Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I know this may be hard, but can someone explain the whole Iraq situation in a nutshell? What exactly led to the war, what's going on w/ the WMD search, how exactly does al-Qeda fit in? etc...

(i'm pretty sure i'm going to be needing to this for Gov since my teacher is a freak about current events.)

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 05:59 pm: Edit

In a nutshell: Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait a dozen years ago. The US military chased him out of Kuwait, but George Bush the 1st and Colin Powell inexplicably wimped out and failed to finish the job, removing a brutal dictator from power when they had the opportunity.

Hussein has been misbehaving ever since, butchering his people, funneling money and support to terrorist groups, playing cutsey with nuclear and chemical weapons, etc.

It was just time to finish the job. This was clearly Donald Rumsfeld's baby.

There are several ancilliary benefits that accrue from the military action. It sends a powerful message to other states in the region who have been enabling terorism, including Iran, Syria, and guasi-allies like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

It also gives us a permanent military force in a key strategic position -- smack dab between the two worst terrorist enabling states: Iran and Syria. If you watch closely, you'll see that the governments of both countries are jittery. We have given both good reason to be jittery. Both Syria and Iran have served as the primary patrons of both Al Queda and HAMAS. You can be sure that if Saddam or Osama turned up on the radar screens in either country, cruise missles would be soon to follow.

If you followed the war closely, very little of the fighting was done by the Iraqi army. They were pretty much wiped out when they thought they could move with impunity during the sandstorm in the first week of the war. They miscalculated, because our air power had no trouble "seeing" their movements. After that, it was guerrilla actions, mostly by non-Iraqi fighters. You can figure out who trained the foreign fighters, knowing who ran the official militant Islamic military training bases in Afghanistan for the last decade.

To the extent that the US can foster a secular, semi-democratic government in Irag, there are huge benefits throughout the region. It's not at all clear that this will happen. But, Iraq could be a very wealthy country with a long tradition of Westernization. Every strong secular Westernized Arab country undermines the fundamentalist Islamic states and, at some point, starts to create the conditions for internal overthrow of the fundamentalist states -- much in the way that exposure to a better way of life led to the crumbling of the Berlin wall. It was simply impossible to keep East Germany under repression with a vibrant West Berlin just across the river. The same thing can create pressure on Iran (the ringleader state of terrorist support).

Another westernized secular state in the Middle East would also be a huge benefit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both in combating the forces towards fundamentalist Islamic revolution in those two countries AND in giving us a stronger hand to encourage those allies to improve the standards of living for their young people.

It's a very complex region of the world. It is unlikely that efforts to counter fundamentalist Islamic movements and the intertwined terrorist organizations can be successful without the use and/or imminent threat of US power. I believe the term Rumsfeld might use to describe the war on terriorism is "relentless pressure".

By Collegehell (Collegehell) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 06:09 pm: Edit

dont get me wrong here anyone andi mean anyone who carries out un provoked attacks is a M F ing terrorist and should be dismembered but hey whats with countries "enabling terrorism" on Saudia Arabia and Pakistan ( hell pakistan gave most of the intelligence in wiping out the Taliban ).... and contrary to what most ppl think is somewhat a cool country .... well no in the major cities ( we have brains ) chill out ..............
I wonder why there is so much anti Pakistan feeling there ( I dont belive any majore leader in al-qaeda was a pakistani) come on i thought we were allies

By Drusba (Drusba) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 06:37 pm: Edit

In a nutshell, it is kind of like this:

"We went to Iraq to protect our national security by ridding the country of a regime that harbored al queda terroists and had weapons of mass destruction."

"But the Iraq regime is hated and avoided by al queda and it has no weapons of mass destruction."

"See, it worked."

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 07:32 pm: Edit

George Bush the 1st and Colin Powell inexplicably wimped out

Factually correct but I believe there was an agreement with the "Coalition Forces" and other foreign government to restrict the Gulf War to oust Iraq from Kuweit but NOT seize the opportunity to raid Badgad and take control of Iraq.

The positions taken by governments like France, Russia, and Germany in the region have been marred by self-interest for generations. A more united front at the UN probably could have avoided the war altogether. Obviously, the same governments now accuse the US of having for sole interest to gain control of the vast reserves of oil of Iraq. Richelieu is still alive and kicking in France