Philip Wohlrab, '03

Why did we go to war? Why was the decision made that now was the time to end Saddam Hussein's regime? Why is it that there seems to be resistance to the United States involvement in the war? These are a few of the numerous questions that have crossed the minds of many Americans including myself over the past six months.

First, we must take a look at who Saddam Hussein is and how he came to power. Saddam Hussein, who is at the center of this conflict, was born in 1937 in Tikrit, Iraq. Saddam joined the Baath party in 1956 and in 1958 was imprisoned by the ruling regime for plotting to overthrow it. In 1960, he was sentenced to death for his actions in the attempted coup but managed to flee to Egypt where he remained until 1963. A year later, Saddam was arrested again in 1964 for conspiring against fellow members of the Baath party. However this same party would elect him Deputy General Secretary in 1966. The next year Saddam escaped from prison and over the next several years consolidated his power and even negotiated a treaty with Iran formalizing the boundaries between the two countries.

By 1979 Saddam had amassed enough power to seize the presidency. He then stripped his major rival General Bakr of all power and had him placed under house arrest. The following year, Saddam launched a destructive war against Iran that would keep both countries at war until 1988. When the war began Iraq was heavily subsidized by the Soviet Union and it was the Soviet Union that provided the bulk of Iraq's military power everything from Mig 29 Jet Fighters, T-72 Tanks, to chemical and biological toxins. The Iraqis were dismayed however when Soviet aid began to dry up and replacements for combat losses proved to be sub par.

It was then that Saddam Hussein began to "buddy up" to the western powers for aid. The West worried by Fundamentalist Islam and what it would mean for the Middle East struck a deal with the devil. With the overthrow of the Shah in Iran and the subsequent takeover of the Mullahs in that country, the West feared that radical Islam would quickly spread to other countries in the region. This would come back to haunt the Western powers that helped Saddam Hussein just a few short years later. But during this time of aid the United States, France, Germany, and other Western Nations sold weapons and components for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. The French, however, was one power that had a history of supplying weapons to Iraq before it lost Soviet Aid. The first deal between the two countries was to provide both a nuclear reactor and technicians to help train the Iraqis to operate it. The Israeli intelligence service stopped this by sending in a strike team that killed some of the technicians and sufficiently scared the French government to back out of the deal. In 1981, however, the French sold yet another reactor to the Iraqis and this one made it to Iraq. Once in place, Israeli planes flew into Iraq and destroyed the facility at Osiraq.

The Iran-Iraq war finally came to an end, but not before the world saw the largest chemical weapons attacks since World War One. During that war, Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Over twenty incidents occurred, but the most famous was the use of chemical weapons on the city of Halabja. During these attacks, Iraq unleashed its full arsenal of chemical weapons that included Mustard Gas, Sarin, VX, and Tabun (the first nerve agent ever to be used by an army in conflict). The world strongly condemned the use of these weapons but otherwise did little to punish the Iraqi regime. Indeed companies from France, the United States, Russia, and Germany continued to sell weapons to Iraq. France, Germany, and Russia continued to provide components for chemical and biological weapons to the Iraqis while US biological companies supplied samples of many deadly diseases. For the United States, this ended the moment Iraqi troops moved into Kuwait.

President George Bush and the world announced that it would not tolerate Iraqi aggression towards its smaller neighbor and that Saddam would be forced out if necessary. In was 1991 when the Coalition forces with UN backing destroyed much of the Iraqi Army and pushed it back across the Iraqi border. With the end of the first Gulf War, Iraq was told that it must disarm immediately under Resolutions 678 and 687. When Iraq failed to comply with the UN resolutions and disarm, sanctions were imposed while weapons inspectors were sent in to observe the destruction of all Scud missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

What followed was a 6-year cat and mouse game between Iraqi forces and weapons inspectors. Roadblock after roadblock were thrown in the way of weapons inspectors until 1998 when Iraq evicted them. Meanwhile, Saddam created a new Republican Guard, called the Special Republican Guard, that was loyal only to him and continued to rearm his regular forces. In 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox. Operation Desert Fox was announced after President Clinton held a news conference in which he said that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the world. During Operation Desert Fox, four hundred and fifty Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired into Baghdad and other military targets but Saddam did not disarm.

