Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: All the fireworks from the IRS Hearing!

World

Remembering Iraq Without Rewriting History

Mar. 19, 2013 12:01am
Michael Rubin is a former Pentagon official whose major research area is the Middle East, with a special focus on Iran, Syria, Arab Politics, the Persian Gulf,  […]
Michael Rubin is a former Pentagon official whose major research area is the Middle East, with a special focus on Iran, Syria, Arab Politics, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Turkey. Rubin regularly instructs senior military officers deploying to the Middle East on regional politics, and teaches Iranian history, culture, and politics onboard U.S. aircraft carriers. Rubin has lived in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and spent time with the Taliban before 9/11. He is currently completing a history of U.S. diplomacy with rogue regimes.
[ x ]
Author's Website

This column is part of our series reflecting on the Iraq War, which began ten years ago this week.

Rubin: Remembering Iraq Without Rewriting History

President George W. Bush (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

This week marks the tenth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. Professors and pundits widely condemn the decision to liberate Iraq. History will show the critics to be wrong.

Announcing the start of military operations, George W. Bush declared, “We have no ambition in Iraq except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.” He succeeded.

Overshadowing the war, of course, was the faulty intelligence which provided some of its justification. Not only the Central Intelligence Agency, but also the British, Germans, French, Russians, United Nations and even the Iraqi president’s closest henchmen got the WMD question wrong. Intercept phone calls between or interrogate generals who believe they have biological and nuclear materials and no lie can be detected. Saddam had out-bluffed them all.  Nevertheless, the decision to liberate Iraq was correct. Pre-war intelligence might have been wrong, but the documents seized upon Saddam’s fall leave no doubt. As soon as sanctions collapsed—and both UN graft and French and Russian greed insured they would—Saddam planned to use his oil income to acquire the nuclear and biological weapons he pretended he had.

Under Saddam Hussein’s leadership, Iraq had invaded two countries and, with its SCUD missiles, attacked many more. To allow him to reconstitute his weapons programs would have been to play Russian roulette with international security and American lives. And while critics diminish Saddam’s association with terrorism, they are dishonest. While the 9/11 Commission concluded that Saddam had no operational links to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, to deny Iraqi links to a wide array of anti-American terrorist groups is to deny a reality documented in years of State Department Patterns of Global Terrorism reports. March 16 marked the 25th anniversary of Saddam’s chemical bombardment of the Kurdish town of Halabja. He bragged openly of subsidizing suicide bombers in the years preceding his capture.

Rubin: Remembering Iraq Without Rewriting History

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had an iconic mustache, but he eventually wore his facial hair as a beard. (Photo: AP)

And to characterize Saddam Hussein as a great secularist—the lesser of two evils when America is today confronted by Islamist radicals—is also to rewrite history. After the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, Saddam found religion. Allahu Akbar, “God is Great,” found its way onto every Iraqi flag, reportedly in Saddam’s own handwriting. To hear Saddam’s Iraq described today as a haven for liberated women reflects historical amnesia. As Saddam worked to co-0pt religious radicals, women fell into his crosshairs. When I lived in Iraq before the war, educated women were terrified: Saddam’s Fedayeen were kidnapping female professionals, accusing them of moral laxness, and summarily beheading them.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was not the story of one decision, but many. The President overruled the impulses of the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, and many in the Pentagon when he concluded that it was not enough simply to replace one dictator with another. Democracy rather than dictatorship, Bush argued, best protected America’s national security interests. Culture was not the problem, he recognized. After all, one-in-six Iraqis had fled Saddam’s dictatorship. When they settled in Europe or America, they had no difficulty embracing democracy. To suggest that Arab despots enhance American security is to rewrite history to forget five Arab-Israel wars; the proxy conflicts Gamal Abdul Nasser sponsored across the region; and Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.

Those who doubt the efficacy of democracy should look no further than northeast Asia. President Harry S. Truman faced the same questions regarding Korea that Bush did in Iraq. Critics accused Truman of embroiling America in open-ended war, ignoring the advice of both generals and statesmen, and losing touch with reality. They said democracy was alien to Korean culture. Time proved them wrong. Certainly, democracy did not come quick to South Korea, but Koreans ultimately defeated the dictatorial impulse of their political class. Today, juxtaposition of nuclear North Korea with democratic South Korea shows the value of Truman’s policy. South Korea does not sponsor terrorism nor threaten the United States with nuclear Armageddon.

Certainly, there were mistakes, but freedom was not among them. Iraq’s transformation was undercut by naïve faith not in democracy but rather in diplomacy. The State Department proved too willing to accept Syrian and Iranian pledges of non-interference. Even General David Petraeus, while commanding the 101st Airborne in Mosul, put his faith in Syrian goodwill, bragging to visiting American officials about the increase in cross-border trade which he had facilitated. Too many American officials believed the canard the Iraq’s neighbors sought a stable, secure Iraq.

