The Invasion Was Justified

The September 11th attacks were a wakeup call and changed the amount of risk the American people were willing to live under. After September 11th the United States stopped treating terrorist attacks as criminal acts that needed to be investigated and prosecuted and began focusing on them as acts of war that needed to be preempted. There was a very reasonable concern that if Al Qaeda were to gain access to a weapon of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear) they would not hesitate to use it. Such an attack could kill not thousands, but tens of thousands and possibly far more.

Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the September 11th attacks. No one in the Bush Administration (to my knowledge) ever claimed otherwise. But Saddam was an avowed enemy of the United States, a person with a history of not only possessing but using WMD, and a person that had supported terrorists in the past.

There is a question about whether Saddam had any connection to Al Qaeda. There were disputed reports of contact between Iraqi intelligence agents and Al Qaeda. But whether or not there was a history of cooperation, the real question was whether or not there would be future cooperation between them. It is clear both saw the U.S. as their enemy.

Saddam provided financial assistance to terrorist organizations that killed Americans. For example, Iraq had a policy of paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel. Some of these attacks killed American citizens. Further connections between Saddam and terrorist organizations were detailed by Deroy Murdock here.

Saddam also attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States, an act that lead President Clinton to launch air strikes against Iraq. If that former president had not been George W. Bush’s father, I think it would have been cited as a justification for the war.

Some argue that the invasion of Iraq violated international law. This is incorrect.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 which was passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations." Those obligations were set forth in previous U.N. resolutions. (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). Iraq did not comply with these resolutions.

While the U.N Security Council did not vote to authorize the invasion, it did not vote to prohibit it either. Previous U.N. Resolutions did authorize member nations to use force to enforce Iraq’s obligations. President Clinton launched air strikes (clearly acts of war) against Iraq for failing to comply with these resolutions. If the United States was legally authorized to launch air strikes to enforce to the resolutions, they were legally authorized to invade to do so as well.

It can be argued that this was a war of choice, that however justified, was not worth the cost in blood and treasure. While I mourn the loss of life in Iraq, I still believe the war has made us safer. Prior to the war, many people around the world believed that while the United States unquestionably had the most powerful military in the world, the United States did not have the stomach or the will to use that military in such a way that would risk large numbers of casualties. Dictators and terrorists calculated they could survive air strikes alone and need not fear an actual invasion.

War has been described as the continuation diplomacy by other means. In many situations, such as dealing with dictators and oppressive regimes, the only chance for diplomacy to work is if it is backed up by the credible threat of force. The War in Iraq has made the threat of force by the U.S. credible. The U.S. is safer as a result.