Was Preemptive War in Iraq a Good Idea?

By Scott Lazarowitz

July 2009

Copyright. Reasonandjest.com

The reason for “preemptive” war in Iraq was to find and get rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that Saddam Hussein was supposedly keeping in Iraq with the intention of using them against other countries. However, after no WMD could be found, either because there weren’t any or because Hussein had moved them to other countries, the campaign then turned into one of “nation-building.” If we are not able to persuade other countries to become more democratic if their people want to be, then isn’t using military force to impose democracy on them contradictory to our founding principle of national sovereignty? Do we really have a right to use non-retaliatory force against other countries? Do our government and military have any obligation to serve and help people in other countries besides the United States? And, did the war and subsequent occupation in Iraq really effect in protecting the United States?

While President George W. Bush was obsessed with Iraq, he neglected the Constitutional duties he was sworn to uphold, particularly in protecting our borders. While he was sending troops to Iraq, Mexican and Central American violent criminals had been getting into our country through those unprotected borders, terrorizing and murdering Americans in Arizona and other border states–and it’s not just border states any more–as well as bribing, threatening and murdering police and public officials in those states. National Sovereignty and protection of our borders are of utmost importance and can compare to private property rights, with property owners having a right to their property not  being invaded by intruders or criminals, and the right to protect themselves as well. However, politicians who don’t respect other countries’ national sovereignty probably wouldn’t want to protect their own nation’s sovereignty either. Also, how many terrorists and would-be terrorists have snuck through our borders (and coasts)? How many more terrorist and Al Qaeda “sleeper cells” are there now in the continental United States since 2001 than there would’ve been had Bush protected our borders? If there is another 911-like attack here, can’t as much responsibility for that be given to Bush as was given to President Clinton for the Sept.11th, 2001 attacks?

Also, if you have to send troops to foreign countries such as Iraq, don’t they have a right to protect themselves from harm? Couldn’t Bush at least have had a more practical policy dealing with insurgents from other countries who went into Iraq to murder U.S. soldiers? For example,according to U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, in 2007 the Bush Administration had “asked” Iran to stop the flow of militants and weapons into Iraq. What is this “asked” business?  If our military knew of locations where insurgents were coming from, particularly Iran, Egypt and Syria, and where their bases and training camps were, then why didn’t we bomb those areas to eradicate those threats? Or at least warn those countries’ leaders that if they didn’t stop those insurgents, we’d bomb them. But that would probably take some communication skills and  courage in leadership. Unfortunately, some people think that such procedures could interfere with “diplomacy,” which too many times is a euphemism for “pussyfooting” and “political correctness.”

It is unfortunate that Congressman Ron Paul was belittled during the ’08 presidential campaign for saying that we shouldn’t “meddle” in the affairs of other nations. Well, if President Bush felt it was necessary to “meddle” in the affairs of Iraq (but not Pakistan which had WMD and was a known harborer of terrorists, and not Saudi Arabia and Egypt whose people are also oppressed by their leaders), then why didn’t he do anything about other countries in our own hemisphere including Venezuela with Hugo Chavez piecemeal taking away Venezuelans’ freedom while becoming too cozy with Iran’s Ahmadinejad who himself overtly threatened the U.S.? The ones most obsessed with “future-planning strategy” and “preemption” don’t seem to think about actual long-term consequences of policies such as Iraq. Given the centuries-long conflicts among the deeply religious factions in Iraq, it is unrealistic to force progress on a culture that refuses to even evolve up to a pre-18th Century “Enlightenment.” Bush and other statist leaders we’ve had, including President Barack Obama, have this vision where national sovereignty is replaced by world-wide collectivism. The grandiose agenda of nation-building may be well-meaning, but ultimately it’s destructive.

The real problem here is our “dependence on foreign oil,” that many believe was the real reason behind going to Iraq. This dependence on foreign oil is caused by selfish, environmentalism fanatics who won’t let our country drill for oil or build nuclear power plants here in the United States. Those solutions would be more constructive and honest, and don’t involve invading other nations and would protect our national sovereignty.

UPDATE: Since I wrote that column in July 2009, I wrote this in my December 30, 2009 blog post:

I opposed the first President Bush’s Iraq war in 1990-91, and all the other foreign fiascos since then. After 9/11, and when US forces were sent to Afghanistan, I didn’t really have an opinion one way or another, because I really didn’t know what to believe. When George W. Bush wanted to go into Iraq in 2002-03, I was extremely against that. I couldn’t believe the number of people who were supportive of that, and who couldn’t see that Bush just wanted to go to Iraq to finish the job that his Dad started.However, my thinking was influenced by events in ‘06-’07. I felt that, if US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan are being attacked by “insurgents,” the US troops had a right to shoot back, or bomb back, and defend themselves. I believe in the right of self-defense. And I held that view regarding Iraq until a few months ago. However, I thought more about that, and now I have a much clearer view of that. If you are being shot at, of course you have a right to shoot back. But not if you are trespassing on someone else’s property. The property owner or resident has a right to defend one’s home, one’s property, one’s “turf.” US soldiers who are on other territories are trespassing. You can say what you want about being “at war” etc, but they really have no right and no justification for their presence on those foreign lands. And you can say what you want about terrorists, jihadists, etc. It doesn’t matter. Whether the pro-war supporters want to admit it or not, or understand this, the terrorism from the Middle-east has been a reaction to the US government’s presence in the territories of the people who live there, and it’s not the other way around. And, by the way, I must say that, regardless of this old “the government is the people,” etc., the US government is NOT the people of the United States! The US government is a group of politicians, bureaucrats, hacks, dirtbags, and gangsters. Throughout world history, the worst atrocities that have been committed, and the lies that have been told to justify them, have been committed by governments.

And, for further info, I wrote this article, that was on LewRockwell.com.