Bush also erred by courting the United Nations. To win Turtle Bay’s ephemeral support, the White House agreed to define U.S. forces formally as an occupying rather than liberating power. Overnight, Iraqi democrats became collaborators. To appease Paris, Berlin, Moscow, and Beijing, the Bush team justified insurgent rhetoric.

UN influence proved caustic in other ways: The White House accepted a UN recommendation to base elections on party slates rather than on constituencies. That so many American diplomats refuse to recognize the wisdom of our own Founding Fathers’ approach to elections remains a mystery. By instead imposing a system upon Iraq in which politicians are more accountable to party leaders than constituents, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) increased ethnic nationalism and sectarian populism.

Perhaps the greatest mistake was reconstruction: Not only in Foggy Bottom, but also in Turtle Bay and Brussels, too many officials accept uncritically the notion that development is a responsibility, and that aid brings security. American taxpayers spent billions of dollars to reconstruct Iraq (and, for that matter, Afghanistan). The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) measures not success, but rather money expended. Few programs succeeded, but USAID did succeed in spending billions. Southern Iraq and Kurdistan today are booming, but their success is not the result of the CPA and U.S. aid agencies, but rather despite them.

I first arrived in Iraq in September 2000—two and a half years before the war—to teach history in Iraqi Kurdish universities. I return in July 2003, as a political adviser seconded from the Pentagon. I have returned to Iraq at least every six months since them, most recently last fall. Skyscrapers dot Kurdish cities today, where 13 years ago, refugees squatted convinced Saddam might invade at any moment. As the sun sets, trucks traverse highways where none dared travel a decade ago. Cell phone towers dot a landscape once marked by gallows and mass graves. There were mistakes, but choosing freedom was not among them. Liberty is nothing for which to apologize or feel ashamed.

 

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is currently onboard the USS Kearsarge with the 26thMarine Expeditionary Unit as they head toward the Middle East.

Related Contributions:

Comments (50)

  • KidCharlemagne
    Posted on March 20, 2013 at 12:04am

    The flip-side……

    ………..the extermination of Christianity in Iraq:

    ———————–
    “I didn’t like Saddam Hussein, but he didn’t bother the Christians,” said Rana, 29, after a church service in London. “He was a dictator. When he went, the gangs came from everywhere.”

    Rana isn’t alone: Bombings, kidnappings and generalized violence unleashed by the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that toppled Hussein caused hundreds of thousands of Christians to flee their homeland.

    While there is no centralized source of information on the number of Christians who have left Iraq, it is estimated that there were 2 million there in the 1990s. That number has fallen to between 200,000 to 500,000 today, according to church leaders.
    ……………
    “Our neighbors were Muslims. Our relations were friendly. We would visit them,” said the dentist who fled Iraq in 2007. “Now it is just fighting. There are lots of churches and monasteries and places to worship in Baghdad — but they are all empty.”

    “We love Iraq. It’s our country, the origin of Christianity. But it is not safe,” she added.
    ‘People turned on Christians’: Persecuted Iraqi minority reflects on life after Saddam

    Report this comment

    KidCharlemagne  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 10:12am

      Oh man, you are right. It was better for the whole country to suffer. We should have only protected Christians. The Iraqi Christians and Baathists were better off under Saddam, we should have left Iraq alone. (I hope you caught the points of sarcasm there)

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
  • WIGHTandRHITE
    Posted on March 19, 2013 at 4:48pm

    @Disgusted
    They’ll never get it until it’s here brother. Trying to explain to one of our citizens that someone would go to hell and back to kill an American for breathing is like trying to explain sky diving to someone who has never been. Regardless of your vocabulary or intellect it is impossible. The only way to understand is to live it. I hope they never do their continued ignorance is job satisfaction for us. If they know, we have failed. Be careful or you’ll end up resenting what you swore to protect. I’m close.
    S/F

    @WellRight
    No sir thank you for yours

    Report this comment

    WIGHTandRHITE  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:06pm

      It is quite unfortunate, but you are correct. I appreciate your reminder about the U.S. and am glad you know the struggle it is to not resent so many parts of our country. They are still a part of the country.

