No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure, but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq.
So said our President today at the Pentagon in attempting to defend our current involvement in that country. Who are "our enemies in Iraq" today? Are they Saddam Hussein and his sons, as we were told they were before and during the invasion?
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people.
This was what we were told in October 2002. And were told again and again, despite what UN Inspector Hans Blix (remember him?) and his team had to say to the contrary.
And so we invaded. Saddam Hussein's regime was quickly toppled, and then... ah, then. The looting, the shooting. The fires, the guns fired. The occupation and the occupation of occupying. On and on it went, despite the declaration of "Mission Accomplished."
Soon it was clear to any who remembered the initial justification for our presence there that it was no longer about the Hussein family. Now, it was about "democracy." How proud the country felt at the spectacle of the "purple fingers." Surely this was truly mission accomplished?
There are, however, essential principles common to every successful society, in every culture. Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military -- so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite. Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selecting applying -- selectively applying the law to punish political opponents. Successful societies allow room for healthy civic institutions -- for political parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media. Successful societies guarantee religious liberty -- the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution. Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women. And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people.
In Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council are also working together to build a democracy -- and after three decades of tyranny, this work is not easy. The former dictator ruled by terror and treachery, and left deeply ingrained habits of fear and distrust. Remnants of his regime, joined by foreign terrorists, continue their battle against order and against civilization. Our coalition is responding to recent attacks with precision raids, guided by intelligence provided by the Iraqis, themselves. And we're working closely with Iraqi citizens as they prepare a constitution, as they move toward free elections and take increasing responsibility for their own affairs. As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test.
Securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations. Aid workers from many countries are facing danger to help the Iraqi people. The National Endowment for Democracy is promoting women's rights, and training Iraqi journalists, and teaching the skills of political participation. Iraqis, themselves -- police and borders guards and local officials -- are joining in the work and they are sharing in the sacrifice.
This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.
So we were told in November, 2003. Almost two years later, in late June, 2005, the President had to move the goal again, because the vote had taken place a half a year before, and the mission was not yet accomplished. Now, it was about stability - indeed - it had been about that all along! Remember?
A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goals in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend -- a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government. We would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005. We would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy. We would encourage more international support for Iraq's democratic transition, and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.
In the past year, we have made significant progress. One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people. In January 2005, more than 8 million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair, and took time on -- and took place on time. We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven, but progress is being made.
By December of that very year, Iraq was preparing for another election, the one for the National Assembly. The President embarked on another series of speeches to again explain why we were fighting this war. From December, 2005:
I made a tough decision. And knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country.
In his first speech on November 30, Bush praised Iraqi security forces and said that U.S. troops would leave Iraq, not on a specific timetable, but when Iraqis were able to take the lead in defense operations.
So there we had it. A new reason to stay - it was not going to be about democracy and elections, it was going to be about making sure the Iraqi government could defend itself.
Thus we had a clear shift in the goals for the war. First, removal of a regime that fostered weapons of mass destruction. Then, bringing democracy to the Middle East. Then, making sure the democracy could defend itself.
But what about the Great War on Terror? Wasn't that involved somehow? Well, here is an eerie article from June, 2005:
In a primetime address to the nation, President Bush defended the war in Iraq and rejected calls to set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops.
Bush repeatedly tried to connect the war in Iraq to September 11 even though Iraq had no role in the attacks. The White House had titled his remarks a discussion on "the War on Terror," not Iraq. The President used much of his speech to portray the resistance in Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11 as the same. While there was no mention of the original rationale for the invasion: the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, Bush mentioned September 11th five times in his address and used the word "terror" or "terrorism" 34 times. The President also made a rare reference to Osama bin Laden, quoting him as a reason for staying the course.
Bush acknowledged no flaw in the administration’s Iraq policy. He refused to set a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq despite repeated calls by lawmakers, including an increasing number of Republicans, for the president to do so.
Compare that article and its slant from a little less than three years ago with the remarks the President made today at the Pentagon:
"For the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be a place where Al-Qaeda rallied the Arab masses to drive America out," Bush said. "Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs join with Americans to drive Al-Qaeda out. In Iraq we're witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology and his murderous network, and the significance of this development cannot be overstated."
