Why We Are At War In Iraq

This is a primer for the ignorant amongst our ranks, that can’t seem to understand why what we’re doing in the mid-east is so necessary.  This will also underscore why our forces will be in that part of the world for the foreseeable future.  This material contains factual data points, and the conclusions that can be inferred from them.  It will not be possible for mind-numbed leftists to understand and comprehend.

Orthodox (pre-Medina, Qur’an) Muslims do not countenance terrorism or mass murder of innocents.  Unfortunately, thanks mostly to the influence of the Saudis, the majority of Muslims today are what could be best described as, adherents to the “post-Mecca” Qur’an.  This later manifestation of Islam, has become the largest sect, and one that worships death.  They stridently call for jihad, or holy war, against those they perceive to by the enemies of “God.”  Since they are a sect, and indeed a very large one, they constitute an enemy without borders.  They are a “nation” of  “holy warriors” called Jihadistan.  And we, the western democracies, are at war with Jihadistan.  We did not declare this war.  It was thrust upon us.  The most recent attack was committed on 9/11, 2001.  It was as surely a shot fired in anger as was Pearl Harbor.

The only way to define and understand this enemy is to note that it is not a political, state, or country oriented enemy.  Despite that, it is dangerous and most be destroyed.  Why destroyed?  Because you can not capture its city, state, or country in order to stop it.  In a speech given by president Bush in October of 2001, he said, “Our war on terror begins with al-Qa'ida, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. … This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion.”  We simply can not use the symmetric-warfare model of years past.  In this war, the only solution is to kill the enemy.  One-by-one if necessary.  They can not be convinced or coerced to accept the notion of freedom or self-determination.  They are a religiously fueled and absolutely convinced that they and they alone know what’s best for not only their people, but the entire world.

Jihadi terrorism (type asymmetric warfare) had its origins with the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) almost 40 years ago.  There, Islamists inflicted terror first against Israel, and then, working westward, against democratic targets in Europe.  Yet despite subsequent attacks on U.S. personnel in that region--the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, for example--it was not until 1993 that our homeland became a frontline in the war with Jihadistan.

On 26 February, 1993, Pakistani native Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and his terrorist brethren (who had entered the United States on Iraqi passports under the control of Iraqi intelligence) bombed the north tower of the World Trade Center in an effort to topple that tower into the south tower and inflict mass civilian casualties.  Fortunately, due to Ramzi’s lack of engineering knowledge, his crude truck-bomb didn't topple the building, though it created a six-story crater in the parking garage.

While Ramzi escaped, several of his cohort terrorists were captured and tried.  Ramzi himself was finally arrested in 1995, while formulating plans to bomb a number of U.S. international flights simultaneously.  After 1995, al-Qa'ida Jihadis focused on American targets abroad—like the Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000—all without reprisal from the self-involved Clinton administration.

In 2001, Ramzi's uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the number-three thug in the al-Qa'ida organization), and Ramzi's mentor, Jihadi sheik Osama bin Laden himself, revised Ramzi's plan to use civilian aircraft for terrorist ends—using them as bombs rather than bombing them.  On 11 September of that year, one of al-Qa'ida's U.S. terrorist cells finished the business that Ramzi started almost a decade earlier, with devastating consequences.

On that Tuesday morning, the American people were awakened to an imminent threat to our homeland, and before noon that day, our common sense of invincibility had all but vanished.  Indeed, given the nature, planning and sophistication of the attack, a larger question loomed in the minds of all rational people: What moral obstacles would prevent surrogate terrorists from using WMD provided by rogue nation states under tyrants like Saddam Hussein?  What would prevent al-Qa'ida from detonating a fissionable weapon in a U.S. urban center?

That question would have to be answered by President George W. Bush, whose administration had been operational for only eight months prior to the 9/11 attack—a period preceded by eight long years of Clinton administration inaction and appeasement of terrorists.  President Bush determined, correctly, that the war being waged on the U.S. and its Allies could not be resolved diplomatically, nor could it be won defensively.  Al-Qa'ida and other elements of Jihadistan, he surmised, could be defeated only by way of pre-emptive strikes, in keeping with the dictum of military strategist Carl von Clausewitz: "The best form of defense is attack."

In 2001, The Patriot's military and intelligence analysts were out front in our characterization of the war with Jihadistan and our support for the Bush strategic doctrine of preemption -- taking the battle to the enemy.

To that end Sen. Edward Kennedy, never one to miss an opportunity to use the deaths of American military personnel as political fodder, unwittingly endorsed the Bush Doctrine this way: "The war has made Iraq a breeding ground for terrorism...."


The principal objective of President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption -- Operation Enduring Freedom (or "Operation Let's Roll," as it's known around our shop) -- is to keep the front lines of our war with Jihadistan on their turf, rather than our own.  Our Armed Forces are the most capable, best-trained and best-equipped in history, and they've issued a standing invitation to Jihadis worldwide to engage them in Iraq, where tens of thousands of these vermin have met their fate.

Why Iraq?  In 1991, Saddam Hussein signed a binding agreement of surrender as a precondition to the cessation of Gulf War hostilities -- the subsequent violation of which was, in effect, grounds to resume the military campaign against Iraq.  After a jaw-slackening 17th UN resolution to disarm was flouted by Saddam, the Bush administration determined that Iraq would be a suitable, logical and defensible front line with Jihadistan.

