The Home of Atilla

“Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

The Iraq War Has Been Won

Posted by Atilla89 on November 4, 2007

I personally think the title is to opportunistic however, this is easily one of the best smack downs of Iraq war critics I have ever seen. Go read the whole thing for yourself here and enjoy just how good Andrew Bolt’s writing is.

Here is just the latest underreported news, out this week. Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October – the lowest monthly figure since March last year. (This is a provisional figure and may alter over the next week.) The number of Iraqi civilians killed last month – mostly by Islamist and fascist terrorists – was around 760, according to Iraqi Government sources. That is still tragically high, but the monthly toll has plummeted since January’s grim total of 1990.

What measures of success do critics of Iraq’s liberation now demand? Violence is falling fast. Al Qaida has been crippled. The Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs no longer face genocide. What’s more, the country has stayed unified. The majority now rules.

Despite that, minority Sunni leaders are co-operating in government with Shiite ones. There is no civil war. The Kurds have not broken away. Iran has not turned Iraq into its puppet. And the country’s institutions are getting stronger. The Iraqi army is now at full strength, at least in numbers.

The country has a vigorous media. A democratic constitution has been adopted and backed by a popular vote. Election after election has Iraqis turning up in their millions. Add it all up. Iraq not only remains a democracy, but shows no sign of collapse. I repeat: the battle for a free Iraq has been won. Now the task is one familiar to every democracy, and especially any in the Middle East: eternal vigilance.

How angry so many are to hear good news from Iraq. And how suspicious is their reaction. Don’t we all actually wish for Iraq to be democratic, safe and free from tyranny?

But the bloodshed in Iraq is terrible! Call that victory?

And, yes, the killings are ghastly. Iraq is nowhere near safe, and our help is still needed to make it so. Yet the violence now does not threaten the country or its government. Go back to the days when American forces were fighting Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi army for control of Najaf, or al-Qaida and its allies for Fallujah. Such battles for territory are over. Al-Sadr has maintained a ceasefire for more than two years, and is even part of Iraq’s Government. American troops are now based in his Shiite heartland of Sadr City, and no Iraqi city is now under terrorist control as Fallujah once was. “Insurgents” rule nowhere.

But we went to war on a lie!

Actually, we went to war to free Iraq from a tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction, and would not guarantee he would not do so again. No lie. Job done. In any case, whatever you may think of the arguments put in 2003, the argument today is whether Iraq will survive as a democracy, and whether we should help it. The answers must be yes, and yes. Mustn’t they? Hello? But if Iraq is “won”, why are so many Iraqis still dying? Because some of the killers are just criminals, or are trying to kill their way to a piece of the action, or are – inevitably after so much cruelty and oppression – settling scores. Others are agents of Iran, which wants to make America pay and Iraq obey. And more – and the worst – are fanatics who just want to kill for their creed, and are killing Iraqis as they are killing Pakistanis, Algerians, Egyptians, Israelis and anyone else in the way of their jihad.

But how can you call this winning when Iraq’s power supply is terrible, its police untrustworthy, its regions divided over how to share oil revenues, and its borders threatened by Turkey, which wants to hit back at Kurdish terrorists encamped in Iraq’s north? True, Iraq has plenty of problems. Which Arab country does not? But it will solve them better without Saddam than with. And perfection is nowhere.

This next part, I feel is the most important part of this article, because it shows just how worth it, it was to go into Iraq. I actually was having a discussion with a friend about this, and one of his arguments was that, by going into Iraq many more people died then under Saddam. He admitted that Saddam was bad but it was not worth taking him out at the cost of so many lives. Well frankly that is wrong, and you will see just how wrong by reading below.

But, but, but … but it wasn’t worth it! See how many died!

