As U.S. troops fight pitched battles with insurgents in cities
across Iraq, Americans at home should ask themselves what purpose
is being served by the costly U.S. occupation and the mounting
casualties.
Hours before invading Iraq, President Bush explained his
thoughts on why U.S. intervention was necessary. He said,
“The United States of America has the sovereign authority to
use force in assuring its own national security.” He also
said that there was “no doubt” Iraq still possessed the
“most lethal weapons ever devised.”
The message was pointed: America had to act to preserve its own
security.
One year later, it is clear Iraq had no usable weapons of mass
destruction nor connections to the terrorist group al-Qaeda, which
was responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
So if Bush took the country to war on faulty premises,
doesn’t that mean the continuation of the war is the wrong
course of action?
The answer is not simple. Pulling out tomorrow would have
disastrous consequences. Iraq would likely dissolve into a state of
anarchy, with local clerics and warlords fighting over the scraps.
It could quite easily become breeding territory for terrorists who
would be more of a threat than Hussein ever was.
Also, any remaining U.S. credibility would be lost. We would be
seen as a country ready to make war, but unwilling to pick up the
pieces. We would be seen as incapable of dealing with real security
problems that could arise in the future.
For now, it seems the United States must stay ““ even as
costly as that option is. But how long should the occupation
continue?
It should continue until the United States can ensure its
departure would not lead to a threat to its national security
““Â and not a day longer.
Americans should note Bush never dwelled much on the issue of
democracy-building until after the invasion was complete. He knew
the American people would only accept the invasion if he billed it
as a part of the War on Terror.
Now people should know it was not a necessary war. If the United
States had spent more time to investigate the
“weapons,” it would have found almost nothing. If the
United States had not invaded, there would not be clerics and
militiamen agitating now for the creation of a fractured and
unpredictable religious state. This was not a preemptive war that
stopped an imminent attack on America.
Understanding this, some have said it was a preventive war. But
if Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and if extremism
is alive and well one year after the invasion, what did it
prevent?
And why was Iraq singled out when North Korea almost certainly
has more weapons of mass destruction and Iran remains a hotbed of
religious fanaticism?
Since security was the supposed goal, Bush should make good on
his promise. U.S. forces should do their best to stabilize Iraq,
and they should leave as soon as possible. The war has cost America
countless billions, tremendous international respect and over 600
American lives.
Bush better have an exit strategy ““ either for the troops,
or for himself.