      Funny how they all faded off once experience came into play…ah how the internet makes people brave…

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
  • universalphilos
    Posted on March 19, 2013 at 4:30pm

    A prophecy, December 2, 1988, two years before Operation Iraqi Freedom: “The first time in your world’s history, the powers that be could bring peace unto the Earth.
    But it is not just a nation that must find [the] peace, it is the people within the nation. In your nation, you call it your States [United States], and from the states, you call it your counties, and your cities. But [what] it really amounts to is the individual, the person, the single soul, the single spirit, the single immortal body….We say unto you, the first place to build is within yourselves….
    Know this, the Eagle flies free. And as the Eagle shall take wings, so shall come the times of both the Anti-Christ and the Christ. Know this, today upon the Earth the nation that is known by the Eagle has spread its wings to cover Israel, and some of you wonder why this strange thing has happened. But was it not prophesied?…
    Know this, those of the Palestinians and their leaders — there are those within the Palestinians who only want peace and want a righteous path, but there are those within it who will destroy all things that you have, who’ll destroy your religions, who’ll destroy your right to believe in God in your own way. We say to you, and if they are left unchecked, within time they will make war upon you, upon all the nations. The Eagle has done the only thing that it could do.
    You will wonder, why? We say unto you, this is the is the reason why − you have seen prophecy in motion.”

    Report this comment

    universalphilos  
  • WIGHTandRHITE
    Posted on March 19, 2013 at 2:27pm

    Google, right click, copy, paste, post.

    Yay I win. Passing along information I didn’t come up with.

    Report this comment

    WIGHTandRHITE  
  • No_More_War_Please
    Posted on March 19, 2013 at 2:02pm

    Come on guys. Are we really going to trust someone who is a representative of the American Enterprise Institute (a.k.a. the biggest war propaganda think tank in existence)?

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/02/24/who-funds-the-war-party/

    The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a Washington thinktank founded in 1943, as the American Enterprise Association, by Lewis H. Brown, former president of Johns Mansville, an asbestos company, and one of the chief architects of the postwar Marshall Plan. Originally headquartered in New York, the organization moved to Washington, changed its name to the American Enterprise Institute, and has since become the preferred home of the neoconservatives. In the run-up to the war, and afterwards, AEI housed a number of neoconservative intellectuals, including Richard Perle, John Bolton, Lynne Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and the ubiquitous Kagan family, among many others.

    According to its Form 990, AEI has assets of $150,096,627. Its latest annual operating budget of record (2011) was $34,977,193. Of this, around $6 million was spent on its foreign policy programs, although the number is no doubt much higher when one takes into consideration other programs which cannot be separated out from its foreign policy propaganda. AEI’s foreign policy component is headed by Ahmed Chalabi groupie and inveterate interventionist Danielle Pletka.

    Report this comment

    No_More_War_Please  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 2:03pm

      AEI was the source of and inspiration for the Iraq “surge”: a study done by Frederick W. Kagan and retired Gen. Jack Keane, “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq,” provided the rationale for the Bush administration’s effort to save a disastrous war from becoming a complete rout.

      AEI has been in the forefront of neoconservative efforts to warn against the very idea of cutting the “defense” budget in response to the imminent bankruptcy of the United States government. As AEI scholar Mackenzie Eaglen, formerly with the management team of Donald Rumsfeld’s DoD – which lost billions in unaccounted cash in Iraq – put it to Defense News:

      “The Republican Party has been slowly hemorrhaging having a strong national defense as a key priority of a conservative agenda for years. It predates President Obama. This president, along with what I’m calling the ‘Libertarian moment,’ has pushed this neglect into the headlines. In fact, it’s beyond the headlines.

      “It’s now evident in legislation. Whether it’s the inability to exempt the Defense Department from being funded through the restrictions of a continuing resolution, like not being able to start new [weapon] programs, to not making a defense appropriations bill a priority over moving other spending bills, to the [2011] Budget Control Act itself, defense is just not a Republican priority anymore.”

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 2:05pm

      Poor MacKenzie: the Libertarian Moment is no fun for the War Party! Why, even the Republicans are beginning to question why our “defense” budget is at an all-time high when no single nation on earth presents a half-credible threat to our overwhelming military dominance.

      Conservative foundations (Bradley, Pew, etc.), the usual range of multinational corporations, especially the oil industry, figure prominently among AEI’s chief donors – and, of course, the defense industry. “

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 4:20pm

      If you faced those who would kill you merely for your status as an American, maybe you would understand. I don’t agree with every aspect of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor am I a neoconservative. Still, those who would avoid war for the sake of avoiding war are as dangerous as those who would go to war for the sake of going to war.

      I do not disagree that there is an insane amount of money in these consulting firms, but they do conduct important research that must be acknowledged, if not taken with a grain of salt. Go and see the impact of our war, then spout off your isolationist garbage. At least that way you can know it is as ridiculous as many here do.

