Why Iraq was Inevitable

[Penn]

The following link is to an article in Commentary Magazine that covers some recent history that has not been noticed, or should I say, connected properly and examined by the media to its rightful source. One example from the article is Clinton’s description of the future in 1998 of the “unholy axis” setting the stage for Bush’s decision in 2003 to confront the “Evil Axis”, from his speech in 2001 after the strike in NYC.
I think this is an important article, in that it clarifies the foreign policy progression that few of us have access to. It is also interesting that America’s foreign policy, if viewed from this perspective, is fairly consistent; which would imply, that regardless of what party occupies the White House there is little deviation in its intent. This though, is not to be confused with its execution.
The link is below, followed by the excerpt.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/vi...evitable-11456

In a February 17, 1998 speech at the Pentagon, Clinton focused on what in his State of the Union address a few weeks earlier he had called an “unholy axis” of rogue states and predatory powers threatening the world’s security. “There is no more clear example of this threat,” he asserted, “than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,” and he added that the danger would grow many times worse if Saddam were able to realize his thoroughly documented ambition, going back decades and at one point close to accomplishment, of acquiring an arsenal of nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons. The United States, Clinton said, “simply cannot allow this to happen.”

[nmap]

A long article - but an important one.

Thank you, Chef Penn, for making it available.

[dennisw]

Excellent article. Robert E. Lee said it takes at least 50 years before people can effectively judge history in an objective manner. It's almost sinister the way the media has intentionally obscured the truth in the treatment of Bush and the War in Iraq.

Thanks for posting the link.

[Surf n Turf]

[QUOTE=Penn;223849] It is also interesting that America’s foreign policy, if viewed from this perspective, is fairly consistent; which would imply, that regardless of what party occupies the White House there is little deviation in its intent. This though, is not to be confused with its execution.
QUOTE]


Penn,
Excellent article.
Perhaps in 50 years we will know something about Saddam’s WMD program(s)

The Certainty of history seems to be in direct inverse ratio to what we know about it - Anon

SnT

[ZonieDiver]

While I disagreed with the timing and immediate necessity of the invasion of Iraq, as a product of the "Viet Nam era" all that changed once there were "troops in the field". The POTUS proposed, Congress approved, and troops moved out. End of statement. Get behind it or get lost - to my way of thinking.

[anythingrandom]

Thank you, Penn.

I'm always happy to find articles like these that include the policies of our previous administrations. I was in elementary/middle/high school when Clinton was president, and we only had three TV channels. It's always very interesting to read and learn about what the political atmosphere was then, since it was far less interesting than which girl had broken up with me that week.

The article was informative and provides plenty of reminders that just because the military actions in Iraq have lasted longer than "anticipated" and have cost many lives, the justifications for our actions are still as strong as ever.

Regards,

ATR

[redleg99]

Good article.

My opinion is that the current Iraq War has roots at least as far back as the Carter administration.

The Carter Doctrine of 1980 and the Reagan Corollary of 1981 determined that oil was a strategic resource to the United States, that the Persian Gulf region provided a large portion of the oil consumed in the United States, and therefore the U.S. would be willing confront threats to the Persian Gulf region.

Carter intended this as a warning to the Soviets after their invasion of Afghanistan.
The Reagan Corollary extended this idea to threats from within the Persian Gulf region – He was looking the threat from Khomeini’s Iran.

Up until Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was seen as holding the Iranians at bay, and thus acting in our interests.
We had known since at least 1984 that Iraq possessed a chemical arsenal, and while demarches were issued condemning this, not much else was done – after all, these weapons weren’t a threat to our interests.

However, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait changed the equation completely.
This threatened Saudi Arabia, the single largest exporter of oil destined for the U.S. market.
Iraq was now seen as a threat to stability in the Persian Gulf, which according to the Carter Doctrine was against the national interest of the United States.

Iraq’s arsenal of chemical weapons was now a threat to our interests – thus UN SCR 687, which required the destruction of Iraq’s WMD arsenal and UN verification.

The rest is, as they say history….