Iraqi Revisionism

"Before we get too wrapped up in Common Core history, let us first go back and take a peek at the truth..."

In the news today, is a story about former UK PM Tony Blair. He has now admitted the Iraqi War was a mistake. That removing Saddam might have resulted in the establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq. Why would he say such a thing? First off, being associated with the Iraqi War right now is about as popular as having Herpes. Number two, we are heavy into Common Core revisionist history regarding the entire Iraqi saga. By the time we are done, Saddam will look like a saint, and Bush will look like Satan.

So why in the world did we ever go to war in Iraq in 2003? I apologize in advance this one is a bit long, but lots to tell. First a minor history lesson:

WMD - The Iraq/Iran War from 1980 to 1988 was long and very bloody. And yes, WMD (Mustard Gas) was used by Saddam against Iranian troops. He was caught red handed and condemned by the UN. In March of 1988, towards the end of the Iraq/Iran War, Saddam (and his cousin "Chemical Ali) again used chemical weapons - only this time in the Kurdish town of Halabja. Thousands of civilians died a horrible death. Thousands more who survived had painful and debilitating after effects. So yes - there was WMD in Iraq.  

Kuwait  - On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait for the expressed purpose of annexation. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660 and 662 condemned Iraq's invasion and annexation and called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces. Resolution 660 has never been rescinded by the United Nations. A United Nations ultimatum, Security Council Resolution 678, followed on November 29, 1990. It stipulated that if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did not remove his troops from Kuwait by January 15, 1991 a U.S.-led coalition was authorized to drive them out.

Early in the morning of January 17 (Baghdad time), the U.S.-led coalition launched air attacks against Iraqi targets. On February 24, coalition ground forces begin their attack. On February 27, Kuwait City was declared liberated, and with allied forces having driven well into Iraq, President Bush and his advisers decided to halt the war. A cease-fire took effect at 8:00 the following morning.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, signed by Iraq on April 3rd, 1991 spelled out the conditions by which the cease fire would remain in effect. From a viewpoint of how the United Nations charter works, if resolution 687 was violated, then resolution 678 (which authorized hostilities with Iraq) would be in effect.

Violations - As we know, it is well documented that Iraq has violated the terms and conditions of 687 numerous times. So many times in fact, that the United Nations passed an additional 17 resolutions condemning and warning Iraq to adhere to the conditions of resolution 687. To use an analogy, Iraq was on probation after committing a crime and violated (many times) the condition of probation. The results of Iraq’s actions were that Desert Storm (under resolution 678) would and should continue.

Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687.

By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441, signed on November 8, 2002, the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.

Iraq War - So we went to war with Iraq in 2003 to rid the world of a ruthless dictator. A first class bad guy. Yes, ever badder than the dictator Obama helped to get rid of in Libya (Gaddafi). Even though this war was justified in the eyes of the UN, I do have two criticisims:

• We spent way too much time on WMD as a major reason for the war. The major reason for the war was Saddam's CONSTANT and FLAGRANT disregard for UN resolutions. Was the WMD issue part of our reason? Yes. Was the fact that Saddam tried to have George H.W. Bush killed a part of the reason? I doubt it - but maybe a small part. 
• The UN once again showed itself to be a toothless, feckless organization who does nothing. Sure they had resolutions, but no follow-up. A thug like Saddam recognised this weakness and exploited it time and time again. It really did come down to the US putting some teeth in the resolutions. And in 2003, the US did just that.

Well that is my view of history. I was still in the Navy during the Gulf War. My last assignment was doing a "lessons learned" report for NSA at the end of the Gulf War. So lets just say I know a bit of "inside baseball" about this topic. 

Would the Islamic State still have happened if Saddam had remained in power? Unknown. What is known is this - Saddam would have continued to terrorize his neighbors as well as citizens within Iraq who disagreed with him. Between Saddam and Assad in Syria, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent people would have been killed or displaced in the years to come. So whether it be Saddam or the Islamic State, the good people in Iraq were in for a rough ride. And yes, they deserve so very much better.