Four thousand dead and five years later, the necessity of the Iraq War

Former White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, defended the War in Iraq on Larry King on the fifth anniversary. Fleischer said that Saddam Hussein had to be removed before he acquired weapons of mass destruction. In fact, according to him, Saddam Hussein told his interrogators that he was still interested in acquiring these weapons, despite UN restrictions following the Persian Gulf War of 1991. The mere fact that Saddam did not have such weapons at the time of the invasion does not render the premise flawed. Furthermore, he said that, if the war was waged later, he would have been far more costly in terms of blood and treasure. Frankly I am astonished that Fleischer would still defend the war even now.

There are several noteworthy points in his argument that I would not dispute. Firstly, the war may have to be waged at a later date, namely shortly or immediately after the death of Saddam Hussein in order to prevent his two sons from taking over. The war may be been more costly if it was waged at a later date. However, Fleischer's argument for the war is fundamentally flawed because he fails to answer the underlying question of why in 2003? The Bush Administration tried to sell this war on the premise of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's links to the terrorist attacks on 11th Sept. 2001. Both claims were disapproved. Furthermore, in 2003, the international community had Saddam Hussein boxed in from all sides, Kuwait in the south, Saudi Arabia in the south west, Iran in the east and Turkey in the north. In fact, Saddam had nowhere to go.

I opposed the war because I simply do not believe in pre-emptive strikes. The Anglo-French invasion of the Suez Canal in 1956 was nothing short of a pre-emptive strike against Nasser. The British claimed that Nasser's collusion with Moscow to build the Anwar Dam made him dangerous. In fact, Prime Minister Antony Eden tried to characterize Nasser as the next Adolf Hitler in Eden's arguments. It was baloney. Nasser turned to Moscow for economic aid to build the dam because both Washington and London refused to help. There was nothing threatening about Nasser's decision to take Soviet aid to build the dam or to nationalize the Canal. Frankly, the only thing threatening about the nationalization of Suez was it would bleed the current accounts of Britain and France dry, given their dependency on Suez.

Would a war at a later date have been more costly? In absolute terms, probably. Right now, most of the international community believes it is just an American cowboy vendetta; hence, the trillion dollar price-tag for the American taxpayers. However, the main counter argument is that there are more countries to share the burden of the cost because more world leaders would recognize the stakes involved. Hence the relative cost to the American taxpayers would be significantly less. America would still be the biggest contributor in terms of manpower, but not to the extent it is right now. Furthermore, the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians and other Arab nations would recognize their involvement would be critical, instead of their current ambivalence. It worth noting that the French, Germans and some other Western European NATO allies were opposed to the war in contrast to the Persian Gulf War of 1991 and in Afghanistan. In the autumn of 1990, US Secretary of State James Baker went on a tin-cup trip around the world in an attempt to reduce the financial burden on the American taxpayers. To the best of my knowledge, many countries threw a lot of money into that enterprise. That is why the Persian Gulf War only cost the American taxpayer $2 billion.

It is also worth looking at World War Two as a guide, as it was the last time America was an occupying power. Granted that America had a larger military then, her forces were deployed in Germany and Japan. At the same time, Britain, France and the Soviet Union had occupation forces in Germany after the War. Also, the Eastern sector of Germany was the sole responsibility of the Soviets, while the Americans, British and French bore responsibility for the Western sector. As a result, everyone bore some of the cost in terms of blood and treasure. In turn, it reduced the cost for any single party, unlike the current situation in Iraq. Also, the occupation of Germany serves as a very useful guide as to the length of the occupation of Iraq. After the war, the Allied forces needed ten years to end the remnants of German resistance or Nazi guerrillas. If the occupation of Germany was a guide as to Iraq, the Americans are only half way through their occupation at best. That is a scary thought if Hillary was to honor her campaign pledge of ending US military involvement in Iraq after she takes office.