Forgotten Facts about Iraq

            The constant nattering about President Bush lying or misrepresenting reports about WMDs to start an unjustified war in Iraq are getting old and stale. Liberals and Democrats continually proclaim the United States presence in Iraq to be wrong and unwarranted since there were no WMDs found. Of course this line of thinking ignores the possibility that weapons were destroyed or removed prior to the US invasion but that is not the scope of this discussion nor will the continual bickering bring about any constructive results. If the Democrats even think about using this to draw up articles of impeachment, they will discover that the facts will totally destroy their arguments.

One does not need to quote a single Democrat to explain and justify why the United States had Casus Belli to go to war with Iraq. An argument could be offered that the United States should have still not gone to war over “trivialities” but to do so would have led to additional attacks on American interests. Jihadists, Islamofascists and other states wishing to see an end to the United States would have viewed a lack of retaliation by the United States as a weakness, unwillingness, or inability to defend itself, its allies or any other nations appealing to the United States for protection.

The most compelling evidence for casus belli would have to Iraq’s violations of United Nations Resolution 687 and the resulting Resolution 1441. Iraq’s refusal to abide by the provisions of 687, for example not making reparations to Kuwait, required a response by the United Nations or failing that by members of the UN Security Council. A total lack of response by the UN was sending the world the message that the United Nations was nothing but a paper tiger and a meaningless organization. A willingness to apply consequences for failing to follow the rules is a necessity for any system of justice to work.

There are also the matters of Saddam’s Geneva Conventions violations to consider. There is ample evidence that Saddam ordered the use of chemical agents on the Kurds in the Anfal Campaign in 1988. Not only was this action a violation of the Geneva Conventions, it also constituted a violation of chemical warfare agreements previously signed by Iraq and most of the United Nations member states. Saddam’s government was also responsible for the torture of captured American Air Force pilot Captain Richard Dale Storr and possibly the disappearance and death of Navy Pilot Captain Scott Speicher. Taken together, these matters warranted the arrest of Saddam Hussein. Since he was unwilling to give himself up and his people unable to hold him accountable for his actions, an invasion was the only answer.

A third issue for consideration of casus belli was the $25,000 rewards offered to the families of Palestinian bombers by Saddam. This was clearly an endorsement of acts of aggression against an ally of the United States of America, Israel. The United States has a responsibility to act in the interests of its ally, especially since the United Nations would not act on behalf of the member state of Israel, which merely seeks to defend its sovereignty and existence.

  Finally, there is the matter of Saddam Hussein authorizing an assassination attempt to be made against George Bush Senior. Targeting a former head of state of a nation for murder can only be interpreted as an act of war, regardless of any justifications made for the assassination. If the United States had attempted such an action against the leader of Country X, the Democratic apologists would be out in droves to defend Country X’s right to declare war against the United States. They would also demand the immediate impeachment of the President and want to turn him over to the World Court for trial.

In conclusion, the facts of the case clearly give the United States casus belli. The actions of Saddam Hussein were more than criminal; they were acts of war and were justly treated as such by President Bush. While it may be perceived that the President made the possibility of the WMD’s the focus of his justification for war, it was never the sole reason. Nor did the war become unjustified when no WMD’s were discovered. Opponents to the war in Iraq would be far better served to make a case based on the morality of acting on the casus belli instead of trying to criminalize the actions of the President.