As the jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS) capture territory and establish a caliphate stretching
across the now-eradicated Syria-Iraq border, hard-won gains secured with
American blood and treasure are being lost. We are watching the rise of
potentially the gravest threat to our national security in a
generation, one that surpasses even the threat we faced on 9/11. Against
this backdrop, as we debate what our response should be, it has become
fashionable in some quarters to say, “Let’s not relitigate Iraq.” It’s
not politically expedient, this line of argument goes, to discuss why we
invaded Iraq in the first place, or the lessons we learned. This view
is wrong on the history, misguided on the politics, and dangerous as a
matter of policy.
The larger war, of which the liberation of Iraq was part,
is still ongoing. Winning it requires that we understand the truth about
the liberation of Iraq, the challenges America faced in the aftermath
of the invasion, how we overcame them with the 2007-08 surge, how we
defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq and established a stable, functioning nation
allied with America in the heart of the Middle East. We must understand
how President Obama squandered it all, creating a vacuum in which ISIS,
the richest terrorist organization in history, now thrives.
Those who say the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake
are essentially saying we would be better off if Saddam Hussein were
still in power. That’s a difficult position to sustain. It is
undisputed, and has been confirmed repeatedly in Iraqi government
documents captured after the invasion, that Saddam had deep,
longstanding, far-reaching relationships with terrorist organizations,
including al Qaeda and its affiliates. It is undisputed that Saddam’s
Iraq was a state based on terror, overseeing a coordinated program to
support global jihadist terrorist organizations. Ansar al Islam, an al
Qaeda-linked organization, operated training camps in northern Iraq
before the invasion. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the future leader of Al Qaeda
in Iraq, funneled weapons and fighters into these camps, before the
invasion, from his location in Baghdad. We also know, again confirmed in
documents captured after the war, that Saddam provided funding,
training, and other support to numerous terrorist organizations and
individuals over decades, including to Ayman al Zawahiri, the man who
leads al Qaeda today.
It is also undisputed that Saddam Hussein had the
technology, equipment, facilities, and scientists in place to construct
the world’s worst weapons. We know he intended to reconstitute these
programs as soon as the international sanctions regime collapsed. He had
an advanced nuclear program in place prior to Operation Desert Storm in
1991. In 1998, he kicked the international weapons inspectors out of
Iraq. He violated every one of the 17 U.N. Security Council Resolutions
passed against him.
Anyone pining for the days of Saddam would do well to read
the accounts of his 1988 chemical weapons attack on Halabja, Iraq.
Listen to the survivors talk about the babies and children who died
slow, painful deaths in bomb shelters where they had sought refuge with
their families. The shelters became, as Saddam knew they would, gas
chambers. The lesson of Halabja is that Saddam had no compunction, no
moral compass, no hesitation to use the world’s worst weapons, including against his own people.
Saddam’s was a reign of terror characterized by torture,
rape rooms, the murder of parents in front of their children and
children in front of their parents, and the oppression and slaughter of
Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and Shiites. George W. Bush captured it well when he
wrote that Saddam was a homicidal dictator pursuing WMD and supporting
terror at the heart of the Middle East.
Leaving Saddam in power after 9/11, in light of the threat
he posed, would have been, as Tony Blair has noted, an act of political
cowardice. We are not saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11. What we
are saying is that in the aftermath of 9/11, when we saw thousands of
our fellow citizens slaughtered by terrorists armed with airline tickets
and box cutters, our leaders had an obligation to do everything
possible to prevent terrorists from gaining access to even worse
weapons. Saddam’s Iraq was the most likely nexus for such an exchange.
Against the weight of historical evidence, some critics
claim the Bush administration manufactured or exaggerated the
intelligence about Saddam’s weapons programs. The charge doesn’t stand
up against the facts. Both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
and the Robb-Silberman Commission issued bipartisan reports concluding
there was no politicization of the intelligence or pressure on analysts
to change their judgements about Iraq’s WMD.