And here is the only objection that can be made with integrity. Yes, people have died, mainly at the hands of fellow Muslims. How many, no one knows. Perhaps 100,000 since the war in 2003? More? A ghastly loss, and thank God the killings are at last dwindling. But Iraq was no Eden under Saddam. If the deaths today are bad, the misery before was worse. As, of course, was the threat. The battle for Iraq always involved a grim calculus: would liberation save more people than it killed? So let’s calculate how many died under Saddam. In 1980, the dictator invaded Iran, starting a war in which at least 500,000 people died. In 1987, he crushed the Kurds, killing perhaps 100,000 or more. In 1990, he invaded Kuwait, starting a war that killed more than 23,000. On his defeat, he killed some 100,000 Shiites who rebelled. Add the mass executions he ordered, the purges he unleashed, the opposition activists he shot, the terrorist attacks he paid for. Remember also the children who died, robbed of medicines by his regime.

Add them all up, and even by the most conservative count you see Saddam did not just threaten the West, but cost the lives of more than 100 Muslims a day, every day, for the 24 years of his barbaric rule. That’s four times more than are being killed in Iraq today, often by Saddam’s heirs and Saddam’s like. Was Iraq worth it? Yes. It stands, it stays, and the winning of Iraq was worth it, indeed.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The Iraq War Has Been Won”

  1. Chris Li said

    Your argument is very thought provoking, but I have to disagree with your assumption that it is our nation’s duty to “free Iraq from a tyrant”. The United States is not the world police.

    Yes, our country is a superpower, but that does not give us the right to invade or attack who ever we want. Iraq did not attack us, yet we attacked them; and the Bush administration thinks that it is alright because America is the world police.

    It is clear now that a world police is exactly Bush’s intentions. In his article, David North divulges information about the “National Security Strategy of the United States of America”, which was published six days after 9/11. North discloses that “the document asserts as the guiding policy of the United States the right to use military force anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against any country it believes to be, or it believes may at some point become, a threat to American interests.”(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/iraq-o04.s) Basically, the document gives the right for America to attack whomever, and whenever it chooses to. We are not the world police, even though the Bush administration thinks we are.

  2. Atilla89 said

    Well this argument that you have presented, pretty much backs my own in the sense that Iraq represented a threat to the U.S. Now I am sure you’re thinking not this WMD bullshit again but, the fact is, Iraq has broken 17 UN Resolutions, many of them relating to not letting the UN examine its facilities. Now to me, that is reason enough to invade because “…the United States [has] the right to use military force anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against any country it believes to be, or it believes may at some point become, a threat to American interests.” The article also states that “…we went to war to free Iraq from a tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction, and would not guarantee he would not do so again.” That is in accordance with the document that you have shown me.

    Now as well as this, I draw your attention to the article I have just posted where it states that Saddam killed 100 people a day for 24 years (conservative statistic), that is mass murder, and what the U.S. did to get him out, in my opinion, is one of the best things that has ever happened to Iraq.

  3. Chris L said

    Yes, Iraq did break 17 UN Resolutions, but I do not agree with your assumption that Saddam’s crime of breaking UN Resolutions are much worse than our own. In the initial fighting stages of war, US officials have admitted to using a modern form of napalm called MK77. Incendiaries such as these are “restricted under the 1980 UN Convention on Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects”. More than 80 countries including the US have ratified the convention. (http://www.iraqanalysis.org/tag/International%20law)

    The US is in violation of this convention just as Iraq violated those UN Resolutions. It would not be “the best thing” that will ever happen to the US if another country invaded us because we violated a convention.

  4. Atilla89 said

    Before I start, I was completely unaware about what you were saying in regards to napalm being used, would you care to provide a source where you got it from which both describes it being used and why it is not allowed. As for the rest of your argument, you completely forget about the number of people that Saddam has killed in his regime, it is in the 100’s of 1000’s and as well as this, he had used WMD’s and was not willing to sign a document saying he would do so again.

    If a country were to TRY to invade the U.S. because of them supposedly (I don’t have confirmation yet)breaking the UN weapons laws, then that would be ridiculous, we are talking about a country, and I repeat myself here, who has killed thousands of its own people and has not guaranteed that it will use WMD’s again. That is cause for invasion.

  5. […] U.S. Politics, War on Terror — Atilla89 @ 11:25 am Continuing on what I was saying in this post by Glen Reinsford, about how people ignore the causalities of Iraqis under Saddam is this post from […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: