vyo476
Well-Known Member
Following this will be enumerated the various reasons for the American-led multinational intervention in Iraq, along with further analysis concerning the legitimacy of those reasons and the current stances both sides of the debate have taken in regards to those reasons.
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction
Popularly regarded as the single largest reason the Bush Administration committed American forces to Iraq. Colin Powell summarized the Bush Administration's claims on WMDs in Iraq in a February 2003 speech, stating that "the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction." These facts have undergone heavy scrutiny - the revelation of the Downing Street Memo, which stated that American politicians were manipulating intelligence to justify a war, is in glaring contrast to the findings of two non-partisan Congressional committees which have declared that there was no political pressure put on intelligence analysts to provide certain results. While active WMDs were not found in Iraq, degraded chemical weapons from the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s were discovered, as well as significant amounts of evidence that Iraq was fully capable of the production of WMD - admittedly all circumstantial evidence.
The left points to the lack of actual WMDs in Iraq and says that the Bush Administration "lied" about whether or not Iraq had WMDs. They point to the Downing Street Memo as evidence that this was so. They point to the lack of stockpiles of actual WMDs as evidence as well that the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was false.
The right points to the large amounts of evidence that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs and the opinion of the head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, that Iraq probably had chemical and biological weapons but that they were moved to Syria prior to the 2003 invasion.
2. Links to Terrorist Organizations
The other large justification for the Iraq War was that Saddam Hussein maintained links with al Qaeda, and that an invasion of Iraq would be a part of the broader War on Terror. Members of the Bush Administration centered this argument around the purported fact that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an alleged bin Laden supporter. While evidence of al-Zarqawi's links to al Qaeda are quite prevalent, proving a link beteween al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein has proven difficult. The American intelligence community has universally concluded that there was no such link.
The left points to the fact that the entire intelligence community has disavowed that Saddam Hussein had any connection to al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda. They say that connecting the War on Terror to the War in Iraq isn't just because the War in Iraq, the stated goal of which was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, was not initially fighting terrorist forces.
The right points to the fact that terrorists such as al-Zarqawi were able to move about fairly freely in Iraq, irregardless of whether or not they were in bed with Saddam Hussein. They say that the Iraq War was a justifiable extension of the War on Terror as it was targeted at improving Iraq's ability to combat it's own terrorist population - which both sides acknowledge did exist prior to the 2003 invasion.
3. Human Rights Violations
During his more than twenty-year rule, Hussein killed and tortured thousands of Iraqi citizens, including gassing and killing thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq during the mid 1980s, brutally repressing Shia and Kurdish uprisings following the 1991 Gulf War, and a fifteen year campaign of repression and displacement of the Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq. Neither side disputes these facts.
The left points to the fact that there was little discussion of human rights violations preceding the invasion as evidence that it wasn't really a motivating factor in entrance into Iraq. They also give voice to the opinions of international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, which have concluded that the violence in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion was not of a level justifiable for an armed invasion.
The right points to the fact that Saddam Hussein has proven to be one of the most brutal dictators of the late twentieth century, on par in ruthlessness with such leaders as Idi Amin and Pol Pot. They say that any human rights violation, especially on the scale of those committed by Saddam Hussein and his government, are worthy of an intervention.
4. Oil
Many left pundits have claimed that the Iraq War wasn't about any of the above, but was instead over oil, using comments made by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz to back up this claim. They cite the changeover from dollars to Euros is standard oil dealings in Iraq as being a direct cause of the war (the changeover hurt the dollar), and that America's quick change back to "petrodollars" during the interim American rule directly following the invasion is evidence that oil was a motivating factor in the invasion.
The left points to the above facts as circumstantial evidence that one of the reasons the Bush Administration took the USA to Iraq was oil.
The right denies these claims, stating that control of Iraq's oil resources was an affect of the war, not a cause - that, for example, it was natural for America to assume control over Iraq's oil exports during the interim period, because America was running Iraq - and was attempting to do so as efficiently as possible. To not do so would have a been a dereliction of Iraq's single greatest resource - a loss of efficiency and profits in which would have hurt all the Iraqi citizens who were employed by the oil industry.
In addition to these main reasons, there are several smaller reasons used only occasionally by the Bush Administration to justify the war. These include spreading democracy to the Middle East, establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East (cited by General Jay Gardner), encouraging other Middle Eastern countries (namely Libya) to abandon WMD programs, preemption of further terrorist ties, preemption of Iranian ambitions on Iraq should Saddam Hussein die or be deposed by anyone other than the USA, and the application of political pressure on Saudi Arabia. None of these has ever been claimed by a member of the Bush Administration to be a major cause of the war.
