Confronting Criticisms of the War on Terror in Iraq

by Robert J. Romano

July 6th, 2004

Updated August 4th, 2004

In order to accept some of the chief criticisms of expanding the war on terror into Iraq, one has believe that confronting the terror enemy only provokes more terrorism, and that non-intervention and even appeasement do not.  One has to believe that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, and that by liberating that country from Hussein's regime, we have only enraged terrorists in and around Iraq.  One has to maintain that Iraq was not pursuing nor possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that finds of unaccounted for weapons and undeclared program-related activities did not pose a danger.  One has to believe that in order to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions (i.e. international law, or the law of nations), the Security Council must approve, and must ignore that the federal Constitution clearly gives to Congress in Article I, Section 8 the power to "define and punish ... offences against the law of nations..." One has to believe that the coalition enforcing the just demands of the world poses a danger to security, and that Hussein's noncompliance and breach of those resolutions does not.  One has to believe that the liberation was carried out "unilaterally," and that the contributions made by over thirty nation-states, and the hard work of the Iraqi people to regain sovereignty, are not enough. One has to believe that the murderous acts of terrorists are representative of the will of the Iraqi people, and that the establishment of the interim constitution and the restoration of sovereignty are not.   In short, one has to suspend most if not all considerations of reality.

        The history of freedom has, since September 11th, 2001, entered into a new period which challenges the free world with dangers that have been materializing for decades.  Though the terrorists were at war with us for so many years, we did not respond in kind, and by allowing the threat to gather overseas in repeated attacks on U.S. interests, it finally reached our shores in simultaneous attacks staged utilizing planes as missiles.  The danger of terrorism is also exacerbated by the inaction of nation-states confronting the threat within their own borders.  When President Bush confronted the Taliban in 2001, demands were placed on the regime there to turn over al Qaeda and to cease all support for that terrorist group.  The global war on terrorism demands that every nation-state do her part to confront and defeat the danger before it becomes imminent.  Indeed, actions taken to break up the global reach of terror networks are necessary and must be implemented immediately by the world entire in order for the danger to properly be confronted.  There is no possibility for negotiations with the terror enemy, when what they demand is nothing short of world domination.  

        The connections between Hussein's Iraq and terrorism have been repeatedly made public for years.  Long had Iraq been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, and the presence of terrorist training camps, like Salman Pak, in Iraq prove it.  In fact, contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda dated back for more than a decade, as well as connections with other terrorist groups, including the Palestine Liberation Front and the Arab Liberation Front.  What emerges from looking at open information leaves no doubt that Iraq had long-standing ties to terrorism, and that this posed a threat to all enemies of terrorism.  

        The danger of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction has been covered here repeatedly, and since the last write up, the Iraq Survey Group has recently revealed finding 10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells in Iraq.  That, in addition to proving Iraq's capability and intent to develop weapons of mass destruction by the existence of deliberately concealed WMD program-related activities, were just further breaches of Iraq's international obligations under the UN ceasefire agreement and subsequent resolutions. 

        The danger of Hussein's Iraq, if it had been allowed to continue to gather, posed not only a tactical threat, but also a strategic one.  The continued flouting of international resolutions and treaty obligations would have emboldened murderous dictators around the world, and to have ignored these breaches would have surely enabled international anarchy to become more prevalent.  Indeed, all nation-states must honor their treaties, and exceptions are not made for brutal tyrants.  Non-intervention and appeasement are not options.

        The hard work of the Iraqi people and the multinational forces in Iraq are deserving of all the praise and support in the world.  Support for establishing security, building the proper infrastructure for national elections, and reconstructing the economic and social institutions are indeed welcome, and it is up to free peoples to also lend their moral support to the mission that is being carried out.  We do indeed appreciate the sacrifices that are being made, lives lost that shall always be honored, injuries suffered that may never fully heal, and families who are not sure if they'll see their loved ones again.  In considering the criticisms that have been and will be leveled, we must pause to also consider the reality of the situation, the sacrifices that have been made, and all the good work that has been accomplished.  We must be wary of partisans who seek to misinform the people.  Politics is not a greater priority than the truth, and the truth should be known to all when considering dangers to peace and security when the government is prepared to remove particular dangers so as to best provide for the appropriate means of defense.