What Should We Have Done About Iraq?

Question

I know that the war in Iraq is unclear and unpopular. I would like to know what you think should have been done rather than go to war. We already know that Saddam had WMD's in 1998 (Clinton read a list of them to the country : ), and that resolutions were ignored. The inspectors found no weapons or remnants of destroyed weapons; and Saddams declaration did not say where they went. What would your response be?

www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Answer 1

Saddam violated many UN resolutions, most authorizing use of force for compliance.

In the aftermath of 9/11, he should have known the likely US response, particularly from a Bush administration. The reason France, Germany, Russia et al didn't back the invasion was because they had front room and back room deals with Saddam worth billions. Some of these deals were honored, some not, but let's not mistake greed and avarice for peaceful and diplomatic nations seeking political solutions that would benefit themselves more than the US.

The US defended its interests, a) because it could and b) because it's the right thing to do.

DO WE FORGET IT'S SADDAM HUSSEIN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

HELLO!

Good riddance to his government and how he defiled the Shi'ite people. We know the Shi'ites aren't grateful, but every American should be, because Saddam represented EVERYTHING that peaceful and fair societies detest and struggle against every day, and he is behind bars and forced to defend his actions to his people. That's a good thing.

What we didn't do is send 500k forces into Iraq to stabilize the region and secure the oil (YES, that's why we really went in there, good for us, better in our hands than in the hands of our enemies or those willing to sell to the highest bidder). Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney couldn't find the shooting end of a BB gun and still maintain there is adequate force (while Iraq's army uses medieval trenches to thwart violence in Baghdad this week). We are the world's greatest power, governed by an elected administration voted in by thoughtful, peaceful and prosperous American citizens. This is not Rome. We should use our forces for good, which we tried to do in Iraq and didn't do ENOUGH of it.

I would call, today, for a 'peacekeeping' force of 20,000 Marines on the Iraq/Iran border, as well as half that amount on the Syrian/Iraq border. I would also call on every nation receiving US aid to send a minimum of 1000 combat troops to police the most populous cities of central and southern Iraq, or face the cutting or loss of US aid in the future.

Lastly, I would answer NATO's call for more troops in Afghanistan by inviting Russian troops into the Northern and Eastern regions of Afghanistan, thereby cementing a relationship between NATO and Russia, diffusing that situation and allowing Russia to more closely monitor cash and combatant flow through the Middle East and South Asia into the Centeral Asian/Russian regions where Muslim separatists are most active. Afghanis detest the Russians, but at this point, Afghanistan is a threat to the entire world, and their poppy fields and drug money are casting a dark shadow over the world's youth and future. Russians know the terrain and the people better than anyone else, and can at least allow NATO to focus on the more troublesome half of that nation. To take it a step further, I believe Afghanistan and Iraq, should their people choose chaos and violence over democracy and peace, should immediately be conferred to the UN as protectorates (likely along with Lebanon) to be managed by more reasonable and peaceful people, who will not tolerate the ridiculous and divisive behavior of the fanatically religious elements in these regions, who disrupt the prospects of peace for the entire world.

It is due time that the Elephant smites the Ant.

Next question.

Answer 2

We'd bombed the country to hell for almost ten years during the first Bush and both Clinton terms. There wasn't much left since we already controlled half of the country. There was no reason to go in, and the inspectors clearly knew there were no WMD--besides, this is just a vague term---what constitutes a WMD anyway? At the time we invaded, Israel and Syria had documented, huge amounts of WMD, but we did not invade them. We invaded Iraq because George Bush said during his election campaign he was going to get Sadam, because "he tried to kill my daddy". That speech is somewhere out on the internet, but the warped news media never mentioned it when it helped misrepresent the facts in pushing for an invasion of Iraq. Now we have lost over 2600 american lives, and 10,000 plus Iraqi lives. We had Hussain in a position where he could do nothing but shout and complain, and had we left him alone, he would be like Castro--isolated but loudmouthed. And thousands of people would not be homeless, or dead because although Hussain's govt was bad, it did maintain some control over the factional tribal fighting.

Answer 3

Saddam did NOT have WMD's in 1998. His weapons programs ended with the first gulf war. that is a Fact. There was NO connection with 9/11. No plot against the U.S. and therefore no reason to invade the country.
Bush used all the above as excuses for invading, and KNEW it was false. We should have never invaded and stuck with the plan of capturing Bin Laudin.

Answer 4

We were involved in 9/11!

There was no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism as the Bush administration claimed!

Whatever Weapons he had we gave him, or sold to him! We were still selling him dual use items approved by Bush!

The resolutions were not ignored, and Bush had 3,000 pages of Hans Blix report to the UN redacted! Blix claimed there were no WMD's and he wanted more time!. Bush then knew he could not go before the UN Security Council to get authorization to attack Iraq because he knew he wouldn't get it! Iraq had attacked no one!

Clinton had already degraded any capability they had when he launched cruises at military targets in Operation Desert Fox! AND HE DIDN"T LOSE 1 MILITARY PERSON!!

There was no reason to attack Iraq, we had no authority to attack a sovereign nation against world law!

We destabilized the whole region as Iraq is whom Iran was afraid of!

Look, the bottom line is we attacked Iraq because 3 US Oil Companies lost their oil contracts with Iraq and 1 was given to France, the other 2 to Russia!

Does Bush know where every single weapon in the US is? I doubt if he even knows what we have!

Answer 5

All wars in the Middle East are partly 'hearts and minds' endeavours. Bush should have presented the war as a global attempt to remove a tyrant rather than an American led conquest.
His rhetoric before the war seemed actively designed to antagonise the whole world, including his allies.

As it is, the war has created more terrorists and sucked militant Muslims into Iraq.

Answer 6

I think Saddam was bragging about having WMDs and the inspectors found nothing of the kind, but Bush wanted a war just in case, not for a last resort.

Answer 7

I would not have invaded Iraq, but I would have gone after the people breaking the resolutions. Once I finished rebuilding Afghanistan and catching OBL, THEN I would take a good hard look at Iraq. But that also depends on what would have happened with Iran and North Korea. Which is hard to say because of teh nuclear program. After we invaded Iraq both countries accelerated their nuclear programs. I would also have pushed Pakistan to give up the head of their nuclear program because he was assisting North Korea, Iran, and Libya with their programs. Without his help, they wouldn't be were they are today.

Answer 8

We should have had a definite plan. We should have taken all into consideration. We should have decided what to do if we caught Saddam BEFORE we caught him. We should have had a blueprint of a good government for the Iraqui people. We should have followed the six P's before rushing in there like fools and looking like idiots to the rest of the world and most importantly, ourselves.

BTW: Six P's - Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance

Answer 9

The Iraq war in the early 90's should not have been cut short.
The US should have been more agressive to go in and either assasinate Saddam or bring him to trial then.

Today we have again moved too slow and should have liberated the country a lot faster, so that the local government could take control a lot quicker.

Answer 10

Regardless of my own views of the American "trigger happy" attitude, I do think trying to stop/capture a mass murderer is worth pursuing. This alone would have been justified, without even trying to prove any claims about the whereabouts of WMA.

And besides, isn't it quite wrong that any country who flagrantly prides themselves on having WMD, feels the need to police and wage war on other countries who wish to have them too? Are the US in a position to say they would use them more responsibly?