Let's be clear: American forces are NOT, first and foremost, "fighting for Iraq's freedom."  They are fighting for U.S. national-security interests and those of the free world, which was, and to a lesser degree (thanks to our considerable military achievements), remains, in great peril.  Ultimately, these two objectives are inextricably bound.  Our ultimate objective in Iraq is to establish a forward deployed presence in the Middle East -- military personnel, but primarily equipment -- now that the Saudis have pulled our lease.  Our analysts estimate that once the new Iraqi government is seated, the U.S. will be invited to establish permanent military installations in southern Iraq.  This presence is critical, given that it would place us in the heart of Jihadistan, with the ability to protect our national interests in the region quickly without having to respond via sea and airlift.  Our sources indicate that this new forward presence will be offset by part of our Cold War tactical and strategic assets in Germany.

Regarding all the clatter about Saddam's "nonexistent" WMD programs and stores, what we don't know only constitutes what is yet to be known: and ignorance, when it comes to WMD, is not bliss.

As The Patriot noted in October 2002, our well-placed sources in the region and intelligence sources with the NSA and NRO estimated that the UN Security Council's foot-dragging provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his deadliest WMD materials and components.  At that time, we reported that Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover Iraq's WMD stores, noting, "Our sources estimate that Iraq has shipped some or all of its biological stockpiles and nuclear WMD components through Syria to southern Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley."  In December of 2002, our senior-level intelligence sources re-confirmed estimates that some of Iraq's biological and nuclear WMD material and components had, in fact, been moved into Syria and Iran.  That movement continued until President Bush finally pulled the plug on the UN's ruse.

According to publicly released findings, Saddam was not successful in his attempts to reconstitute his nuclear-arms program in 2000 and 2001 -- leaving Iraq's research programs short of the progress made by other terrorist states such as Iran and Libya (as recently discovered).  In other words, Saddam's formal nuclear WMD research programs were in disarray, but we do not know how much material and technological capability Iraq imported to support this program prior to 2002.  (Our intelligence sources suggest it is very possible that Saddam had the capability to construct as many as three crude portable nuclear devices prior to 2002.)

To that end, our military sources assure us that Special Forces/CIA units continue search-and-destroy missions in the region -- outside Iraq. (Don't expect to read about these missions in The New York Times or The Washington Post.)

As for the elections in Iraq, clearly the establishment of a democracy in the Jewel of Islam is antithetical to the tyrannical rule desired by Jihadi sheiks.  In December, Osama bin Laden proclaimed, "Anyone who participates in these elections has committed apostasy against Allah."  And last week, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qa'ida's "prince of terror" in Iraq, declared: "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.  Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion, [and that] is against the rule of God."

The pro-liberty pressures will undoubtedly (even if unsuccessful in the short term) counteract the advance of Jihadistan across the globe.  The difficulty will be evaluating what constitutes success -- and our objectives must of necessity be limited.

Regarding international support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush's responsibility is to the people of the United States, not to cheese-eating surrender monkeys such as French President Jacques Chirac, nor any of his like-minded pantywaist Euro-snivelers.

No primer on our war with Jihadistan would be complete without this final note of caution: According to our analysts, the FBI estimates that as many as six Jihadi terrorist cells -- cells materially supported by domestic Islamic groups -- remain intact in U.S. urban centers, mostly on the East Coast.  In addition, there are more than 1,200 terrorist-related investigations ongoing in the U.S., most involving individuals suspected of raising funds or recruiting for al-Qa'ida.

How do you differentiate between "peaceful Muslims" and Islamists?  Omar Ahmad, Chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, stated clearly, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.  The Koran...should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."  Does that clear things up?

Make no mistake -- while the warfront with Jihadistan is in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jihadis terrorists are still on our soil -- ready and willing.

Some notable quotes:
"Because our own freedom is enhanced by the expansion of freedom in other nations, I set out the long-term goal of ending tyranny in our world.  This will require the commitment of generations, but we're seeing much progress in our time.  In late 2004, the people of Afghanistan defied the threats of terrorists and went to the polls to choose their leaders.  The Palestinian people have elected a President who has renounced violence.  And just four days from now, the people of Iraq will vote in free national elections."
--President George W. Bush

We might add to this list the recent elections in the crucial Muslim states of Indonesia and Malaysia, where Islamic parties suffered serious defeat -- we hope a sign of things to come in the Middle East.

"It is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own."
--Benjamin Franklin

On cross-examination...

"Since terrorists are pouring into Iraq in response to calls from international terrorist networks, the number of those who are killed is especially important, for these are people who will no longer be around to launch more attacks on American soil.  Iraq has become a magnet for enemies of the United States, a place where they can be killed wholesale, thousands of miles away."
--Thomas Sowell

Open query...

"In a world that has gone global, we no longer have a choice.  If we don't export freedom, we risk importing the viruses which have corrupted other nations. ... Some critics complained that President Bush was arrogant when he suggested America can and should export freedom to other countries.  This implies the people of “unfree” countries may not wish to be free.  Which is the greater arrogance?"
--Cal Thomas

By:  Mark Alexander, with a few edits for brevity and clarity by me.