Why I Think That "Doing" Iraq Is In The Best Interest Of The USA....

Every leader of every country has to do what they think is in the best interest of their people. Some leaders will make decisions based upon short-term considerations and some will make decisions based upon long-term considerations. These decisions are principally tied to the situation. For example, decisions surrounding the response of a natural disaster is largely a short-term decision, whereas, decisions in planning for a natural disaster is longer-term [actually kind-of an intermediate decision].

Now, we can debate the issues surrounding tactical and strategic short-term and long-term decisions. Arguing that Iraq is part of the war on terror [WOT] confuses people as to what a tactical or strategic decision is. Most people think of Osama bin Laden as the ultimate goal of the war on terror. I had several Democrats huffing this at me last night. So people look at this as the ultimate goal and therefore, the thought is, that it is a strategic decision to get him out of the picture. This is wrong, its not him, he is just the human form of a sick philosophy. Removing him would not eliminate the problem, removing him is just a tactical maneuver to reduce the ability of the organization to operate. It is not a strategy. Since some people think that Osama is the ultimate goal of the WOT that any movement is just a tactical maneuver to gain the ultimate goal in this war. This thinking is just plain wrong and does not look at facts and does not achieve that which is in the best interest of the nation. By definition, it is only part of the puzzle.

Iraq is in a very sensitive part of the world. It was run by a despotic murderous madman. No one can debate that. The world, through the UN was engaged in a containment strategy that was weakening and the oil-for-food scandal is showing just how weak this containment strategy had become. Besides, a containment strategy is just a tactic. It doesn't address the ultimate problems and lacks a cohesive and sound strategy and had no ultimate goal, it largely pushed the problem into the future. Some can argue that Saddam posed no risk to the US. Ok, that is an opinion and one that I would have to consider but his past actions, philosophy and potential for harm remains large.

So, does one allow the containment strategy to continue to weaken and probably get eliminated in a few years? This is tough decision for any leader. Their time in office, for the US President, is limited to eight years.

Additionally, people have argued that Saddam and al Qaeda were not collaborators. Lets assume, as people argue that they never did collaborate and never had any contact what-so-ever. Can we now assume that these two, Saddam and al Qaeda would continue on their separate ways even though Afghanistan was now hostile territory for them? This is the bet that the anti-war crowd has to take.

Its not one that I would be willing to take as a leader. If I am looking out for the best interests of my nation, then I have to look at both the short-term risks and the long-term risks. This actually appears to me as one of the biggest long-term risks in the world at that time. A resurgent Iraq, with oil revenues and a failed containment strategy. A hostile Iran working towards nuclear armament and a brutal religious philosophy based on hate looking for a home and funding.

Now, as a President with high popularity after September 11th and a mandate to protect my nation from more risks of this type, I have to think of a way to change the calculus of the region and reduce the chances that al Qaeda can reconstitute itself as a force. One needs to tactically continue to close the box with the ultimate strategy of reducing risk.

I may have made the same decision as President Bush in his shoes. Maybe I would have lost my nerve and not done it. Or maybe I would have plunged in to the fray with the fervor and zest that Bush did. I appreciate that this is not an easy decision and many armchair quarterbacks can disparage his decision making. But I, for one, commend his foresight and calm approach to the risks. I think that Winston Churchill, if he were still alive today, would have approached it very much the same way. The only difference is that Winston would have had some nice quotable wisdom that we could lean on in difficult times.