In fact, the intelligence assessments about Saddam’s weapons programs stretched back at least a decade:
- A 1993 National Intelligence Estimate found that international
support for sanctions was eroding but judged that even if they remained
in place, Saddam Hussein would “continue reconstituting Iraq’s
conventional military forces” and “will take steps to re-establish
Iraq’s WMD programs.”
- A 1994 Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee report assessed
that “the Iraqi government is determined to covertly reconstitute its
nuclear weapons program.”
- In 2000, a National Intelligence Estimate judged, “Despite a
decade-long international effort to disarm Iraq, new information
suggests that Baghdad has continued and expanded its offensive BW
[biological weapons] program by establishing a large scale, redundant
and concealed BW agent production capability. We judge that Iraq
maintains the capability to produce previously declared agents and
probably is pursuing development of additional bacterial and toxin
agents. Moreover, we judge that Iraq has BW delivery systems available
that could be used to threaten US and Allied forces in the Persian Gulf
region.”
- In late 2000, one of the first intelligence reports that George
Bush and I received after our election was entitled “Iraq: Steadily
Pursuing WMD Capabilities.”
We weren’t the only ones who read the intelligence. Others
who did, going back to 1998, recognized the danger Saddam posed, urged
action, and later changed their views when the going got tough. Some of
these included:
- John Kerry: (2003) “When I vote to give the
president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary,
to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal
of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave
threat to our security.”
- Hillary Clinton: (2003) “Saddam Hussein is a
tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people” and “used chemical
weapons on Iraqi Kurds and Iranians. . . . Intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program,” and Saddam “has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists including al Qaeda members.”
- Joe Biden: (1998) “Ultimately, as long as Saddam
Hussein is at the helm, no inspectors can guarantee that they have
rooted out the entirety of [his] weapons program,” and “the only way to
remove Saddam is a massive military effort, led by the United States.”
- Nancy Pelosi: (1998) “Saddam Hussein has been
engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology
which is a threat to countries in the region,” and “he has made a
mockery of the weapons inspections process.”
- Bill Clinton: (1998) “Heavy as they are, the costs
of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam
defies the world, and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater
threat in the future. . . . Mark my words, he will develop weapons of
mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”
In 1998, Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed into
law, the Iraq Liberation Act, making regime change in Iraq the policy of
the United States. A few months later, President Clinton launched
airstrikes against Saddam’s WMD capabilities.
As we know now, Saddam did not have stockpiles of weapons
of mass destruction. However, it requires a willing suspension of
disbelief and a desire to put politics above safety to assert that the
absence of stockpiles meant the absence of a threat to the United
States. David Kay, who led the international Iraq Survey Group tasked
with finding Saddam’s stockpiles, said this: “I actually think that what
we learned during the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place,
potentially, than in fact we had thought before the war.”
Saddam’s support for terrorists, his willingness to use
the world’s worst weapons, his intent to reconstitute his own programs,
including with scientists, technology, equipment, and facilities he kept
on hand, his nuclear ambitions, and his thwarting of the international
community for over a decade and 17 U.N. Security Council Resolutions
combined to form the toxic mix that made Saddam a grave threat to the
United States. We were right to invade and remove him from power.
America’s invasion of Iraq also sent a clear message to
others in the region that America would take action if necessary. Within
a few days of our capture of Saddam, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi
announced he would like to turn over his nuclear program. He feared he
would suffer the same fate as Saddam. Shortly after that, A.Q. Khan,
Qaddafi’s supplier of nuclear technology, was also put out of business
and placed under house arrest in Pakistan.
Those who say we should not have taken action in Iraq
should spend a moment contemplating what the Arab Spring might have
looked like with a nuclear-armed Qaddafi in power in Tripoli.
The war to liberate Iraq was indisputably difficult. It
included tragedy and challenges we did not foresee. Every war does, but
these challenges do not detract from the rightness of our cause. The
question is what do you do in the face of setbacks. History has proven
that President Bush’s decision to surge forces into Iraq and adopt a
counterinsurgency strategy under the command of Generals David Petraeus
and Ray Odierno worked.
