Fighting Terrorism in Iraq Part One: The Invasion

After September 11th, 2001, American foreign policy was a blur. We had just suffered the worst attack on the U.S. ever delivered by a foreign enemy. This would have been the beginning of a normal war in which we, the juggernaut that anyone would be foolish to provoke, would smash over our adversary and be home for Christmas. The problem was, our enemy was not normal. They didn't pledge to a flag, acknowledge the Geneva Conventions, or take orders from a national leader. They were terrorists.

When the smoke cleared in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania, we had almost 3,000 dead and no one to personally blame except the 19 al-Qaeda terrorists--who had killed themselves so that so many others could die-- and their evasive comrades who continued to hide behind legitimate governments. President Bush didn't hesitate and declared a Global War on Terror (GWOT). He made it clear that the U.S. would make no distinction between terrorists and the governments that harbored them. Just one month after 9/11, the U.S. and its new Coalition invaded Afghanistan, the home of al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies. The Coalition easily rolled over them with an endless supply of bombs, tanks, and of course, money. After reducing Taliban opposition to insurgency, Americans felt confident in their military and President, and were ready for the next strike against terrorism. This is where an anonymous writer begins the online essay fittingly titled "September 11, 2001 and Terrorism".

The essay, writes about the eagerness of the country to invade the next logical "terrorist stronghold", Iraq. The writer, who is obviously an American and reflects the emotions of the times writes, " The success of the liberation of Afghanistan and the threat of more attacks on U.S. soil has prompted the U.S. to consider invading Iraq, in an effort to oust terrorists and capture Saddam Hussein"(1). This is the kind of ignorance that made the invasion of Iraq so popular. Saddam didn't have anything to do with terrorists. He hated them like any legitimate leader would, no matter how bad he was. He even allowed the U.N. to search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, but the U.S. decided that the U.N. weapons inspectors were taking too long.

I must admit, even though I was only in forth grade during the invasion of Iraq, I was just as gung ho (and ignorant) as any American. When I was in third grade, they didn't keep us from seeing the news on 9/11. We had all watched the towers fall, and even though I didn't understand it at first, when the older kids explained what had happened, I was as upset as anyone else. A year later when there was talk of an invasion of Iraq, I assumed they were terrorist too. I didn't assume this because of any evidence, but instead because I wanted someone to pay for those slaughtered on 9/11, whether they were involved or not. Almost everyone trusted President Bush after he had struck al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. If he said that Saddam sponsored terrorism and was making WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) to attack U.S. soil, then he had to go.

Of course the White House's reasons for dismantling Saddam were not the same as those perceived. In reality, they had just had enough of the troublesome dictator. It's not like there wasn't any reason to invade Iraq. The country's dictator was strongly anti-American and had ordered the genocide of Iraqi Kurds living beyond the areas he had forced them into. Saddam Hussein wasn't Mother Teresa, but no matter how impatient Washington got with him, they were powerless to stop him as long as he wasn't killing Americans. It is worth acknowledging that Iraq did have a major terrorist group known as Ansar al-Islam, but there is little evidence that supports the rumors of them being supported by Saddam. Peter Ricketts, the foreign office policy director of the time, rightfully accused the government of trying to make it look like Saddam and the terrorists were somehow on the same side. In his words "[The] U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda is so far frankly unconvincing".

Despite Ricketts's feelings, the scheme wasn't unconvincing to most of the American public. As a matter of fact, to this very day I find many other Americans that I deal with don't know the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. According to George Jonas's controversial non-fiction book Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team, Israel just wanted a list of those responsible for the attack on the Munich Olympics so that they could punish those responsible. This is how Americans felt after 9/11. We just wanted a list, so that we could unleash our vengeance. The White House delivered that list, and on it was Saddam Hussein.