Now, Bush said, it's time to concentrate on delivering the coup de grace on the militants. He warned that to ease up now -- or worse, to begin withdrawing U.S. forces too soon -- would be to give back the ground that's been gained in the surge.
The president expressed special concern about some Americans -- including members of the Democratic Party and their leading presidential candidates -- for viewing the war less optimistically and calling for a quicker end to the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
"Successes we're seeing in Iraq are undeniable, yet some in Washington still call for retreat," he said. "War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so they now argue that the war costs too much. In recent months we've heard exaggerated amounts of the costs of this war. No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost, in lives and treasure, but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq."
To act hastily, Bush said, would be to let Iraq plunge further into chaos than it has ever been before, and give back Al-Qaeda the areas where it dominated as recently as 2006. That, he said, could lead to exponential growth of new volunteers to the militant groups.
Bush also said a rushed withdrawal also could leave Al-Qaeda in control of Iraq's great oil wealth.
That last sentence would have to be an afterthought, don't you think?
At any rate, at this point, we come to the point where we can analyze the Iraq invasion, not even on the terms it should be judged, that is, its original purpose. No, let's look at it from the point of view of The Great War on Terror, as our President would have us do.
Let us first begin by examining the President's own criteria for a successful democratic society, to see how we ourselves have fared in the past seven years:
Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military -- so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite.
What can one say about that one as far as our own country is concerned? What can we say as far as FISA and no-fly lists and the right of habeas corpus? How has the Patriot Act limited the power of the military?
Victory: The terrorists, who caused these alterations in our limitations of powers.
Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selecting applying -- selectively applying the law to punish political opponents.
See above. See also Guantanamo for our consistent and impartial rule of law. One can also ask the ACLU about the FBI's overruling of actual FISA court decisions when they "did not like the verdict."
Victory: The terrorists, who had nothing but contempt for our impartial system of justice but made little effort to change it. We managed to do that for them.
Successful societies allow room for healthy civic institutions -- for political parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media.
Here, we have been more successful in holding onto our advantages as far as political parties (though one could argue there is less difference between the two most viable parties than one might hope in a two-party structure). Labor unions, though weakened, still exist. It is only our once proud media that has become anything but independent as it falls under the influence of a very small number of corporations. These corporations have no interest in questioning a government that benefits them monetarily at every turn. Independent journalism has rapidly disappeared, replaced by propaganda and corporate jingoism.
Victory: Less complete, but the terrorists have seen the media fail to question the war at every turn. Facts are less readily available or verifiable.
Successful societies guarantee religious liberty -- the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution.
In this category, our country continues to do about as well as it ever has... except in the case of the followers of Islam. They have come in for special government scrutiny and public persecution.
Victory: Those who want people to believe the US hates Islam. People such as... terrorists.
Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property.
Well, here, there can be no doubt we are doing just fine - especially when the rights of property belong to the government or corporations [see the Supreme Court decision on the right of eminent domain].
Victory: corporations - not terrorists, in this case.
They prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people.
This one is amazingly ironically laughable, if it weren't so very tragic. We have reached the point in our country where our public officials can traitorously name secret spies in public, advocate torture against the Geneva Conventions, defy Congress with impunity - yet receive no punishment at all.
No Child Left Behind is a disinvestment in our public education system, and there has been no advance in investment in the health of the American people outside the confusing Medicare prescription coverage. College has become less affordable, and families must make the choice between health and food.
Victory: The terrorists, who watch as our country loses its educated workforce through lack of investment in crucial infrastructure and healthcare.
They recognize the rights of women.
Would this include the rights of women to control their own bodies? The verdict remains out on this one.
And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people.
Let's ask the Hispanic, Native American, African American and Muslim communities how we are doing on this one. Fear and division have become the operating standard in the country these days.
Victory: The terrorists, who hope to disseminate seeds of hatred and confusion. Fortunately for them, we have been doing the job for them.
There are a few of the victories the terrorists can claim over our society.
Of course, the falling dollar, the outrageous deficit, the rising cost of oil, the willing abandonment of civil liberties, the adoption of the means of torture of our enemies, and - worst of all - the constant fear that terrorists hope to create by their actions... all speak to the fact that these terrorists have defeated this President, as his actions have fed into their stated goals at every step.
In retreating from his goals and ideals, can there be any doubt we would begin to reclaim our country and its ideals?