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 5:45pm

      I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the neocons. They yell and yell about removing the unions, lobbyists, and special interest groups from positions of influence within the beltway, yet they ignore (and even support) the interest groups with the best funding and the most control. They ignore the war lobby. The war lobby is by far the most powerful, well-funded, dangerous group of individuals in this country with the highest levels of influence. And you can see what they’ve been able to do; the lies they’ve been able to cover up. You and I both know the Iraq war was a failure-$3 trillion in treasure sunk, 120,000 dead Iraqis, 4,500 dead Americans, 40,000 wounded and a harvest of hatred reaped world wide. We’ve created 500,000 widows and orphans giving Al-Qaeda and the Taliban a nearly endless supply of new recruits. Perhaps that explains why they’ve spread into Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, etc. Why they’re returning to Afghanistan. The war lobby is by far the greatest threat to the future of America. And what’s worse? They’re just getting warmed up. Take it from the biggest neocon of them all, Bill Kristol:

      “Are the American people war weary? Yes, to some degree. Could there be a worse prescription for American foreign policy than giving in to popular war weariness? No.”

      It must be frustrating to be a warmonger these days. So much effort has been made in creating worldwide U.S. hegemony.

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 6:16pm

      You talk like there isn’t a threat in the world today. Again, I agree that there is too much money in government in general, but this doesn’t change the overall purpose of maintaining presence worldwide.

      You and I DO NOT agree regarding Iraq. Was there a good amount of money misallocated? Yes. Was it a waste of money and time? No. When was the last time you heard of an Iraqi extremist attacking anything American since we left? The Iraqi people not only understood what the troops were there to do, but supported them while doing it. The surge only worked because it coincided with a local rejection of the (mostly foreign) insurgent rhetoric and actions. You might want to do research beyond what the anti-war lobby presents you.

      You act as if this issue wouldn’t exist if we just pulled all of our troops out of everywhere besides the U.S. This is ignorant and false. This is the strategy that allowed bin Laden and his cronies to train, plan, and facilitate the multiple attacks on the WTC and embassies, among others. How are we to make up for mistakes from decades ago? The answer is we can’t. They hate us because we are not under their thumb. They desire to make this so. They will use whatever guise they can to hide this, but they envy our status and want to see us lowered to theirs.

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:03pm

      Disgusted_150,

      Fear of a distopian future is not reason to ignore your distopian present. You can make up whatever false, hypothetical senario you want; it does not negate the fact that America payed a heavy price for Iraq and as a result we are very war weary as a nation. You along with Michael Rubin can claim that, “the world would me much worse without or intervention” or “the world would be worse if Sadam were still around.” Fine. Whatever. None of that nonsense is a pretext for war. The false lie Rubin made claiming that “Saddam planned to use his oil income to acquire the nuclear and biological weapons he pretended he had.” is no pretext for war either even if it were true!

      And Rubin wants to talk about what the Founding Father’s would have done? They would not have invaded a country without first getting a declaration from Congress-something we did not do in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter.

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:20pm

      That fact of the matter, Disgusted_150, is that I was once like you. If you could rate neocons on a scale from 1-10, I would be a strong 9. I approved of all military operations with gusto regardless of the cost. Like you, I believed it was America’s job to deal out summary justice to the bad guys all across the globe in whatever country they might be. You see, war was like a video game to me. It was something that I could enjoy from the safety and comfortability of my own home, not to metnion that I actually enjoyed watching it all unfold on television. I never once thought about the financial costs let alone the price paid in blood, and frankly, like you, I was impatient with anyone who did. Human suffering and devastation were quite beside the point. The righteous, U.S. government was dispensing justice to the wicked, and that was that. I mean, after all, why should I give a crap? I didn’t personally know anyone serving. It wasn’t my brother or friend oversees so why should I care? And honestly, who gives a crap about a bunch of Muslims anyway? Their deaths really are negligible, I mean, if they didn’t want to be bombed then why were they over there to begin with?
      I never allowed myeslf the chance to believe anything to the contrary, after all, I’m no pinko-commy-bed-wetting liberal, right? So I had better support big war!

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:28pm

      It wasn’t until I saw Iraqis grieving over the destruction and death. Mothers and fathers crying themselves to exhaustion over children that they had lost or, worse yet, who were still dying agnozing deaths before their very eyes. It wasn’t until all of this that I asked myeslf (as indeed you should ask yourself), “was it really right that we Americans should be celebrating this?” And of course, all on cue, flattered with the ceaseless reminder that “ours was the most awesomest country ever!” Then when all of the lies came forward, and the propaganda became unravelled, my ways were finally changed. I brought myself to admit that it was all a mistake. It takes more courage to admit you’re wrong than to believe a lie.

