In addition to communicating with the local Air Traffic Control facility, all aircraft In the Persian Gulf AOR are required to give the Iranian Air Defense Radar (military) A ten minute ‘heads up’ if they will be transiting Iranian airspace. This is a common procedure for commercial aircraft and involves giving them your Call sign, transponder code, type aircraft, and points of origin and destination. I just flew with a guy who overheard this conversation on the VHF Guard (emergency) Frequency 121.5 MHz while flying from Europe to Dubai. It is too good not to pass along.
The conversation went like this… Iranian Air Defense Radar: ‘Unknown aircraft you are in Iranian airspace. Identify yourself.’
Aircraft: ‘This is a United States aircraft. I am in Iraqi airspace.’
Air Defense Radar: ‘You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace we will launch interceptor aircraft!’
Aircraft: ‘This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send ‘em up, I’ll wait!’
Air Defense Radar: (no response … Total silence)
Leading the fight is Gunnery Sgt Michael Burghardt, known as ‘Iron Mike’ or just ‘Gunny’. He is on his third tour in Iraq .. He had become a legend in the bomb disposal world after winning the Bronze Star for disabling 64 IEDs and destroying 1,548 pieces of ordnance during his second tour.
Then, on September 19, he got blown up. He had arrived at a chaotic scene after a bomb had killed four US soldiers. He chose not to wear the bulky bomb protection suit. ‘You can’t react to any sniper fire and you get tunnel-vision,’ he explains. So, protected by just a helmet and standard-issue flak jacket, he began what bomb disposal officers term ‘the longest walk’, stepping gingerly into a 5 foot deep and 8 foot wide crater.
The earth shifted slightly and he saw a Senao base station with a wire leading from it. He cut the wire and used his 7 inch knife to probe the ground. ‘I found a piece of red detonating cord between my legs,’ he says. ‘That’s when I knew I was screwed.’ Realizing he had been sucked into a trap, Sgt Burghardt, 35, yelled at everyone to stay back. At that moment, an insurgent, probably watching through binoculars, pressed a button on his mobile phone to detonate the secondary device below the sergeant’s feet ‘A chill went up the back of my neck and then the bomb exploded,’ he recalls. ‘As I was in the air I remember thinking, ‘I don’t believe they got me.’ I was just ticked off they were able to do it. Then I was lying on the road, not able to feel anything from the waist down’
His colleagues cut off his trousers to see how badly he was hurt. None could believe his legs were still there ‘My dad’s a Vietnam vet who’s paralyzed from the waist down,’ says Sgt Burghardt. ‘I was lying there thinking I didn’t want to be in a wheelchair next to my dad and for him to see me like that. They started to cut away my pants and I felt a real sharp pain and blood trickling down. Then I wiggled my toes and I thought, ‘Good, I’m in business.’ As a stretcher was brought over, adrenaline and anger kicked in. ‘I decided to walk to the helicopter. I wasn’t going to let my team-mates see me being carried away on a stretcher.’ He stood and gave the insurgents who had blown him up a one-fingered salute. ‘I flipped them one. It was like, ‘OK, I lost that round but I’ll be back next week’.’
Copies of a photograph depicting his defiance, taken by Jeff Bundy for the Omaha World-Herald, adorn the walls of homes across America and that of Col John Gronski, the brigade commander in Ramadi, who has hailed the image as an exemplar of the warrior spirit.
Sgt Burghardt’s injuries – burns and wounds to his legs and buttocks – kept him off duty for nearly a month and could have earned him a ticket home. But, like his father – who was awarded a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts for being wounded in action in Vietnam – he stayed in Ramadi to engage in the battle against insurgents who are forever coming up with more ingenious ways of killing Americans.
During the past seven years, a new phrase has worked its way into the lexicon of the left—I support the troops, but not the war. I’ve listened to it for quite some time now and failed to address it, filing it under the category “too moronic to discuss.” With the election of Barack Obama, however, it is clear that well over half our nation has no understanding of the military whatsoever, so I thought I’d take a few minutes to bring them up to speed.
First and foremeost, a news flash for the support-the-troops-but-not-the-war gang: Every single serviceman currently serving in the military enlisted or reenlisted while the country was at war. Since the military’s job is war, and war is designed to kill people and break things, it’s pretty much certain that every single serviceman took their oath knowing that violence was part of the package. For the contrarians in the crowd, let me dumb that down a bit: How many soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines do you suppose joined up thinking, “I disagree with this illegal and immoral war, but—hey, sign me up anyway. I’m willing to risk life and limb for a per-hour paycheck of less than minimum wage.”
