Aug 31, 2010

Saddam had launched multiple wars, used weapons of mass destruction and aided global terrorism. Now Iraq’s government is an ally and represents all the Iraqi people.

By STEPHEN HADLEY

The U.S. effort in Iraq is not over. Some 50,000 U.S. troops, together with a robust diplomatic presence, continue to train and assist Iraq’s security forces and support its democratic progress. The American people, our coalition allies and especially the Iraqi people have paid an enormous price. It is important to remember why.

For over two decades, the regime of Saddam Hussein had threatened the national security of the United States, its key allies and the stability of the Middle East. It had invaded some of its neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened others (including Saudi Arabia and Israel). It had produced weapons of mass destruction, used them on its own people and the people of Iran, and threatened to use them against others.

It had actively supported terrorist groups of various stripes. It had brutalized and suppressed its own people. It had invaded Kuwait without provocation, leading to the 1991 Gulf War. It had violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement that ended that war. And it had defied the will of the international community by violating no fewer than 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning its activities and calling on it to stop them.

From a national security perspective, the U.S. objective for a post-Saddam Iraq was an Iraqi government that would not pursue weapons of mass destruction, invade its neighbors, support terror, or oppress its people. That objective has been achieved. The governments that have followed Saddam—and those that are likely to govern going forward—have and will continue to meet these criteria because the Iraqi people have concluded that doing so is in their interest.

The U.S. objective was also to leave behind an Iraq that would be able to govern itself, defend itself, sustain itself and be an ally in the war on terror. That objective has also been achieved.

A stubborn al Qaeda presence is still capable of spectacular terrorist attacks, but those attacks are neither a strategic threat nor a harbinger of renewed sectarian violence. The six-month stalemate in forming a new government is worrying, but virtually all Iraqi leaders accept the need for a broadly inclusive government. Once formed, that government must dramatically improve the delivery of services to its people and develop the extensive oil reserves that can fuel future economic growth and domestic prosperity. But the Iraqis have shown that they are ready, willing and able to run their own country.

The U.S., its more than 30 coalition partners and—most importantly—the Iraqi people did not settle for merely replacing Saddam with a more benign authoritarian regime that would simply avoid threatening the national security of others. But neither did they seek to establish an American-style democracy.

What was agreed was to help the Iraqi people make a reasonable start on building the institutions of an Iraqi-style democracy embracing all groups—Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmens, Christians and others. That objective has also been achieved. Iraq’s multiconfessional government, a work in progress, has the potential to prove that Shiites, Sunni, Kurds and others can work together in a democratic framework—a powerful example in a region where all too often Sunnis oppress Shiites, Shiites oppress Sunnis, and both oppress the Kurds.

The Iraqi people are the main authors of this success. They endured great brutality under Saddam, suffered enormous hardship after the invasion, joined forces with us to liberate themselves from al Qaeda terrorism, and turned out to vote despite rampant violence. But even Iraqis admit that they could not have succeeded without the United States.

Perhaps the most critical moment was President Bush’s decision in January 2007 to add over 20,000 American combat troops and change the military strategy. He was actively opposed by a majority of the Congress and a commentariat that argued for everything from withdrawing immediately to partitioning the country.

Following Mr. Bush’s decision, U.S. military forces and diplomats forged an unprecedented partnership to implement the new strategy and break the back of an insurgency that threatened to tear the country apart. Their success permitted the United States to begin withdrawing its troops in December 2007. By December 2008, Mr. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could sign agreements providing both a long-term U.S.-Iraqi partnership and the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

Although a majority of Americans had long since turned against the war by 2007, they understood that how we left Iraq, and the Iraq we left behind, mattered greatly. Those of us who had lived through Vietnam—a withdrawal under fire, a broken military, a national crisis of confidence—did not want to go there again. Albeit reluctantly, the American people gave the new strategy, and our men and women in uniform, the time they needed to succeed.

Read more at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703369704575461452331806476.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

1 Comment »

1. [...] Stephen Hadley writes in today’s Wall Street Journal: [...]

   Pingback by No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » Phony Obama deceives on Iraq — August 31, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment