New Hampshire Matters
Do We Have the Will to Prevail in Iraq?
by Ray F. Chadwick
The world watched as United States citizens, interests and territory were repeatedly attacked with no effective response. Remember attacks on our Iranian Embassy, Pan Am 103, the Marines in Beirut, the World Trade Center (in 1993), Khobar Towers and the USS Cole.
They watched the US withdraw from Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia and abandon the South Vietnamese. Allies watched congressional leaks expose CIA secrets and covert programs in 1975 and 1976 and Executive Order 12958 in 1995 to mandate automatic declassification of secret information.
The impression was that the United States was not resolute enough to prevail in a conflict and was not trustworthy as an ally, particularly to those risking their secrets or their life when dealing with us.
Unwilling to Act?
Even with the most advanced military and robust economy in the world, the United States seemed unwilling to protect its interests and allies, respond to attacks on it or sustain casualties in doing so.
Osama Bin Laden commented on this in a 1998 interview with ABC News:
“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. …America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace. I was very happy…”
After September 11th, a more active response was mandatory, if only because responses to prior attacks had not deterred new ones. Several countries were complicit in attacks on the United States or its allies:
Afghanistan harbored bin Laden and terrorist camps during planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks.
Iran attacked the United States in 1979 by seizing our Embassy and was believed to have supported attacks on the US military and embassy in Beirut.
Iraq was already fighting US forces. It had used chemical weapons against Iran and its own population and was refusing inspection of nuclear programs. It was corrupting the United Nations and other countries by bribes under the UN “Oil for Food” program.
Syria was working to overthrow the Lebanese government, supporting terrorist groups there.
Failure to retaliate for attacks on the US and its interests had only invited further attacks.
Change the Dynamics
The only sustainable solution, however, would be to transform the paradigm of religious wars and conquest that had characterized the Middle East for a millennium. The goal was to change the dynamics that had made the area an incubator for fundamentalist and terrorist initiatives.
With such a goal in mind, Iraq was of much greater strategic significance than Afghanistan.
Iraq had the potential to further destabilize the area and had previously demonstrated its ability to do so. It had invaded Kuwait and burned its oil wells, had deployed WMD, and appeared to be hiding development of nuclear weapons. It lay between Iran and Syria, bordered Saudi Arabia and had the second largest oil reserves in the world. Iraq was already fighting United States forces.
A more moderate Iraq would go a long way toward bringing stability to the region.
Defeat of the Saddam Hussein regime was quick. Pacification of Iraq, and establishing a democratic government that would be an ally in fighting terrorists, has been much more difficult.
Al Queda and Iran, recognizing the significance of Iraq, are working to exacerbate tensions there and create as many casualties as possible. Their hope is to cause the loss of support for the war in the United States and (similar to Vietnam) a consequent withdrawal.
Osama bin Laden said on September 7, 2007:
“People of America: the world is following your news…. after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose….”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, said on August 28, 2007:
“The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap…”
“Today, Iran is a nuclear Iran. That means, it fully possesses the whole nuclear fuel cycle.”
Safety of Citizens
It should be obvious that the strategic interests of the United States include the safety of our citizens at home and abroad and a stable economy, which depends upon a secure and stable supply of oil.
A stable Iraq that shares these goals is greatly in our interest.
Abandoning Iraq would lead to the possibility of civil war with potential consequences of Iranian hegemony, the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, fundamentalist control of over a third of the world’s oil, and to a triumphant, refreshed terrorist network with access to nuclear technology.
The outcome of the Iraq effort will be greatly influenced by the will of the United States to prevail.
Failure to do so there, and the consequences here, will be much worse.
###
References:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12356.html
http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v42i5a07p.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v44i5a07p.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html#miller
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/crudeoilreserves.xls
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/28/iraq/main3212013.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3212013
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/new-obl-tape-ir.html
###
Ray F. Chadwick is a resident of Bedford who is active in promoting conservative and Republican ideals.