Success in Iraq was also secured by the skill of people
like Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General Stan McChrystal. The methods
McChrystal and our special operators developed in Iraq—taking down a
terrorist target, exploiting the information found at the site, moving
immediately to act on the leads and take down other terrorists—were
honed over a number of years. In April 2004, McChrystal writes, they ran
a total of 10 operations in Iraq. That August they conducted 18. By
2006, his teams had improved their methods to the point where they could
average more than 300 operations per month, “against a faster, smarter
enemy and with greater precision and intelligence yield.”
These types of operations are a critical tool in the war
on terror. They stand in stark contrast to this administration’s actions
in Benghazi, for example. Rather than move quickly to uncover critical
intelligence and capture or kill those behind the attacks, the Obama
team spent 18 months building a legal case before they moved to capture
Ahmed Abu Khattala. He has now been read Miranda rights.
The real proof that things were in good shape in Iraq when
President Obama took office is that his administration set about
claiming credit for the situation. Vice President Biden memorably
predicted in 2010 that Iraq “will be one of the great achievements of
this administration.” President Obama repeatedly asserted, “We are
leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq.”
President Obama spent a good deal of time during his
reelection campaign in 2012 claiming to have fulfilled his 2008 promise
to “end” the war. His campaign speeches included lines like: “I told you
I’d end the war in Iraq and I did”; and “Four years ago, I promised to
end the war in Iraq and we did”; and “We’ve succeeded in our strategy to
end the war.” With the rise of ISIS in Iraq, that strategy isn’t
looking so good.
White House credit-taking has predictably morphed into
blame-shifting. In a move that must be uncomfortable even for a
president unburdened by a strong allegiance to fact, the administration
now claims President Obama was simply implementing George Bush’s policy
when he withdrew all U.S. forces.
When President Obama isn’t blaming George Bush for forcing
him to remove the troops, he is blaming Nuri al-Maliki for the lack of a
stay-behind agreement. Maliki certainly shares the blame for the
disaster in Iraq today, but the fact is our commanders on the ground
asked for a stay-behind force of nearly 20,000. President Obama said no.
They came back and asked for 10,000. President Obama said no. He was
willing to leave no more than 3,500 troops in place, a force too small
to carry out the mission. Then, just to be sure Maliki wouldn’t accept
our terms, President Obama insisted any stay-behind agreement would have
to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. He made sure
Maliki, al Qaeda, Iran, and the rest of the world knew we weren’t
serious about defending the gains we had won at such a high cost of
American lives and treasure.
In spite of all we have seen, President Obama stubbornly
clings to the quaint notion that wars end because he says they do. And
even as tragedy and terror engulf Iraq, he insists he will follow
exactly the same course of action in Afghanistan.
The rise of ISIS and the resurgence of radical Islamic
terror groups across the Middle East present a grave threat to the
national security of the United States. The situation is dire, and
defeating this threat requires immediate, sustained action across
multiple fronts.
In Iraq, we should provide military support in the form of
trainers, special operations forces, an intelligence architecture, and
airpower to aid the Iraqi military in its counteroffensive against ISIS.
ISIS does not recognize the border between Syria and Iraq, and we can’t
either. We have to strike ISIS in their sanctuaries, staging areas,
command centers, and lines of communication on both sides of the border.
We also need to do everything possible to defend Jordan against ISIS.
The Iraqi government is flawed in critical ways, which
must be addressed once ISIS is on the ropes. We cannot allow the need
for political reconciliation to prevent us from doing what is necessary
now to defeat the threat to the United States. By insisting on political
reconciliation as a precondition to significant U.S. support for the
defeat of ISIS, the Obama administration is ensuring the threat to
America will grow. Each day we dither is another day ISIS is able to
solidify its gains. The longer it operates with impunity, the more
effective its recruitment. ISIS is using its success on the battlefield
to rally thousands of foreign fighters to join the effort in Iraq. Every
day we wait means the battle that must eventually be fought will be
harder and more costly.
