We are there because we have to be. That area of the world has been riddled with strife and generally uncivilized behavior for long enough and they've started exporting this negativity to the western world in the form of terrorism. I'm convinced most people have no concept of how global terrorists operate, and that has fueled a massive debate intensified by the destruction of the towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11 in New York. Al Qaeda had found fertile ground from which to base their operation and this comfort level provided their membership organizational infrastucture. It also made it easier for those who would seek them out in order to provide funding, resources or any other type of assistance. Afghanistan and it's ruling Taliban provide a good illustration of this global terror organizational model. Not better than Iraq, but better in the sense that the world's leftists and their media did not take up cause against that battle in this war. As far as our enemy is concerned, this war is divine in nature and this influences who they identify as their enemy. Our rhetoric consistently underestimates the cunning of our opponents. We speak of them in ambiguous terms because they choose to keep their membership low profile, their loyalty to a cause rather than to a nation, and operate in concert with traditional leadership and in defiance of it. They are basically a politcal force in both the middle east, and the world (as witnessed by the events in Spain before during and after their most recent elections). Owing to their aggressive nature and level of skill, traditional leaders in the region(s) where they have the most influence have to address any designs they choose to inflict on them. There are degrees to which these leaders embrace the likes of Al Qaeda. The Taliban, when confronted with destruction chose to remain steadfast in their support for Al Qaeda. For that mistake they've had their reckoning with justice. The War on Terror, can not be limited to the Taliban as it's doctrine demands these traditional leaders purge the global terrorists and their leadership from their society as they rightly should. Al Qaeda is obviously one of the most deadly and organized of the global terrorism exporters, but organizations such as Hezbola (sp?) share the very essence of their movement with Al Qaeda. Should they find their targets too limited in scope, they will step up attacks against the allies of their enemies as well. Saddam Hussein fully supported their efforts going so far as to pay the families of suicide bombers 25,000 dollars even as we massed our forces at his borders. Saddam Hussein had been flirting with the more organized and lethal Al Qaeda terrorist network, and indeed they shared a common enemy....the United States. Al Qaeda seeks refuge for their operations in sympathetic areas throughout the world, but primarily in the middle east. Their ideology drives their selection of targets. Their targets include the United States, Israel, and all who would align with us. The Taliban embraced their ideology and gave safe haven to them (them meaing both Al Qaeda and exporters of this brand of terror in general). Saddam Hussein supported the same causes as these organizations as well as the organizations themselves directly and openly. Al Qaeda and their ilk use ambiguity of their location, membershiip, and the subversive nature of their network iin concert (in part or in full with) traditional leadership like that of Afghanistan's Taliban and Iraq's Saddam Hussein to export violence to their enemies thoughout the world. This gives them all a decisive advantage over their enemy as, from our perspective, it is not absolutely obvious exactly who and where we should focus our retalliation.
There were two very important considerations in our decision to focus our efforts on Saddam Hussein and the region of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein, a declared enemy of our nation, had a history of conflict with his neighbors, with us, and with the world at large. After his invasion of and eviction from Kuwait, he was given an ultimatum. He had to conform to the expectations of the agreed upon cease fire arrangement or he would be removed. He never really fullfilled his side of the deal. Measures were taken to attain his cooperation and limit his influence. He was required to cease support for terrorists, eliminate his weapons of mass destruction and discontinue efforts to manufacture them, and end the brutal treatment of the Iraqi people and open his government to the influence of democracy. He fialed to comply with any of these expectations. In regards to WMD, David Kay (who was assigned to find out as much about Saddam's banned weapons as possible) has said that Saddam's missle capability exceeded the maximum range he was allowed, that he maintained secret and dual purpose facilities related to the programs as well as materials relating to the creation of such weapons. He said Hussein was in material breech of the United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring him to fully and transparently disarm. On the treatment of his people, the world's sympathy for their suffering involved a program that allowed Saddam to sell the country's oil wealth in limited quantities and use the money for infrastructure and relief for the Iraqi people. This system (which by it's very nature sought to illicit Saddam's cooperation and was never meant to be a permanent method of containment for his designs) was thoroughly abused by both Hussein and some of the nations he did business with. It caused a conflict of interest for those nations, that went unmolested duirng the U.S. push for resolution to the situation with Hussein in the United Nations Security Council when nations such as France and Russia opposed the application of punishment for Saddam's continued obfuscation and deception.
We may not have found his stockpiles of WMD, but we had good reason to believe he had them, and they may yet be found. It is beside the point when one reviews the realities exposed as a result of ending his regime. Our supiciouns were well founded. His intentions were clearly to continue his deceptive behavoir and subvert the inspections/sanctions until such time that they were removed or he had attained the ability to threaten his persecutors with clandestinely manufactured weapons of mass destruction. I've my suspicions that there remains a substantial amount of weapons and materials that we've yet to find after reviewing his immediately pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom machinations. He burried figher jets in the deserts of Iraq. He had regime memebers destroy records that would have been incriminating. He hid. He might have been a blood crazed lunatic thug, but he wasn't stupid. He knew his enemy was coming and he knew they possesed the ablity to dispatch him. He also knew that if he could maintain his innocence during his seclusion and pick our soldiers off one at a time, that the sceptical and timid elements and their influence in our nation would begin calling for our withdrawal. If he could hold out long enough, he could return to power. It was either do that, or go out in a blaze of jihad, or simply surrender.
We had to finish the natural course of affairs with Saddam Hussein. He was an effective target for our war on terror because of and as a result of the history we had with his regime. If we can't take out someone like Saddam, who can we take out?
No comments:
Post a Comment