8 of 40

Write now Article Tools

Anyone who wonders why the U.S. invaded Iraq needs only to read the official record of the U.S. Congress. (H.J. Res 114: Armed Forces Against Iraq, authorizing use of military force dealing with Iraq - http://usgovinfo.about.com/lib rary/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm ) The clarity of purpose and relative unified response of Congress is apparent in that resolution.

The resolution outlines a list of violations and international grievances against Saddam Hussein. Opponents of the Iraq war today, however, focus mostly on the notion that President Bush led us to that war on false pretenses; i.e., that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Anyone who has not read the Joint Congressional Resolution might assume then that WMDs, which have not been found, form the only basis for US action, and the US ought to leave Iraq now.

Critics of the war, however, not only overlook the fact the military action was authorized by Congress, but also that there were other important reasons - again, outlined in the resolution - that caused the US to take the drastic action of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Those reasons are specifically outlined in the Joint Resolution, which contains 23 paragraphs each beginning with the word "Whereas." Of those 23 paragraphs, seven mention "weapons of mass destruction" in one form or another. The remaining paragraphs provide other important reasons. To name a few:

Paragraph 7: "...Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population..."

Paragraph 9: "...the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush..."

Paragraph 10: "...members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq..."

Paragraph 11: "...Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens..."

Paragraph 15: "...Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)..."

Paragraph 22: "...the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States..."

So in their zeal to either back away from or deny complicity in the invasion of Iran, the President's political opponents focus on the single issue of WMD's, which have not been found. To be fair, it is unlikely that the other reasons outlined in the Joint Resolution would not have attracted wide Congressional support for invasion of a foreign country. On the other hand, it is also extremely likely that in the time period between the debate, the President's seeking U.N. support and the ultimate invasion, Iraq was probably able to conceal, dispose of or export the incriminating weapons that were the cause of the President's determination to dismantle the Iraqi threat.

In either case, it was President Bush's judgment in the aftermath of the surprise attacks on September 11, 2001, to err on the side of caution. In other words, to quote the Joint Resolution once more, "to take action in order to deter and prevent actions of international terrorism against the United States."

Learn more about this author, Jerry Curtis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Commentary: The US invasion of Iraq?
We want to hear your view. Write now!