If your guess was zero, step forward and collect your prize.
Look, I’m quite sure there are servicemen who regret their decision to join, and now want us (and themselves) out of Iraq and Afghanistan , but that kind of military mind-changing has been happening since armies first clashed with rocks and saber-tooth tiger teeth. War is horrible, and wanting to be home is a sane response to an insane situation. Wanting to come home, however, should not be confused with the sense of purpose and duty these brave individuals felt when joining.
Now, if 100% of our troops joined while the nation was at war, what can we conclude that means?
Logically, it means that those young men and women thought it through, and decided the war was righteous. They decided the cause of fighting fundamental Islamic terrorism at its source (instead of here in America ) was worth the risk. They decided, “You don’t get to blow up the Twin Towers , then live in peace. This is America, and we will not abide such behavior. Someone’s got to pay, and I’m willing to be the one who collects that debt.”
Is this barbarous? For the John Mellencamps’s who view America as nothing more than a geographic location, it surely is. For the Keith Olbermann’s who believe America is the problem, not the solution, it surely is. And for the Michael Moore’s who believe America is an evil empire, it’s more than barbarous—it’s imperialistic murder.
But what is it to the troops?
It’s duty. Honor. Country.
You see, not-the-war gang, our nation still gives birth to these rare souls—men and women who don’t need input from the United Nations or The Huffington Post to determine right from wrong. They don’t care about geo-political deal making; they don’t care about Sunni vs. Shia squabbles over who should have inherited Mohammad’s camels; they don’t care who’s getting what oil from where. They know America was attacked, and thousands of innocent men, women and children were murdered.
So somebody’s got to pay.
And if you ask our combat troops about collecting on that payment, 95% of them would say, ” Afghanistan? Of course. Iraq? Sure, why not. Oh, no WMD’s were discovered? Gee, I’ll just have to soothe my aching conscience with the knowledge that Sadam Hussein, who murdered over 50,000 Kurds and ran rape/torture rooms for political opponents, is now dead and in hell. And maybe I can get through the day knowing that Islamic terrorists are still flooding into Iraq like lemmings to the sea, and by killing those animals here I know they won’t make it to my homeland.”
The men and women on the front lines of this war simply don’t care that Bill Maher thinks the war is bad. They don’t care that decades ago, before they were born, America was in bed with Saddam. And they certainly don’t care about the opinions of the pinot grigio and foie gras crowd. When they joined the military, they cared about duty, honor, and country. Now that they’ve experienced the horrors of war, they probably care more about the man on their left and their right. But let there be no doubt they care about winning, and returning home with honor. And you, Mister and Miss Not-the-War, sound like morons when you fail to comprehend this very basic foundation of an all-volunteer military.
A hypothetical situation for all the not-the-war supporters: You find yourself sitting next to an Iraq War veteran in a bar, and you hear him talking to the bartender about the media’s coverage of the war, and how demoralizing it was to hear the Democrats proclaiming the war to be lost, unjust, illegal, and pointless. You hear him speak of the losses his unit suffered, but also of the good he feels they achieved.
What do you do? You want to speak up, but—oops, you are no longer oh-so-bravely poised behind your computer screen, able to comment anonymously. And you’re not surrounded by a crowd of fellow protestors, bolstered by mob bravery and the thrill of being anti-establishment. It’s just you, and him. So what do you do? Do you speak up, and tell him you supported him, but not the war?
Of course you don’t. He stands for something, and is willing to put pain, mutilation, and his life on the line to defend his beliefs. You stand for nothing but your own “feelings,” and are willing to put nothing on the line. Perhaps you will go home and post on your blog about what you “felt like saying,” but you won’t actually say anything.
Want to know why? Because physical violence is scary. And a weak man is always afraid of a hard man. The same holds true for nations. And we know these Islamic fundamentalists are, if nothing else, hard men, backed by hard governments. And if you won’t even face down an American veteran with your beliefs, what makes you think you and your equally impotent political leaders can face down Muslim terrorists?
But, hey—feel free to keep that I-support-the-troops-but-not-the-war sticker on your car. Maybe you can use the sticky side to stop some of the kids’ bleeding when the war comes to an elementary school near you.
Prioleau Alexander, author of You Want Fries With That? A White-Collar Burnout Experiences Life at Minimum Wage. ( Arcade Publishing, 2008) His website is www.SouthernFriedWriter.com
CNSNews.com recently reported: “There were only two front-page New York Times stories that mentioned ‘Iraq’ in the headline in October 2008 — there were 11 in October 2006 and 17 in October 2004. … The Washington Post ran four front-page stories that had headlines using the word ‘Iraq’ in October 2008 — in October 2006 there were 17 stories, and 27 stories in October 2004.”