This brings us up to the current day. The United States, Great Britain and over 40 other countries have said that now is the time to disarm. Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to disarm, and 18 resolutions later, he has yet to do so. Why then the controversy over this war? What went wrong between resolution 1441 and the initiation of hostilities? Resolution 1441 was the last UN resolution passed in which all 15 countries announced "serious consequences" would follow if Saddam did not comply and disarm.

The answer lies in the opposition stemming from France, Russia, and Germany. These countries have stood in the way of the United Nations for no apparent valid reason. With rumors flying as to why these countries feel the need to hold up the process of justice, let us first examine some of them. The Russians, still desperate for hard currency, continue to sell weapons to the Iraqis even after the outbreak of war. The French and the Germans seem to be guilty of violating the arms embargo by continuing to sell weapons of mass destruction. It has been said that French President Jacques Chirac is a close friend of Saddam Hussein and has verified their relationship through past statements. It has also been said that France controls the oil rights to most of Iraq's oil fields and fears that those deals will be nullified when Saddam Hussein falls from power. But does all of this justify what France, Germany, and Russia have done to the UN? In a recent gallop poll, 70% of Americans said that they believed that the UN failed to handle the Iraq problem adequately. One of the best arguments I have seen as to why it is that the French feel the need to stand in America's way comes from the French Ambassador to United States Jean-David Levitte. He stated on a talk show on Fox news that for the French this is not a argument over who is right or wrong in going to war but that it is a way to curb American influence in the UN and to continue to act as a Superpower. When pressed on that statement, Levitte went on to further say that France's only real power these days lies within the United Nations and that this was a chance to exercise power that the President Chirac just could not turn down. Levitte also stated that the French government wants to be a major player in the rebuilding of Iraq, but felt it could not do that if the US were the ones heading up the UN's effort to rebuild Iraq. For these statements, I would call Levitte one of the most honest Frenchmen I have heard throughout this whole debate.

Like many Americans, I have watched the coverage of the war and am fairly pleased with how things are going. We are currently inside of Baghdad and so far, casualties have been low. As of the time this article was written, we had suffered under 100 combat casualties; yet the media has portrayed this war as mismanaged and bogged down. We have been at war only 10 days now and to hear the media talk about it, you would think we have been at war for 10 years. They bemoan the fact that Baghdad did not surrender on the first day. But why should we have expected that? War is a nasty business full of surprises. It would be unrealistic for Americans to think that the war was going to be won in two weeks, yet the media would have you think that is how it should be. This, I believe, is due to a deep-seated hatred of the military by the media. The media wants another Vietnam War for them to cry over and turn into a media blitz. No doubt, long wars with high casualties are good for the media. It vexes me to see reporters on TV talking about things that they know absolutely nothing about, which is dangerous in that when they begin making false statements about what is going on how is the public to know that the statements are false or inaccurate. The coverage of this war is unprecedented. No time in American history has the media ever been allowed to have as much access to the front lines and be able to broadcast footage to every American household.

So what do we the people of America make of this war? All one has to do is turn on a TV and there it is, in color, ready for our consumption. Many thought that seeing the war everyday would dampen American morale on the home front but if anything it seems to have increased. As the troops push further and further forward we have seen more and more "Support the Troops" rallies and demonstrations. With the outrageous remarks of a minority of protestors it is important that we send the message to the troops that says "We Support You".

What of the future of Iraq? That I believe should be left for the victors to decided. Those who fought and supported the war should be the ones to provide aid and rebuild the country. However other countries that have opposed the war have said that it is they who must be allowed to rebuild this country. The United States, Britain, Australia, Poland, and over forty other countries should be the ones who rebuild Iraq not countries like France who seem to think that they should be able to step foot in after all the dirty work has been done.

Finally, I will leave you by saying that for the United States to have walked away from this conflict we would be at the mercy of every terrorist organization in the world. They would have perceived this country as weak. Terrorist organizations perceived this country as weak when we failed to act over the bombings of our barracks in Saudi Arabia or when we failed to do anything useful over the bombings of our embassies in Africa. When the USS Cole was attacked where was swift American retribution? But now the terrorists are reeling. American forces have been systematically dismantling the Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan and in other countries. Terrorist camps inside Iraq have been found and destroyed. Terrorist organizations have been sent a strong message that America will not tolerate terrorist activity. That is why we are fighting this war. This is why Saddam Hussein's regime will be replaced. The war in Iraq is nothing more then another battle in the War on Terrorism.