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 10:08pm

      @No_More
      Yes, we paid a high price. Such is the nature of war.

      You have as much grounds to assume what the Founding Fathers would have done as Mr. Rubin. I am pretty sure they were all about freedom and democracy, not tyrannical rule.

      You and I, my friend, were never very alike. The end of tyrannical rule is always a good thing. Could the wars have been managed more efficiently? Yes. Could there have been more information before invading? Yes. Hindsight is 20/20. The end results are what matter. Iraq is a democracy. Not a perfect one, but a democracy nonetheless. If I remember correctly, we fought a civil war to keep ours going. And that was about 90 years after we established it.

      I’m glad in hindsight you decided that war is terrible.

      Celebrating and supporting are two different things. If you are going to put the troops in harms way, it should be done. The inverse is what happened in Vietnam, the vilification of the troops by the public because of a treasonous media.

      Should there have been a declaration of war? I’m not entirely sure because we did not want to conquer the country, but liberate it from a man and his administration. Regardless, you may want to study Constitutional Law before you make such statements.

      One of the reasons for going to war was found to be inaccurate. There were others.

      We can disagree on whether or not you think the cost was worth it. The country of Iraq is better off now than it was 10 years ago. A win

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
    • KidCharlemagne
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 11:18pm

      Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 10:08pm
      The end of tyrannical rule is always a good thing.
      =======================

      It hasn’t ended yet though:

      —————-
      “After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, violence against Christians rose, with reports of abduction, torture, bombings, and killings. Some Christians were pressured to convert to Islam under threat of death or expulsion, and women were ordered to wear Islamic dress.

      In August 2004, International Christian Concern protested an attack by Islamists on Iraqi Christian churches that killed 11 people. In 2006, an Orthodox Christian priest, Boulos Iskander, was beheaded and mutilated despite payment of a ransom, and in 2008, the Assyrian clergyman Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of the Chaldean Catholic church in Mosul died after being abducted. In January 2008, bombs exploded outside nine churches.

      Half the Christian population has fled, with an estimated 330,000 to Syria and smaller numbers to Jordan.”
      Christianity in Iraq

      Report this comment

      KidCharlemagne  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 10:21am

      @Kid

      Yeah, you are right, a few extremists are doing (after being fed extremist propaganda from outside countries) what extremists do. Given the demographics of the country, I am not surprised. If the Christians were to move north, they would find much peace near the Kurds. The Sunni and Shiite can fight each other as much as they want.

      But you knew that didn’t you?

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 12:12pm

      @Distugsted_150,

      “You have as much grounds to assume what the Founding Fathers would have done as Mr. Rubin.”
      Except… I don’t assume like Mr. Rubin. I back up my arguments with solid fact. During the ratification conventions even the most liberal federalists were clear regarding presidential war powers. Take Hamilton in Federalist #69 he explained that the president’s authority “would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.”

      Others like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson oppose having a president that could directly engage in offensive conflicts without restraint. “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.” Madison even proposed excluding the president from the negotiation of peace treaties, on the grounds that he might obstruct a settlement out of a desire to derive “power and importance from a state of war.”

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 12:16pm

      Disgusted_150, continued,
      In conformity with this understanding, George Washington’s operations on his own authority against the Indians were confined to defensive measures, conscious as he was that the approval of Congress would be necessary for anything further. “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress,” he said, “therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”

      So it would appear that constitutional history favors my arguements and not those Mr. Rubin. But heck, let’s make this fair. I’m going to offer you (and every other neocon on TheBlaze) a challenge. Find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article – whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 12:29pm

      Disguested_150,
      ” If I remember correctly, we fought a civil war to keep ours going.”

      Wow, so in your opinon, maintaining the union as once piece was worth the deaths of 600,000 Americans? No wonder you’re a neocon. Anyone who says that voilence can be used to solve conflict is deeply disturbed and has a twisted, deranged sense of morality. If you kid were to come home beaten up with a bloody nose, would you claim that he got what he deserved and that the other kid must be in the right because of your kid’s bloody condition? I would like to assume not. Might does not make right, and violence can not solve anything. I suppose by your twisted logic we could say that John Wilkes Booth settled the issue of presidents who use voilence to suppress succession, right?

      “The end of tyrannical rule is always a good thing”
      Again, the ends (even if you can legitimately say that the present state in Iraq is actually “a good thing”-this claim, however, is highly dubious) do not justify the means. You cannot justify the slaughter of innocents and wide-spread destruction by saying that the end result was worth it. There are many who would argue that it was not worth it.

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 3:30pm

      I grow tired of this.