In July, The Times, a newspaper in the U.K., ran a column that commended American and Iraqi forces in making significant progress in Mosul, Iraq, and reaching the “final purge” of al-Qaida in Iraq. Investor’s Business Daily echoed the same sentiment but sharply criticized American mainstream media for completely overlooking that military success. The media indictment became so widespread on the Internet that it left the global audience wondering whether such an oversight was an urban legend.
TruthOrFiction.com, an urban legend-debunking Web site, affirmed this media Mosul omission by saying: “At the time of our investigation, US media reports of this were hard to find but we did manage to find a report of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s announcement on the Fox News site. For the most part, it appears the mainstream media missed this one.”
Here’s what they missed:
During the surge in 2007 and early 2008, U.S. forces intensified efforts in Mosul by pushing out into small-neighborhood bases — a strategy that proved successful in routing insurgents from other large cities in the country.
In February 2008, Col. Michael A. Bills, commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, predicted that U.S. and Iraqi troops would be in full control of the city by the end of July.
By March 2008, Brig. Gen. Tony Thomas, second in command of coalition forces in northern Iraq, already was reporting: “So again, we can go anywhere we want to in Mosul … and we’re now forcing the enemy — boxing them in, if you will — into areas that they otherwise had free play in the city. So we’ve seized the initiative, and we’re slowly but surely eliminating their toehold in the city.”
By June 2008, this city of 2 million people had 14 Iraqi army battalions, 10,000 Iraqi police and 4,000 coalition force soldiers. And they were utilizing the “Sons of Iraq” (paid volunteers by the U.S.) to control neighborhoods better. And it was working.
Despite the fact that July 2008 saw an increase in insurgent activity, Lt. Col. Robert Molinari reported that it was really “nothing out of the norm.” A senior Iraqi commander added: “We’ve limited their movements with checkpoints. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they’re mostly not succeeding.” American and Iraqi forces clearly were getting the upper hand, demonstrated then through the dip in the number of U.S. casualties to the lowest number since the start of the war — 11 deaths in the entire country.
Overall, attacks in Mosul and in Ninevah province have declined from 50 a day at the start of the year to the present number of 10 a day — almost the same as the number was in 2006. Open street fighting is a rarity. That is why Maj. Ra’ad Jalal, an Iraqi officer, said: “The security situation in Mosul is improving. It’s safe here now. I’d be happy to come here even without all of this protection.”
Of course, assaults continue. But they don’t diminish the momentous progress. Capt. Hunter Bowers, who presently is serving on the battlefield in Mosul, summarized his upbeat thoughts about their progress to me by e-mail Monday: “We have had some great success here and a lot of it has to do with the integration of the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police.”
Unfortunately, instead of reporting these substantial advances being made in Mosul, mainstream American media have chosen to ignore them, favoring to continue to report only negative news from the war zones or repeated jabs by Democratic leaders about the unfounded grounds for the war. (I’ve been sadly amazed and gravely amused how often progress in war is played out not on the battlefield, but in the backrooms of news broadcasting studios.)
With another Pearl Harbor anniversary approaching and in a Christmas season when the sacrifice of our troops is accentuated by their absence from loved ones, it’s fitting to honor, not overlook, those who fight for freedom. Find ways to commemorate their courage and commitment. Admonish others to watch positive and honorable tributes to our service members, such as those on the Military Channel and those created by director Mike Slee of Zaragoza Pictures, a documentary filmmaker whose mission also is to capture the progress of our troops — including those in Mosul. (See his Mosul footage.)
The fact is American coalition forces have reduced the number of al-Qaida fighters in Iraq from roughly 12,000 to 1,200, have cornered them in Mosul, and are successfully gaining the upper hand on their remaining strongholds. That is why Gen. James Conway, the head of the Marine Corps and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, summarized, “Iraq is now a rear-guard action on the part of al-Qaida.” In fact, he says that security is so good around the country that for the first time, it “smells like victory,” adding that next year, as many as 20,000 Marines currently deployed will return home.
And just in time for President-elect Barack Obama to begin his withdrawal of our troops — an act that likely will be a signal broadcasting victory in Iraq and likely will earn the new commander in chief credit for military success. Now there’s a 2009 news story that America’s mainstream media will be guaranteed to run over and over.
