To understand the war in Iraq, which is a response to 9/11, one has to consider the big picture. So bear with me before I mention Iraq.
Islamism is the name for the worldwide movement of Muslims believing that they have been ordered by Allah in the Koran to conquer all the world for him, to be ruled by an Islamic caliphate. Afghanistan under the Taliban was their ideal. Throughout islamic history, beginning with its founding in the 7th century, the branch of Islam called Islamism has been both ascendant and descendant, but more the latter. That is how the faith spread very quickly under Mohammed himself; that is, by the sword in Allah's name, as proscibed by the Koran's Sword Verses (aka War Verses). Leaving what is now Saudi Arabia, Mohammed made it as far as Africa, and, for perspective, also conquered what is now Israel - pushing out the Christians and indigenous Jews. That is also how the Islamic empire conquered Spain (Andalusia) a few centuries later, the Christian based Constantinople, and by the 1600's was at the gates of Vienna.
This Islamic empire became based in Turkey and known as the Ottoman Empire, which had a calipahte. But with its collapse after WW 1, the caliphate fell, along with Islamist dreams of a worldwide islamist rule. In its place other, more fundamentalist, islamist movements arose, principally Sunni. The Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia had actually risen in the 1700's, but oil money gave them a chance to become prominent after the Ottoman's collapse. That is how Wahabbism became strong in many Islamic countries, and even in north America where most Islamic organizations and congregations are wahabbi controlled. Given the ties between wahabbism and Islamism, that is scary. (Several founduing members of CAIR, the most prominent NA Islamic organization, have been jailed for terrorist related activities.) An offshoot of Wahabbism, The Egyptian Brotherhood, also became prominent, in the 1920's. It has been held back through Egyptian government brutality, but is always there (not that they wouldn't be every bit or more brutal if they gained power). The Iranian revolution in 1979 was a Shia Islamist movement. There's much more, but that will do for now.
By the time of 9/11, Islamism was on the march. It had 3 states, Afghhanistan, Iran, and Sudan, and was a growing and powerful 5th column in mnay others. They even had one of their own at Pakistan's nuclear button, and who was disseminating nuclear technolgy to enemies of freedom in North korea, iran, libya and elsewhere. The plan was to take over Islamic nations, then everyone else. The first part was happening, but the Islamists faced two serious obstacles. First, a US military presence in various Muslim nations, like Iraq and saudi Arabia (bin laden's principle explanation for 9/11). Second, the lure of democracy, an ideology ever so much more appealing, ultimately, than their own.
At the same time that the Islamists wanted the US out of their way, so did the secular ba'athists in Iraq and Syria. Their dream was to put down the Islamists and set off an Arab nationalist movement. Indeed, hussein spoke often about being a modern day Saladdin, a unifier of Arab peoples under his imperial power. And thus, we see why Hussein and the Islamists, despite despising one another, worked together to get the US out - before they'd turn on one another later on. Hussein, in fact, housed many Islamists, including the key planner of the first WTC bombing of '93. There is now new evidence that Hussein was also involved in 9/11, and that Czech intelligence was, afterall, accurate in their report of a meeting between an important Hussein man and Mohammed Atta in their nation.
The US, after 9/11, had to defeat not only the Sunni and Shia Islamists, but also had to offer Muslim peoples governed by authoritarian governments, like Hussein's, an alternative to Islamism - democracy.
Okay, so why Iraq?
There had to be a starting point to accomplish the necessary aims. Iraq was that natural point for several reasons. First, Bush was properly worried that hussein would, as soon as he would be free of sanctions, regain nuclear capability and other WMD. (Because of all sorts of secret multi-billion dollar deals, the germans, french and russians were actively working to break down sanctions, and were undermining any final UN resolution for war against him.) People forget that Bush spoke of "pre-emptive action." In other words, Hussein and his kind had to be stopped BEFORE they became too powerful. Second, intelligence the world over believed he already had some WMD. Given that he probably had, and probably would in future regardless, cooperate with islamist terrorists - maybe even giving them a suitcase bomb - he could not be allowed to get powerful. Third, the US and GB had had to maintain a very costly, ongoing protection of the Iraqi Kurds. That would have been pretty much forever as long as hussein or his sons were in charge. Fourth, Hussein could be counted on, again, to invade neighbours. As I mentioned before, the US had troops in Saudi Arabia. They stayed after Gulf War 1 to protect the saudis - and, to repeat, was bin Laden's principle reason given for 9/11. After Hussein was defeated, the US began withdrawing troops from there. Fifth - and please note, this was the main reason Bush gave for the war - Hussein had not complied with the truce conditions of Gulf War 1, and had ignored some 15 UN orders to comply. The bill that Bush presented, and which congress approved, stated this. WMD was barely mentioned, and was clearly secondary. In fact, the whole WMD argument came up not only after the issue of non-compliance with UN resolutions, but even after Bush had made 3 speeches in which he argued that democracy was necessary to defeat Islamism. The WMD argument came up for Blair, who was having a hard time getting support from his own party for the war.
The plan, then, was to get Hussein out and create a democracy that would germinate a democratic revolution in Arabia. In turn, that would defeat a serious potential enemy, Huseein, defeat Islamism with democracy, and have authoritarian states gradually also displaced by democracy. That is why Bush, in a major US policy reversal, said that the age of the US supporting authoritarian states in the name of stability was over (that had mainly be done to defeat Communism). The US, he said, realized that having done that only engendered animosity towards the US amongst Arab peoples, and made Islamism, rather than democracy, the people's favoured alternative to democracy in their desire to see authoritarian governments displaced.
Has it worked?
Well, aside from that hussein is no longer terrorizing a whole state and will not get hold of atomic bonmbs or otherwise help terrorists, or invade neighbouring nations, there's this: A shocking Pew poll taken in many Arab nations released last month, showed that since the Iraq war Arabs have come to favour democracy. And, they have not only begun to reject Islamism, but they have come to see bin laden as a loser, rather than as the winner they saw him beforehand.
I know many are concerned that the iraqi constitution will only create an islamist state. That doesn't appear to be the case. The latest information - and it's not confirmed - is that Islam will be A SOURCE of law, not THE SOURCE, which the Islamists wanted. Second, rights, including women's rights, are specifically enshrined that. If they're to be abided, that will ensure a more benign interpretation of Islamic law. Third, there's to be a referendum. If women are concerned, and Iraqi women's groups have been following this closely, they may be able to defeat the proposed constitution. Fourth, I am assuming there's an amending clause. If so, and if it doesn't make it too difficult, there can be changes in future. The key is that govermnets stand and fall democratically.
I realize that there's much more to be said, but other posters, like Tal, Faith, Fair Witness, and one or two others whose names elude me momentarily (sorry about that), have done an excellent job making those points.
™ Version 4.2
