Obama's Standard for Justification for War Is Troubling

Barak Obama recently visited Iraq. Today, he also visited soldiers wounded in Iraq who are recovering in the U.S. Troops appreciate such visits by their Commander in Chief.

Strategically, Obama continues to make the right moves in Iraq, despite his gratuitous anti-Bush and anti-Liberation of Iraq rhetoric. As I have noted in earlier posts, Obama has vindicated George W. Bush’s policies in Iraq and, for the most part, in the overall War on Terrorism through his decision to maintain his predecessor’s policies. The recent progress on weapons of mass destruction made by the surviving members of the Axis of Evil, North Korea and Iran, makes us appreciate all the more the elimination of Iraq’s WMD program.

Obama’s rhetoric on Iraq, which he has continued since the presidential election campaign, as well as the continued threat from North Korea and Iran, provides the opportunity for me to post an essay here I wrote during the campaign that refutes his opposition to the Liberation of Iraq:

Obama's Standard for Justification for War Is Troubling

In the second presidential debate, Barack Obama admitted that he does not “understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.” Obama’s statement reveals a disturbing lack of judgment and an inability to recognize the lessons of September 11th and the nature of the threat from Islamic militancy.

If Obama believes that only complicity in the September 11th Attacks justifies war, then the United States would never be able to go to war with North Korea or Iran, because they “had nothing to do with 9/11.” Although the justifications for liberating Iraq from the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein are well known, it is apparently necessary to remind Obama of them.

First, Iraq was violating its 1991 cease-fire agreement by frequently attacking coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraqi airspace. In other words, Iraq was continuing the “Mother of All Battles” by attacking American troops.

Second, Hussein’s Iraq was listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism for harboring and financing terrorists who targeted and killed Americans. Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas, who hijacked the Achille Lauro, during which an American was murdered, was harbored for many years by Iraq. Through Abbas, Hussein funneled money to the families of suicide bombers. One such bomber killed four American soldiers in the Gaza strip. In part because Iraqi money is no longer funding suicide bombings, Americans are less fearful to travel to the Holy Land.

Third, Iraq refused to account for its known weapons of mass destruction (WMD), in violation of United Nations resolutions. This refusal allowed Hussein to continue to intimidate its neighbors. Although large stockpiles of WMD were not found in Iraq, hundreds of scattered old chemical weapons have been found, as well as the materials necessary to resume production of WMD once economic sanctions had been lifted. Yet possession of WMD alone does not justify war. It was because Hussein was a like an international parolee required to prove that he no longer possessed WMD that his refusal to do so forced the world to act.

In short, Iraq’s history of terrorism and aggression justified war. Obama cannot deny the justifications for the Liberation of Iraq, but even if Obama believes the war was not prudent, he nonetheless ought to be able to understand the reasonable arguments of those with whom he disagrees.

Although Iraq was not complicit in the September 11 Attacks, the Liberation of Iraq was prudent because it was relevant to the War on Terrorism. Note the war is not called the “War on al-Qaeda.” After all, the lesson of September 11 is that through modern technology, terrorists from anywhere in the world can strike at a time, manner and place of their choosing. Moreover, September 11 raised the bar for terrorists, inasmuch as American resolve to resist terrorism – even after such a massacre – means that terrorists believe that only an even larger attack could sufficiently intimidate Americans into giving into their demands.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the effort to win the War on Terrorism has benefited in two ways from the Liberation of Iraq. First, the U.S. no longer needs to station troops in Saudi Arabia, where they were also being attacked by Islamic militants. The presence of American troops in the Muslim holy land was the main excuse for Osama bin Laden’s opposition to the United States. Second, al-Qaeda made a strategic blunder by focusing on Iraq instead of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda militants have been captured and killed by the thousands in the Battle of Iraq – a major defeat for them in the War on Terrorism.

Defeating hostile Islamic militants is vital to the West because history demonstrates that successful Islamic militancy is essential to the rise of Islam. Barack Obama ought to study this history. The military conquests by Arab Muslims beginning in the 7th Century seemed to suggest that Allah favored their cause, which helped them to win many converts.

A second wave of Muslim aggression threatened Western Europe by the 16th Century. A rapidly growing Ottoman Turkish Empire planned to invade Rome. At the naval Battle of Lepanto in 1571, a coalition of the willing launched a preemptive strike against the Muslim Turkish aggressors. Against a larger Turkish force, the Christians achieved a decisive victory. Lepanto and the Siege of Vienna in 1683 marked the turning points in Western resistance to Ottoman aggression.

Militant Muslims have been searching for another leader to avenge the West ever since. Therefore, the defeat of Saddam Hussein, who cast himself as just such a leader, was as necessary for Western survival as it is to defeat Osama bin Laden in order to prove that Allah is not on the side of militant Muslims.