|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Bush Offers New Reason for Iraq War By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — In a televised address last night, President George W. Bush gave another in an evolving list of reasons for the war on Iraq: preventing an al-Qaeda victory and stronghold there (see GSN, June 20). Speaking before U.S. military personnel at Fort Bragg, N.C., Bush said insurgents and terrorists were not prevailing in Iraq. He said, though, that terrorists would be “emboldened” and gain a base for striking the United States if U.S. forces withdrew before insurgents were “hunt[ed] down” and Iraqi forces able to secure the country. “To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban — a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends,” he said. Bush said terrorists consider Iraq “a central front,” quoting al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as saying, “This third World War is raging in Iraq; the whole world is watching this war.” In making his argument, Bush effectively conceded a major criticism of the war, according to Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It is that the March 2003 invasion and continuing occupation have presented the terrorist group that perpetrated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks an opportunity to expand its global power and further undermine U.S. security. “Before the invasion, al-Qaeda was not operating in Iraq. Now, it is one of the major bases of operations. The Iraq war increased the terrorist threat, it hasn’t decreased it,” Cirincione said. Bush would not say how long U.S. forces might have to fight in Iraq, saying of multinational efforts to train and equip Iraqi forces: “We’ve made progress, but we have a lot … more work to do.” Bush yesterday did not invoke the administration’s original primary justification for invading the country, eliminating suspected Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before they are shared with terrorists for use against the United States. Instead, he said the war was necessary to combat a terrorist movement associated with al-Qaeda intent on attacking the United States, overthrowing governments in the Middle East, and denying people their freedom. “After September the 11th I made a commitment to the American people. This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.” In addition, Bush reiterated an administration assertion that a victory in Iraq would inspire democratic change across the Islamic world. Terrorists “know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world,” he said. The president suggested efforts to create a democratic government in Iraq inspired elections in the Palestinian territories of Israel and in Lebanon, which he said in turn inspired “democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.” Bush also suggested, as administration officials have previously, that the war, by battling terrorists overseas, aimed to stop them from attacking the U.S. homeland. “There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home,” he said. He said that terrorists had come to Iraq from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and other countries. “They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents and remnants of [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order,” he said. Cirincione, who supports quickly phasing out the U.S. presence in Iraq, said Bush overstated the foreign terrorist presence there and the consequences for U.S. security of withdrawal. “The chief problem with the president’s argument is the false claim that the insurgent attacks are being done by the people who attacked on Sept. 11. That’s not true. From the Pentagon’s own estimates, only a small percent, perhaps, 5 percent are foreign fighters. Of the 14,000 prisoners we have in Iraq, only 600 are non-Iraqi,” he said. “Islamic fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia and other countries are exploiting this insurgency,” Cirincione continued. “But they are in no sense leading it, directing it, nor is it part of a global operation against the United States. If we leave, does that mean those insurgents are going to come to America and fight us? No, the fight is over the future of Iraq.” He contended a struggle among Iraqis for control of the country is under way that would continue whether or not the United States is there. “Let the Iraqis solve their problems. The Iraqis will know better than we do how to handle the insurgency,” he said. Evolving JustificationThe administration’s core public justification for invading Iraq appears to have changed several times since the White House argued before the war that Iraq possessed banned weapons and might share them with terrorists to attack the U.S. interests. In an address two days before the invasion, Bush said, “The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” He said then Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda. Critics disputed the contention and the bipartisan “9/11 Commission” concluded that there was “no collaborative relationship” between the two. In the months after the invasion, as no unconventional weapons were found, officials said at different times the war was justified by Iraq’s potential, “intellectual capacity,” and intent to someday resume producing and using such arms (see GSN, Feb. 12, 2004). A CIA report on Iraqi unconventional weapons released last year found that Iraq had no such weapons or any intention of attacking the United States with them (see GSN, Jan 25). In his annual State of the Union Address in February, Bush argued that success in Iraq would help spread freedom and end tyranny around the world, which he said would make American more secure. “Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq,” he said then. “That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home,” he said (see GSN, Feb. 3). Bush’s speech last night portrayed a U.S. withdrawal without a democratic government in Baghdad capable of securing the country as a strategic victory for al-Qaeda. “The only way our enemies can succeed,” Bush said, “is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like [the Jordanian terrorist believed in Iraq Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