Double Click on thumbnails below to see full size photos of this wonderful ceremony in Iraq.
Filed under: Iraq
I don’t know who wrote it but they should have signed it.. Some powerful words. This woman should run for president. Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady.
‘Are we fighting a war on terror or aren’t we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation’s capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn’t they?
And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was ‘desecrated’ when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?… Well, I don’t. I don’t care at all.
I’ll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia
I’ll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg’s head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I’ll care when the cowardly so-called ‘insurgents’ in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I’ll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I’ll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don’t care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don’t care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don’t care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed ’special’ food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being ‘mishandled,’ you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don’t care.
And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it’s spelled ‘Koran’ and other times ‘Quran.’ Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and-you guessed it-I don’t care !!
Filed under: Iraq
6:00:00 AM BAGHDAD – The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace – a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.
That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.
Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.
This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.
Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq’s future.
“Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it,” Crocker said. “It’s actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what’s left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on.”
Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring _ now a quiet though not fully secure district.
Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.
Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.
The premature declaration by the Bush administration of “Mission Accomplished” in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that “security is fragile” and that the improvements, while encouraging, are “not irreversible.”
Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Any one of those could rekindle widespread fighting.
But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military’s hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.
Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.
That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.
Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war _ four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13.
Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.
In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.
Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.
The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying.
Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the sacrifice could be squandered.
U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year _ as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 _ the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.
As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls “nonkinetic” issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government institutions and humanitarian aid.
Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district of southern Baghdad _ an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital’s most violent zones.
“We’re getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq,” says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it’s over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.
Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency _ a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.
Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm this way: “We’ve put out the forest fire. Now we’re dealing with pop-up fires.”
It’s not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.
Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the changes. “Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today’s Baghdad,” he says.
by Robert Burns and Robert H. Reid (Robert Burns is AP’s chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP’s chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.)
I don¹t recall the last time that the three major TV networks sent their anchors on a foreign visit by a candidate for the presidency. The mainstream media seems to have lost their memory about what has been happening in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 18 months.
If my memory serves me well, all of the democratic leadership in both houses of congress stated that the surge could not possibly succeed. Senator Reid stated that we had already lost the war, and Senator Durbin stated, ³By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush- Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong.² Last year when General Petraeus reported on the situation in Iraq before congress, he was held up in ridicule by most of the democrats as indicated by the previous quote. Since the war has been going well for many months, the media has lost interest in reporting the news from the two fronts.
President Bush stated weeks ago that if events continued to improve in Iraq, brigades could possibly be rotated back to the states. He also has been applying pressure on NATO allies to increase their troop commitment to the fight in Afghanistan since NATO is the main headquarters.
Now, after Senator Obama went to Afghanistan and said that we needed to send more troops and that Afghanistan was the key fight against terrorism. The media reported this as though no one had ever considered additional troops. In Iraq he reported that the Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in agreement with him about withdrawing our troops in 16 months after the first of the year. There is some doubt if the Prime Minister truly wants that particular timetable.
The lack of military understanding by the senator is obvious, and yet Senator Obama is rarely asked difficult questions on that subject or any other. Katie Couric tried on Tuesday night when she asked if the security in Iraq would have improved without the surge. He refused to answer the question directly and kept saying that his proposal for more pressure politically on the Iraqis may have been successful if tried.
The bias by the media has been apparent in the past, but now there can be no doubt. The media are truly cheerleaders for the Obama candidacy. Since this is the first black major party nominee, they want to be thought of as being present when history was made, and if possible to contribute to it. As an analogy, in combat we called those who wanted to be thought of as contributing to a significant military event as ³strap hangers.² They showed up after most of the danger had subsided and definitely wanted to be gone before dark.
When Senator Obama spoke to the media following meetings in other parts of the Middle East, he talked as though nothing had happened diplomatically in the past many years. One could get the feeling that he was the first to realize that there were difficulties in the area and that Israel needed to be supported. I listened to some of his responses and they added nothing to a better understanding of the situation, and yet the media were enthralled.
Filed under: Iraq
The Wall Street Journal OPINION
Why We Went to War in Iraq By DOUGLAS J. FEITH
July 3, 2008; Page A11
A lot of poor commentary has framed the Iraq war as a conflict of “choice” rather than of “necessity.” In fact, President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary.
President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. In the first months of the Bush presidency, officials debated what to do next.
As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq, it was clear to me at the time that, had there been a realistic alternative to war to counter the threat from Saddam, Mr. Bush would have chosen it.
