Why did we go to war in Iraq??

 I enjoy investing.  One of the tools I dial into my toolkit are various message boards that discuss various companies.  While many have little value, one board I visit periodically is populated by many thoughtful investors.  And, being thoughtful, they expand their on-line discussions beyond the usual chatter about the individual stock to the political arena.

 I suspect from this site you can determine which side of the political spectrum I come down on.  Not surprisingly, there are a number of the members of the opposite side of the political fence. 

 During the recent discussion, the following question was posted to me:

 You asked: <What is the number of Americans that would have to die for you to react?>

I suppose you are one of those who think we went to war with Iraq because they attacked us. do you mind telling me when they attacked us? (Please don't say 9/11 incident at WTC. I will lose all respect for you). Perhaps they were THINKING of attacking us? Is that where the "gathering" threat comes from?

Just curious as to how you justify the war in Iraq. (Please don't say because Sadam was a brutal dictator. There are too many of those around the world which means we've got a lot more wars to fight in the coming years if Bush is re-elected).

I would apreciate an aswer. I am baffled.

 A fair question.  And many elements to the answer in my own mind.

 The primary thing to keep in mind, my opinion, is 9/11. Take Saddam out of the formula all together.  The terrorist community, particularly al-Queida, has planned and executed a devastating attack on US soil.  The immediate cost to the our country was 2,700 deaths, the destruction of an economic icon in the form of the twin towers, one trillion dollars to the US economy according to the GAO and tens of thousands of jobs in New York, the airline industry and a wide array of supporting industries. 

 The context of global terror changed that day.  And, that was and is the context that must be used when evaluating military interventions when dealing with supporters of the global terrorist network.

 I will use this POV article as a response to the poster, let me answer his post in order.

 I suppose you are one of those who think we went to war with Iraq because they attacked us. do you mind telling me when they attacked us?

 No, I do not believe Iraqi troops were use to attack us on 9/11.  However, training complexes have been document to assist in the training of aircraft hijacking and military tactics in general to various terrorist groups. And, there has been ample documentation found that indicates that Saddam did indeed have direct communication with members of the hijacking teams.

 Saddam was also paying families of Hammas suicide bombers. Of course, there was his history of attacking Iran, the Kurds, Kuwait and his 12 year history of attacks on US military aircraft who were enforcing the no-fly zones. 

 Additionally, there was blatant rejection of 17 UN resolutions as well as the skirting of the sanctions placed on his sale of oil for his own uses rather than providing food and medicine for his own people.

 Were they thinking of attacking us??  As a matter of fact, according to President Putin or Russia, yes.  In a recent interview he said he had informed the US government that Saddam was indeed preparing for covert attacks on the US prior to our invasion.

 The real problem I have with this portion of your question to me is that you imply we must first be attacked before we can eliminate a direct threat to the US or our global interests.  Is this really your approach, we must loose American citizens and property first, then we can attack?  If you had four or five security agencies from differing countries tell us that al-Quieda had created new training bases in Syria and that they were practicing for attacks on Boston, would you wait until the attacks were executed before responding?  That is Senator Kerry’s position and it scares the hell out of me!!

 Just curious as to how you justify the war in Iraq. (Please don't say because Sadam was a brutal dictator. There are too many of those around the world which means we've got a lot more wars to fight in the coming years if Bush is re-elected).

There are a number of reasons that reached a confluence in Iraq. I present them in no particular order.

 Iraq was a country that actively supported the terrorists in the heart of the Middle East that could quickly and relatively easily be beaten.

 The global community MUST confront the growing threat from radical Islamic terrorists.  It must be defeated decisively and as quickly as possible. Our entry into Iraq accomplished a number of goals.  It eliminated a real regional threat.  It produced an unequivocal example to other countries in the region that if you support terror, if you terrorize your neighbors, if you defy the UN Security Council, you will, without doubt, be dealt with.  Up until that point, we presented decades of weakness to our enemies with the final result that they believed they could attack us on US soil without consequences.    Finally, it will, over time, spawn a new representative government for the people of Iraq. This will provide a goal for other peoples in the region, that they too can have a say in their government.  And, it will act as a message to other despots in the region that we support freedom in the region and that they can go willingly or their people will take them there willing or not.

  Oil.

 Yes, it was a war for oil.  The reality of the world today is that it runs on oil.  To allow regional control of oil to fall under the control of Saddam was unthinkable in 91.  Today, it is likewise unthinkable that we allow the control of regional oil to fall under the control of the terrorists or to be disrupted by the terrorists.  The establishment of a free Iraq will be a solid long-term investment in the security of global oil reserves.

 It should be noted that if we drilled within the US to tap and use our own oil reserves, if we built new refineries, built new coal powered electrical plants and built new nuclear power plants, we could go a long way towards reducing our dependence of foreign oil.  However, the liberals and environmentalists continually stymie efforts to expand our own energy resources.

 As a warning to Iran and North Korea.

 These countries have been actively identified to the west.  In fact, Iran continues to expand their nuclear program and DEMAND from the EU equipment to refine their nuclear material.  I believe we wanted to send a clear message that threats to the US would be dealt with.  While our message was clear, it appears that both countries are ignoring our warning. I suspect we will see a direct attack on the nuclear plants in Iraq before the end of the year.

 North Korea is another issue.  They have proudly announced that they have a nuclear weapon and a delivery system to reach the US. I suspect we will continue to attempt the diplomatic approach with ourselves and the 5 other regional powers. I have no idea how this will turn out. However, for the liberals promoting diplomacy over all else, they will get their wish in dealing with North Korea. The penalty for their being wrong will be catastrophic for the US.

 Where does this leave us??

 At war.  A real, shooting war.  Not a political debate, not a diplomatic mess, not a misunderstanding of Islamic fascists.  A war.

 What to do??  Preemption is the only principle that has a chance of keeping the fight in our enemy’s back yard rather than on our doorstep.  We must continue to present our arguments to the European community.  They are at as much risk to their civilization as we are.  It is evident by the reaction of Spain, Turkey and the Philippines that direct violence against them works.  This is an incredibly dangerous signal to send.  Unfortunately, I believe that there will need to be a significant terrorist act on European soil to wake them up.

 We must expand both our covert abilities and our standing army.  Failure to step up to this threat will only bring us more attacks, not fewer. Additionally, a broad spectrum of military systems must be updated including transportation, fighter aircraft, personal weapons and protective systems, communications systems and information systems.  We are fighting this war with equipment decades old, an insult to our fighting force and a danger to our effectiveness.

 We are in a war that will last a generation.  Until we can assist in bring hope and prosperity to the Mideast, it will continue to fester as a source of terrorists.  Iraq is a baby step.  More will be needed.

 We must realize this is a war that will last a generation.  We must steel ourselves to protect our soil, our citizens and our global interests.  Battle has been engaged, but it is far from over.

Bill Keller

Editor