Justification for the Iraq War and the Abandonment of Afghanistan

By Bruno Somerset, published Feb 13, 2007
Published Content: 263  Total Views: 152,900  Favorited By: 18 CPs
Rating: 4.8 of 5
There has been endless debate on whether or not the United States going to war in Iraq was justified. I think the most objective way to determine if the Iraq war was justified is to compare it to a war that had broad support from nearly all nations, including those in the Middle East that so vehemently oppose our presence in Iraq. The war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was most certainly justified, and is the standard by which we should examine the Iraq conflict.

The United States invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban-controlled government was defiantly sheltering the Al Qaeda leaders who planned the September 11th attacks on the United States. There was no need for an exhaustive search for evidence; Mullah Omar was married to one of Osama Bin Laden's daughters and was openly allied with him. Diplomacy was attempted, but to no avail. Deadlines for handing over the terrorists were ignored. A worldwide coalition was built, and with the backing of the United Nations, we invaded Afghanistan and killed or drove out Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies.

The next step should have been a massive rebuilding of a nation torn apart by war since the Soviet invasion more than twenty years earlier. The Northern Alliance and the Afghan people as a whole supported us, fought beside us, and had every reason to expect that we would stay and help them make Afghanistan a viable, democratic nation. However, this was not the path chosen by the Bush administration. President Bush had looked for ways to invade Iraq even before 9/11, perhaps ever since Saddam had tried to have George H. W. Bush assassinated in 1993, and now the climate for war against Saddam Hussein was right.

But unlike the Afghan conflict, there was no evidence linking Iraq to terrorism. After more than 10 years of inspections, there was no proof that Saddam had developed weapons of mass destruction. And there was limited international support for military action. We went in anyway, mainly as a result of fabricated or exaggerated evidence.

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
 
 
Well, I didn't find the article incredibly amazing...sorry. I am annoyed by Marquis comment though. Marquis, George W. did in fact link 9-11 and Saddam/Iraq. Saying otherwise is living in denial of the facts. I don't argue that NOW, post-invasion-mess, Dubya says there was never any link, but that's not the point. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1241327,00.html And the so-called link was also reinforced by other Republicans...even after the 9-11 commission report put the link to rest as false. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/ I'm not picking a fight here, I just want these links to be beside your statement for clarification purposes.

Posted on 01/16/2008 at 3:01:18 PM

 
Thanks for the comments Marquis. I stated in my article that Bush was looking to invade Iraq before 9/11, so I didn't link the two. Bush did link the two, by the way, saying that Iraqi intelligence officers met with the Hamburg cell of the 9/11 plotters beforehand. If he hadn't linked them, then what exactly would the invasion of Iraq have to do with the war on terror?

Posted on 02/15/2007 at 3:02:00 AM

 
G.W.B never said Iraq was linked with what happened on 9/11. Why do you leftists keep writing and saying the same old nonsense? You people need to understand what the "War on Terror" means, and how it affects the children of the future. Maybe then you may type your contrived tripe. It is not about oil and it never was about that. That sentiment needs to be laid to rest for good.

Posted on 02/15/2007 at 1:02:00 AM

 
I appreciate both comments. I didn't mention oil because my main point is how we left the job unfinished in a war that we truly needed to fight, but the fact is nothing we do in the Middle East can be separated completely from oil and its economic ramifications. If all the government cared about was democracy and human rights, we would have sent the 18th Airborne Corps in Darfur three years ago.

Posted on 02/14/2007 at 3:02:00 AM

 
OK, first, good article...second, Steve..there is no "cospiracy" to buy into about the war being about oil...you say the war is illogical..to any sensible person yes..but it is very much for oil..with the new oil deals in the Iraqi Constitution, big oil is assured BILLIONS..the "victory" that bush seeks is one with unprecedented oil profits, not to mention Halliburton..there was only one other reason for this "war" and it is damn bush family pride...oil and pride, that's it, baby!

Posted on 02/13/2007 at 8:02:00 PM

 
Nice points, that really puts it in perspective. Personally, I don't completely buy into the conspiracy theories that the war was all about oil, and this is one of the first articles I've seen that doesn't use them. I'm against the war because it is illogical and is inevitable useless, among other reasons, but I don't like it when people make theories that are even more illogical and ill-thought that this war to push their views. Good stuff, keep it up.

Posted on 02/13/2007 at 8:02:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
 
Most Commented On