As we work to defeat ISIS in Iraq and prevent the growth
of a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, we must also move
globally to get back on offense in the war on terror. This means, first,
recognizing and admitting the size and scope of the threat we face. Al
Qaeda is not “diminished,” nor is “the tide of war receding.” We remain
at war, and law enforcement mechanisms will not keep us safe.
Second, we need to reverse the dramatic decline in defense
spending we’ve seen in the last six years. A nation at war cannot hope
to prevail if only 4 of its 42 Army brigades are combat ready. We need
to make restoration of our military and a reversal of the disastrous
defense budget cuts one of our top priorities.
Third, we need to halt the drawdown of our troops in
Afghanistan. The tragedy, terror, and chaos in Iraq will be repeated in
Afghanistan if we abandon the fight there. Pulling out all U.S. troops
without regard to conditions on the ground or the recommendations of our
commanders will ensure a victory for America’s enemies.
Fourth, we need to reassure our friends and allies in the
Middle East that America will not abandon them. We need to demonstrate
through increased intelligence cooperation, military assistance,
training, joint exercises, and economic support that we know they are on
the front lines of the war on terror. We should immediately provide the
Apache helicopters and other military support the government of Egypt
needs to fight the al Qaeda insurgency in the Sinai.
Fifth, we should be clear that we recognize a
nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel and to other
nations in the region, as well. We should refuse to accept any “deal”
with the Iranians that allows them to continue to spin centrifuges and
enrich uranium. In the cauldron of the Middle East today, accepting a
false deal—as the Obama administration seems inclined to do—will only
ensure Iran attains a nuclear weapon and spark a nuclear arms race
across the region. The Iranians should know without a doubt that we will
not allow that to happen, and that we will take military action if
necessary to stop it.
America must win this war. We won’t defeat our enemies by
retreating. We won’t win if we adopt a false narrative about the past,
fail to learn the lessons of history, or seek security in disengagement
and isolationism. We will only defeat our enemies if we are clear-eyed
about the threat and have the will to do what it takes for as long as it
takes—until the war is won.
Dick Cheney was vice president from 2001-09. Liz
Cheney was the deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern
affairs from 2002-04 and 2005-06.
CHENEY IS SUCH A DICK! WHERE DOES HE THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET ALL THIS MONEY TO BUILD UP THIS FABULOUS MILITARY MACHINE HE HAS WARGASMS ABOUT? HOW LONG ARE OUR MILITARY COMMITMENTS SUPPOSED TO BE? HOW LONG MUST WE BE IN A STATE OF WAR, INTO PERPETUITY? THESE RIGHT WINGERS ALWAYS THROW OUT THE IMAGE OF A NUCLEAR ARMED IRAN. LET ME TELL YOU, IF IRAN ACQUIRES NUKES AND ATTEMPT TO USE THEM, WELL THEIR FUCKING COUNTRY WILL BE GLASSED OVER IN A HEARTBEAT! IF IRAN IS NUKED, WELL PREPARE FOR WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR WAR! THE FUCKING ISRAELI'S ARE PREPARED TO USE NUKES ON IRAN PREEMPTIVELY IF THE RIGHT SITUATION PRESENTS ITSELF. WITH SICK RIGHT WING MILITARISTS IN ISRAEL LIKE NETANYAHU, AUTHORIZING A NUKE STRIKE ON IRAN IS NOT OUT OF THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY. THE RIGHT WING PRICKS HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THEIR AMBITIONS SQUANDERED AS THE REALITY OF FIGHTING WARS OF CHOICE RATHER THAN WARS OF NECESSITY HAVE SHOWN THAT USING THE MILITARY AS A TOOL TO FURTHER THEIR POLITICAL AMBITIONS IS A GRAND WASTE OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND COSTLY IN TERMS OF HUMAN LIFE AND PRECIOUS RESOURCES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE EXPENDED UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! CHENEY IS A LIAR, A TRAITOR AND A WAR CRIMINAL IN MY BOOK. THE FACT THAT HE STILL HAS HIS LIBERTY IS AN AFFRONT TO THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON TRIAL, HIS CRIMES DELINEATED, PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO HARD TIME - THE BASTARD!
.jpg)