So, in conclusion...do you think we ought to have gone to Iraq?
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction
Popularly regarded as the single largest reason the Bush Administration committed American forces to Iraq. Colin Powell summarized the Bush Administration's claims on WMDs in Iraq in a February 2003 speech, stating that "the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction." These facts have undergone heavy scrutiny - the revelation of the Downing Street Memo, which stated that American politicians were manipulating intelligence to justify a war, is in glaring contrast to the findings of two non-partisan Congressional committees which have declared that there was no political pressure put on intelligence analysts to provide certain results. While active WMDs were not found in Iraq, degraded chemical weapons from the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s were discovered, as well as significant amounts of evidence that Iraq was fully capable of the production of WMD - admittedly all circumstantial evidence.
The left points to the lack of actual WMDs in Iraq and says that the Bush Administration "lied" about whether or not Iraq had WMDs. They point to the Downing Street Memo as evidence that this was so. They point to the lack of stockpiles of actual WMDs as evidence as well that the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was false.
The right points to the large amounts of evidence that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs and the opinion of the head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, that Iraq probably had chemical and biological weapons but that they were moved to Syria prior to the 2003 invasion.
2. Links to Terrorist Organizations
The other large justification for the Iraq War was that Saddam Hussein maintained links with al Qaeda, and that an invasion of Iraq would be a part of the broader War on Terror. Members of the Bush Administration centered this argument around the purported fact that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an alleged bin Laden supporter. While evidence of al-Zarqawi's links to al Qaeda are quite prevalent, proving a link beteween al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein has proven difficult. The American intelligence community has universally concluded that there was no such link.
The left points to the fact that the entire intelligence community has disavowed that Saddam Hussein had any connection to al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda. They say that connecting the War on Terror to the War in Iraq isn't just because the War in Iraq, the stated goal of which was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, was not initially fighting terrorist forces.
The right points to the fact that terrorists such as al-Zarqawi were able to move about fairly freely in Iraq, irregardless of whether or not they were in bed with Saddam Hussein. They say that the Iraq War was a justifiable extension of the War on Terror as it was targeted at improving Iraq's ability to combat it's own terrorist population - which both sides acknowledge did exist prior to the 2003 invasion.
3. Human Rights Violations
During his more than twenty-year rule, Hussein killed and tortured thousands of Iraqi citizens, including gassing and killing thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq during the mid 1980s, brutally repressing Shia and Kurdish uprisings following the 1991 Gulf War, and a fifteen year campaign of repression and displacement of the Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq. Neither side disputes these facts.
The left points to the fact that there was little discussion of human rights violations preceding the invasion as evidence that it wasn't really a motivating factor in entrance into Iraq. They also give voice to the opinions of international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, which have concluded that the violence in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion was not of a level justifiable for an armed invasion.
The right points to the fact that Saddam Hussein has proven to be one of the most brutal dictators of the late twentieth century, on par in ruthlessness with such leaders as Idi Amin and Pol Pot. They say that any human rights violation, especially on the scale of those committed by Saddam Hussein and his government, are worthy of an intervention.
4. Oil
Many left pundits have claimed that the Iraq War wasn't about any of the above, but was instead over oil, using comments made by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz to back up this claim. They cite the changeover from dollars to Euros is standard oil dealings in Iraq as being a direct cause of the war (the changeover hurt the dollar), and that America's quick change back to "petrodollars" during the interim American rule directly following the invasion is evidence that oil was a motivating factor in the invasion.
The left points to the above facts as circumstantial evidence that one of the reasons the Bush Administration took the USA to Iraq was oil.
The right denies these claims, stating that control of Iraq's oil resources was an affect of the war, not a cause - that, for example, it was natural for America to assume control over Iraq's oil exports during the interim period, because America was running Iraq - and was attempting to do so as efficiently as possible. To not do so would have a been a dereliction of Iraq's single greatest resource - a loss of efficiency and profits in which would have hurt all the Iraqi citizens who were employed by the oil industry.
In addition to these main reasons, there are several smaller reasons used only occasionally by the Bush Administration to justify the war. These include spreading democracy to the Middle East, establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East (cited by General Jay Gardner), encouraging other Middle Eastern countries (namely Libya) to abandon WMD programs, preemption of further terrorist ties, preemption of Iranian ambitions on Iraq should Saddam Hussein die or be deposed by anyone other than the USA, and the application of political pressure on Saudi Arabia. None of these has ever been claimed by a member of the Bush Administration to be a major cause of the war.
So, in conclusion...do you think we ought to have gone to Iraq?
