War in Iraq, is there a point?

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.

The heart of the Islamist movement, its ideology, and the source of its funds and major training centres, was Afghanistan - bin laden's base - and is still other points in the islamic world.I explained why Iraq, and would rather not repeat myself.

Please read my post carefully. I explain why defeating hussein ties into 9/11.

You're quite right that the wahabbi Islamist movement is based in saudi Arabia, which has funded the movement worldwide. But it has spread, at this point, to many other Isklamic countries, where it is a powerful 5th column. Khan, Pakistan's former chief nuclear scientist, was one, and it was he who headed up a team sending nuclear technology to enemies of democracy. Pakistan had thousands of madrassahs teaching Islamism, as did and do other Islamic countries. Algeria's Islamists were about to win an election about 10 years back, until the military government cancelled it (which was probably fair, since the Islamists said: One leection, one time only).Then trhere's the Shia Islamists of iran, who not only rule that country, but fund Islamist terrorist organizations, like Hezbullah.My point is that Islamism is deeply rooted in Islamic history and throughout all the Islamic world. It has existed in past and exists now in many guises and itinerations. So, yes, Wahabbism began in Saudi Arabia and is based there. Yes, with oil money the saudi wahabbis have funded terrorists, Islamic organizations worldwide and mosques and congregations. And, yes, Wahabbism is the most prominent Islamist movement of our age. And yet, being only one of several Islamist organizations and movements through the centuries, the problem is much, much bigger than it alone.

You're right that the US has not always been moral, nor is now. As a Canadian, i can speak about despicable trade bullying we're subjected to by our largest trade partner, abusing its size and power.But this much is also true: The US, above all else, stands for freedom and democracy, a revolution for which was central to its birth. The principle foreign policy of the US has been the dissemination of freedom and democracy - despite the necessity of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" realpolitik through the cold war.I don't believe there has even before in history been a nation with the power tot ake over others at will, yet declines to do so. My Canda is extravagantly resource rich, with as much oil as saudi Arabia. Yet, it wouldn't cross my mind that the US will invade us. But had we been any other such powerful nation's neighbour through history, we would have been taken over long ago.The right sees the US as a noble nation, despite its flaws. The left, these days (JFK would be on the right by today's standards), sees the US as a flawed nation, even imperialistic, despite its good qualities. And thus the divide.

you say, more directly and better than I, what i meant to geta cross.canada has been noble, and sacrificed many in the cause of freedom. Indeed, we entered WW 11 in 1939 and had lost tens of thousands before the US was forced in after pearl harbor. Tragically, we have lost sight that freedom is not something to be taken for granted. We have lost sight that there are real and very serious enemies of freedom against whom we must not only be vigilant, but ready against whom to take up arms. And, it is embarassing that we have become one of those nations you mention, one which talks the moral pacifist highground, while relying on the US security blanket.

The dilemma here is French Canada. Like their cousins in france, they are incorrigably pacifist. Canada went to war in 1939 over their passionate objections. Notably, English Canada wanted to defend GB and freedom; French Canada was as non-plussed about the Nazi invasion of france as were, apparently, the french. This generalizes to all kinds of left - right issues. Thus, while the Conservatives can find votes in English Canada, they cannot in Quebec. The only exceptions have been when the Conservatives have played footsies with the Quebec nationalists.Frankly, I'm about ready to support an Alberta separatist movement, of which there have been a few over the years. We're Canada's one true conservative province. The problem is that, unlike in the US, our system doesn't ensure a balance of power between regions of greater and lesser population. Thus, we are entirely overpowered policially by the much more populous Quebec and Ontario, and our sensibilities and opinions deemed irrelevant. Even worse, they're mocked by the CBC using our tax dollars: Albertans, being the richest Canadians, contribute more tax dollars per capita to ottawa than any other Canadians. At least our provincial taxes are the lowest and we pay no provincial sales tax. With all our oil wealth we'd do better without canada - to which we pay billions annually in not only taxes, but "equalization" to poorer provinces. I wouldn't begrudge that, except that we have so little political influence in exchange for all this financial contribution. It's akin to taxation without representation, only more taxation without political influence.Albertabns are probably the only Canadians to support the war in iraq, understanding that it defends our freedom in displacing a tyrant with democracy, and in propagating freedom in the region of islamist swampland.