      Congress voted on both wars…that pretty much negates all of that post regarding presidential war powers, therefore your “challenge” is void. Besides, I never made that argument, I merely said the founders seemed to back up democratic liberty for all men.

      Violence is not always necessary, but often is. Again, I challenge you to go somewhere people will kill you based on the fact that you are an American. I do not advocate violence unless it is the last resort. I feel as though Abraham Lincoln saw it as a last resort as well. Or are you saying you would rather have had the Confederate States of America exist today instead of fight the civil war?

      There are always two sides to an issue. We went in to remove a threat to peace in the middle east and abroad. We succeeded. The Iraqis wanted us out, so we left. Now they determine their own fate with more basic services and nicer buildings in much of the country. Yeah, I count that a win.

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 4:03pm

      No Disgusted_150, congress did not vote before hostilities were engaged in as the Constitution requires. That makes both of those wars unconstitutional. I do not care what some flimsy, illegitimate law passed in 1973 says regarding presidential war powers. That does not make them Constitutional.

      Regarding the civil war, what I’m saying is that it is entirely possible for a Confederacy to exist outside of the U.S. Succession is not only a right of the people, but it is a last resort against tyrannical, oppressive government. What is it with you nationalists? Why are America’s borders (drawn on a map by politicians, of course) so sacred? Why is the magic number that makes up the square mileage of America so holy and indisputable such that one square inch less would be considered an affront to American ideals and values? And does your love for you fellow human only consist of the people within those magical lines that make up our border? Does your love for people diminish the moment you step outside the border?

      Indeed, succession is the proper response to oppression. If a people feel their interests are no longer served by their current government, why should they feel obligated to remain apart of that system? You do know that in 1776 America succeeded from the crown for this very reason, don’t you? And honestly, is going to war knowing that hundreds of thousands of people will be killed really a better option?

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 4:13pm

      Consider this Disgusted_150,

      600,000 people were killed in the civil war. What if one of those people had invented a cure for cancer or developed a form of space travel that permited mankind to colonize other planets in other solar systems within this galaxy? Would you still hold the decisions of Abraham Lincoln in such high regard?
      The point I’m making is that there are hundreds of unintended consequences that result from death and destruction that come as a result of war. Many of those consequnces are not initially realized or felt. This is why war is the absolute worst option when trying to resolve conflicts. This is why the federalists knew that they had to give the power to make and declare war (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11) to the legislative branch in order to sell it to the delagates. They did not want any one person to have that kind of power.

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 5:02pm

      Your pacifist drivel only shows your ignorance.

      You can continue to assume the world can exist without war and conflict, but it hasn’t and it can’t. If you look at groups of a few people who are in a group together, before long you will see conflict arise. The amount and type of conflict changes, but conflict persists nonetheless.

      A portion of the the American Civil War was to free slaves from oppression. Yes, there are obviously many other factors, but slavery was one of them. What kind of oppression is greater than slavery?

      War has its place. We’ve seen a lot lately. You can be part of the popular pendulum swing away from it, as this is your choice. Going off the deep end and claiming it has no place in global politics is naive and dangerous.

      Look, you can take your ideals and spout off about how the world should work. Those of us that live in it will continue operating that way. Go on, keep placing labels on me for one specific topic. I’m sure you know what type of conservative I am just from my posts here.

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:41pm

      Disgusting_150,

      You are correct to say that war does have its place, and certainly there does exist a concept known as “just war”. It should be made the last possible alternative available. Unfortunately, what you and many other “conservatives” do not understand is we have made it a first option rather than a last resort. The whole concept of speaking softly and carrying a big stick seems to be foreign to so many people. We wield the big stick far more often than we attempt to work things out peaceably. That is the problem.

      Our government has contributed to the problem as well. Yes, Saddam was evil, but who do you think put him on his throne? Over the decades, we have supported countless dictators through army and torture chamber. Pinochet in Chile, Saddam in Iraq, the Shah in Iran are only a few that come to mind. These countries that we needlessly attack and the ones you claim are filled with those who “will kill us because we are American” notice that the only modern, civilized nation that openly and proudly tortures its prisoners is….us.

      Bombing, droning, invading, meddling, telling others how to run their countries-these are the reasons they hate us. No, Disgusting_150, it is not because of our freedoms.

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
    • No_More_War_Please
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 6:45pm

      If slavery was really at the heart of the issue, then why not simply buy all the slaves and set them free? You may laugh at this suggestion, but that’s how Great Britain ended slavery. In fact, virtually every other civilized nation has ended slavery without war. Ours is the only exception. When viewed in this light, the slavery argument for the civil war quickly loses steam.