In the months before the 9/11 attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell advocated diluting the multinational economic sanctions, in the hope that a weaker set of sanctions could win stronger and more sustained international support. Central Intelligence Agency officials floated the possibility of a coup, though the 1990s showed that Saddam was far better at undoing coup plots than the CIA was at engineering them. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz asked if the U.S. might create an autonomous area in southern Iraq similar to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, with the goal of making Saddam little more than the “mayor of Baghdad.” U.S. officials also discussed whether a popular uprising in Iraq should be encouraged, and how we could best work with free Iraqi groups that opposed the Saddam regime.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worried particularly about the U.S. and British pilots enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Iraqi forces were shooting at the U.S. and British aircraft virtually every day; if a plane went down, the pilot would likely be killed or captured. What then? Mr. Rumsfeld asked. Were the missions worth the risk? How might U.S. and British responses be intensified to deter Saddam from shooting at our planes? Would the intensification trigger a war? What would be the consequences of cutting back on the missions, or ending them?
On July 27, 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld sent a memo to Mr. Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney that reviewed U.S. options: “The U.S. can roll up its tents and end the no-fly zones before someone is killed or captured. . . . We can publicly acknowledge that sanctions don’t work over extended periods and stop the pretense of having a policy that is keeping Saddam ‘in the box,’ when we know he has crawled a good distance out of the box and is currently doing the things that will ultimately be harmful to his neighbors in the region and to U.S. interests – namely developing WMD and the means to deliver them and increasing his strength at home and in the region month-by-month. Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons.
“A second option would be to go to our moderate Arab friends, have a reappraisal, and see whether they are willing to engage in a more robust policy. . .
“A third possibility perhaps is to take a crack at initiating contact with Saddam Hussein. He has his own interests. It may be that, for whatever reason, at his stage in life he might prefer to not have the hostility of the United States and the West and might be willing to make some accommodation.”
The Iraq policy debate remained unresolved when the September 11 attacks occurred. Like all major national security issues, Iraq policy was re-examined in light of our post-9/11 sense of vulnerability and the heightened worries about terrorism and, especially, about the danger that terrorists might obtain WMD from a nation state.
When the president ultimately decided that the Iraqi regime must be ousted by force, he was influenced by five key factors:
1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The Iraqi dictator had started wars against Iran and Kuwait, and had fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unrepentant about the rape of Kuwait, he remained intensely hostile to the U.S. He provided training, funds, safe haven and political support to various types of terrorists. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq’s official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.
2) The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11. Though Saddam’s regime was not implicated in the 9/11 operation, it was an important state supporter of terrorism. And President Bush’s strategy was not simply retaliation against the group responsible for 9/11. Rather it was to prevent the next major attack. This focused U.S. officials not just on al Qaeda, but on all the terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism who might be inspired by 9/11 – especially on those with the potential to use weapons of mass destruction.
3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years. The U.S. did not rush to war. Working mainly through the U.N., we tried a series of measures to contain the Iraqi threat: formal diplomatic censure, weapons inspections, economic sanctions, no-fly zones, no-drive zones and limited military strikes. A defiant Saddam, however, dismantled the containment strategy and the U.N. Security Council had no stomach to sustain its own resolutions, let alone compel Saddam’s compliance.
4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation – over Kuwait again or some other issue – appeared virtually certain to arise once Saddam succeeded in getting out from under the U.N.’s crumbling economic sanctions.
Mr. Bush decided it was unacceptable to wait while Saddam advanced his biological weapons program or possibly developed a nuclear weapon. The CIA was mistaken, we all now know, in its assessment that we would find chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq. But after the fall of the regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea. (We now know they had a huge stockpile of yellow cake uranium which was recently removed from Iraq and sent to Canada.)
5) America after 9/11 had a lower tolerance for such dangers. It was reasonable – one might say obligatory – for the president to worry about a renewed confrontation with Saddam. Like many others, he feared Saddam might then use weapons of mass destruction again, perhaps deployed against us through a proxy such as one of the many terrorist groups Iraq supported.
Thoughtful, patriotic Americans differed then and now on whether the risk of leaving Saddam in power outweighed the risk of war. But Mr. Bush concluded that it did, and that war therefore was necessary. In Congress, many Democrats as well as Republicans supported that conclusion. Debates will continue over whether the president should have balanced the risks differently. But characterizing the Iraq war as “a war of choice” sheds no light on the issue.
Mr. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, is author of “War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism” (HarperCollins, 2008), the author’s proceeds of which are being donated to charities for veterans and their families
