a future of bleakness, war, and poverty. For over two centuries, America has demonstrated that the path to personal freedom, liberty, and success lies in self-determinative governance and the benefits of a free market economy. It is to be hoped that the United States has the patience, the strength, and the courage to continue this fight for the hearts and minds of people in the Middle East and, indeed, around the world. If we falter in our efforts, there is no one else who will stand up to the terrorists, and all people will live in fear. We CANNOT let this happen.