      Report this comment

      No_More_War_Please  
  • Disgusted_150
    Posted on March 19, 2013 at 12:04pm

    @TECHENGINEER11
    Do us all a favor and crawl into your ignorant little hole somewhere. The point he tried to make was that the money should not have been spent in the way it was, but the liberals and UN convinced the administration that this was the way forward.

    Who are you to talk of blood? Unless you are a gold star mother or veteran who lost friends/family there, shut it. There are plenty of deployment dodgers in the military, if you wanted to get out of the deployment, you could. With few exceptions, every service member wanted to be there. It wasn’t until these wars turned from operations to political footballs that anyone had any doubts. Does that remind you of any other conflict in our history?

    Ignorance is bliss…just bring everyone home and that will solve our problems…no one in the world wants to hurt us or our allies…

    Report this comment

    Disgusted_150  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 12:40pm

      @Meteors

      As usual, you spout your drivel here. Let us take a look at the life in Iraq with Saddam in power shall we?

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/12/07/background-list-saddam-atrocities/
      http://abcnews.go.com/wnt/iraqcoverage/story?id=2761722&page=1
      http://www.npr.org/series/4962517/saddam-hussein-crimes-and-punishment

      Let’s see…murder…genocide…acts of war…torture…totalitarianism…EVEN NPR HAS IT!

      I bet everyone in Iraq would have him back. Iraq is in the middle of the Islamic extremist battle. Of course there is going to be terrorism. You try to come off so smart, yet blindly take the opposite side. Keep following the leader @meteors, it is obvious you can’t think for yourself.

      The fact that there is running water in that country and more electricity efficiency and availability isn’t enough advancement? How about people picking their own leaders?

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
    • WIGHTandRHITE
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 1:18pm

      @Disgusted
      word homie

      5 deployments from 2003-2010
      4 to Iraq 1 to Afghanistan
      All were voluntary. Every Brother of mine that died wanted to be there, no, fought to be there.
      Every Marine that died who I heard about through other people wanted to be there.
      The blood you speak of is not yours or that of your family so leave it out of your arguments.

      Secondly how many fathers of missing daughters have shaken your hand for killing Uday and Qusay?
      Has your prepubescent daughter ever gone missing from her school to be used as a sex slave by dictator’s children never to be seen or heard from again? Have your child’s limbs been amputated for non compliance by a rusty dulled machete? I spoke with grateful parents daily during my 48 months in the Middle East. How much time do you have there? I could only imagine it would have to be substantial to have such a strong argument.

      Regardless of how your media portrays what has happened and is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Take it from someone who has been there the people who understand the opportunity that has been given to them regardless of America’s agenda are fighting to keep it. There are also people who are fighting to destroy it. Who will win, time will tell, but I’m an optimist. Where I was indirect fire was a constant threat, couldn’t have gotten done what I needed to in the shi@#er if I wasn’t.

      Report this comment

      WIGHTandRHITE  
  • WIGHTandRHITE
    Posted on March 19, 2013 at 11:38am

    Oh man it’s my favorite thing when people with zero time on the ground somewhere speak about it like they are an expert. I watched it on the news or read something or am puking up something I heard someone else say. How much do you weigh? What is the square footage of your home? Have you ever been a victim of a crime? I’m guessing alot…..alot…..and nope. Crap on the establishment that allows you to be who you are and think and feel what you think with no one trying to kill you for it. A truly incredible thing that so many take for granted because they have never had to experience anything else. All of you are annoying quit crying drive your cars eat your food vote be nice to your neighbor and enjoy your freedom. No one in this country has it so bad that they should feel sorry for themselves. The fact that the internet and Americans feeling sorry for themselves exists at the same time astounds me.

    Report this comment

    WIGHTandRHITE  
  • wmcritter
    Posted on March 19, 2013 at 11:29am

    Sigh, 25 million people freed from slavery, child prisons, and rape squads, and all the liberals like meteor and tech just lie and whine about it. Of course, if a Democrat freed 25 million people, then he would be the best president ever, but Bush was a Republican, so that changes everything. Or maybe it’s the fact that those 25 million people have brown skin, I guess liberals only like it when white people are free.

    Liberals: proving just how racist, evil and despicable they are every time they open their mouths.

    Report this comment

    wmcritter  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 4:25pm

      Excellent point. They want to try Bush for war crimes, then give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize before he EVEN TAKES OFFICE. Haha…

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
  • SendTheMeteors
    Posted on March 19, 2013 at 10:16am

    “Announcing the start of military operations, George W. Bush declared, ‘We have no ambition in Iraq except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.’ He succeeded.”

    Today in Baghdad: “At least 56 people dead and hundreds wounded, as cabinet postpones local elections in two provinces over security fears.”