When iraqis voted in huge numbers, despite threats of mass murder against them made by the insurgents, the world saw that they recognized the US as their ally, and the islamists/hussein loyalists as their enemy.The majority of iraqis are Shia Muslims. They have been ruled, brutally and against their will, since that nation's birth almost 100 years ago by the Sunni minority, of which Hussein is one. Naturally, then, the US is rightfully understood to ahve freed them from this tyranny. It is very instrcutive to note that Ayatollah al Sistani, perhaps the most revered man in the nation and a Shiite, has steadfastly supported the US and the democratic revolution the US is engendering.It is also noteworthy that the other minority group, the Kurds to the north, were saved from genocide by the US after Gulf War 1, and, while under the protection of the US and GB in the years up to Gulf War 11 (actually the first continued), developed something of a representative government.

The majority Shias voted in large numbers, as did the minority Kurd Sunnis. But Hussein's Sunni group voted in smaller numbers because they were being watch more closely by Islamists and Hussein loyalists among them. fallujah, for instance, is a mainly Sunni city, but also a base for hussein loyalists and islamists. Despite that, nearly 50% of Sunnis voted. In the next election, my guess is that many more will. In fact, many of their religious leaders have come out and supported the democratic process, perhaps fearing that as the Shias were left out of power all those years after rejectiong the british establishment of teh state, so they now might be left out should they decline to participate.BTW, in an act of democratic good-will, the Shias and Kurds reserved so many spots for Sunnis at the constitutional conferences, to ensure they were not adversely underrepresented despite not having been able to vote fully.

The french, Germans and Russians had made all sorts of multi-billion dollar secret deals with hussein - and that's aside from the oil-for-food deals. That is why they protected Hussein. There was simply no way Bush could have brought them onside.

It's even worse than you fear, if the US is not allowed to see this through to victory. Not only will the islamists take over Iraq, but they will be greatly rejuvenated in their efforts to take over the rest of the Islamic world, in addition to iran and Sudan. The Arab world now sees democracy as the natural alternative to both islamism and authoritarianism. If the US fails in Iraq, they'll go back to Islamism as the alternative. What a disaster of epochal implications. For an Islamist empire will sooner or later make 9/11 look like a practical joke. They will arm heavily with nuclear weapons and delivery systems, then come after us in some kind of orgiastic, nihilist frenzy. For those who doubt that, they might ask why could possibly have emboldened bin Laden to risk awakening the sleeping giant? What kind of hubris and megalomania inspired bali, the genocide of a million Christians in Sudan, the London Bombings, attacks in the Phillipines, tailand and elsewhere? The answer is the culture of islamism.

He tried desperately. In fact, he delayed the war by 6 months in that effort, even going back to the Un for a redundant resolution to 1441 - giving the Hussein loyalists and islamist 6 months to plan their insurgency. Had only Bush known.

No, it was iraqis in hussein's mass graves, rape rooms, meat grinders, hell-hole prisons.

You are assuredly have that right.The problem is when those opposed believe in conspiracy nutbar stuff, like the war is for oil, Haliburton, Israel, Bush's saudi friends. It's wrong when Americans of the far left simply do not care whether democracy is created in the ME, and are willing to align with Islamists in order to see the US defeated. It is wrong when those opposed lie about bush supposedly lying the nation into war.It is reasonable to argue - even if wrongly - that saving Iraqis from a tyrant is noble, but won't help in the war against islamic terror.It is reasonable to argue - even if wrongly -that creating a democracy in Iraq will not serve the interests of world peace.And so on.

It would appear that you did not follow the news all that time. For if you had, or were you to refresh your memory, you would know that he went back to the UN over and over, and had Powell constantly on the diplomat trail.