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/03/201331963634216456.html

    I’m not sure we can say we “gave Iraq back to the Iraqi people,” unless you define that pretty loosely. I think it would be more reasonable to say that we gave Iraq to al-Qaeda and the Iranian clerics.

    Report this comment

    SendTheMeteors  
    • wellright
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 4:14pm

      see posts by WIGHTANDRHITE, Then sit down with your DNC handlers and come up with some more aljazeera BS .

      Report this comment

      wellright  
  • techengineer11
    Posted on March 19, 2013 at 10:04am

    I’m so excited and thankful that we spent 3 trillion dollars in bringing democracy to Iraq. The blood spilled was not that big of a deal either.. Well worth it to see the gals in Iraq treated with respect like they are in Ameriac now..

    Is there another Middle Eastern that we can spread Democracy to now? Maybe that will only cost us 2 trillion since we seem to have this little debt issue today.. The blood is really no big deal.. 2,5,10k well that’s just blood.

    Thank you Mr. Rubin.. I’m so grateful that you know what’s best for America and that you can lead and guide us.

    But Mr. Rubin can you promise us that you don’t have another dog in this fight? I’m not so sure that this is all for America’s benefit is it Mr. Rubin?

    Anyway it’s all good. Great War. Thanks again Mr. Rubin. Red, White and Blue! We #1!

    God Bless the USA! and Israel of course.

    Report this comment

    techengineer11  
    • Jim S
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 11:19am

      120,000 killed, $800 billion spent invading a nation that didn’t attack us and did not pose a threat…4000 dead American soldiers…no need to rewrite history, it’s all to plain to see. The spin machines are smokin to make it something else. We had a handful of Muslims who hated us,now we have millions..we killed women and children in a sovereign nation that did not attack us…this will not be forgotten, except by some US “historians” who want to make a very bad mistake something it is not. We sure have gone crazy over a handful of terrorists who pulled off a miracle attack 12 years ago. This is no reflection on the brave soldiers or terror victims…just how we responded and continue too.

      Report this comment

      Jim S  
    • JacquesChirac
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 11:37am

      Tech – you ask if there is another Middle Eastern (country?) that we can spread Democracy to now?

      Well of course there is. In fact, a Dem US Congressman just introduced legislation to make us spend a sh*tload of dollars to “help” the Syrian rebels, because, of course, we CAN’T let ANY dictator kill his own people now, can we???

      I’ll bet right now someone in the lamestream media somewhere is trying to link the Dem Congressman to Bush, because, as you know, Dems NEVER EVER try to stick America’s nose in other countries’ business…

      Report this comment

      JacquesChirac  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 12:45pm

      @Jim S

      Yeah, Saddam just made the middle east a more peaceful place didn’t he…made sure everything there was under control and treated all his people well. How many Iraqis hate us? I will tell you very few. The spin machines that brought EXTREMISTS there only could do so because we were actually in the country. They are now plotting another attack, without a doubt. You must be ignorant of the fact that these people will kill you without hesitation or regret.

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 2:58pm

      Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 12:45pm
      @Jim S

      lol Iraq attack us?

      How many nations have Iran attacked in the past 200 years?

      The only one I see starting Wars today is the US and that’s usually to hide some adultery or to mask the pitiful economic recovery.

      Report this comment

      techengineer11  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 4:13pm

      @Tech

      You and your ilk show your ignorance by believing that the only threat to the U.S. is a threat directed only against U.S. soil. Regardless, had Saddam acquired the weapons he desired, it would have become a threat to our mainland. The same goes for Iran. Why do you think they want nukes? To have nuclear power? If they want power, why not invest in solar panels seeing as a large part of their country is desert? Because they want weapons.

      I’m glad you know the hearts of all those appointed to make these types of decisions. I would hope someone with an engineering background (if that is the case) would be intelligent enough to understand the threat from an openly hostile nation attempting to obtain weapons which can kill hundreds of thousands of people. I am not for war for the sake of war. If we can stop them without war, it is all the more important we do so.

      Your isolationism is ignorant and ineffective.

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 11:00pm

      Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 19, 2013 at 4:13pm
      @Tech

      Your mentality scares me. It’s as if you stepped right out of 16th century England right after burning a few reformers at the stake.

      There’s only one solution for people like you.

      Report this comment

      techengineer11  
    • Disgusted_150
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 10:17am

      None of that even makes sense dude. Nobody is talking about anything except setting the record straight. Keep following the media in their analysis. I will continue seeking out experiences and people with direct experiences to make my own. Keep your head in the sand, it seems to be the place you feel most comfortable.

      Report this comment

      Disgusted_150  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love