In the article in The Eagle printed on Dec. 5, "Iraq: right war, right time," the author, Will Haun has some serious flaws in his argument. While I generally agree with Haun's argument that this is not the time to "cut and run," he mentions many points that either have nothing to do with Iraq, or of which the evidence is foggy at best. When arguing his point, Haun should have made sure he did his research in order to make a more valid point.
One area in which it seems Haun has not done his research is when he states that the invasion of Iraq "was not the brainchild of Dubya and his alleged clan of neocons." It is as if Haun has never heard of the Project for the New American Century. The Project, of which both former deputy Defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney were a part, detailed how democracy could be spread in the Middle East. This plan is very similar to the Bush administration's rationale for Iraq. Certainly the years of frustration with Saddam factored into the decision to invade but so did the ideas of Dubya's neocon allies that were developed long before Bush came to office.
Another argument Haun puts forward is, "the seeds of democracy have begun to spread throughout the Middle East." I'd like to ask Mr. Haun to identify where these sees have spread beyond Iraq. Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran still have repressive regimes and have thus far shown no signs of change. The democracy evolving in Iraq is significant but Mr. Haun should not expect a rapid spread of democracy to other countries surrounding Iraq. That is unless the U.S. invades those countries and instills its ideology upon another Middle Eastern country.
Haun also argued that Saddam's removal was justified because of his alleged support for terrorism, citing attacks such as the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. There is no clear evidence Saddam was involved in these attacks and in addition, al Qaeda is quite capable of pulling off attacks without anyone's help. Mr. Haun also seems to suggest that if we had appeared strong and removed Saddam prior to 2001, that the attacks of 9/11 might not have occurred. If this is the case, Mr. Haun has not done his research on al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden's group does not rely on governments to support them. They have been able to plan and execute operations very well without any help. In addition, Mr. Haun should ask himself: has terrorism and the threat of attack on the American homeland diminished since Saddam has been removed from power? I believe the opposite is true.
This brings us to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Saddam did provide him with training grounds after the fall of Afghanistan but he was not part of the al Qaeda inner-circle until after he began attacking U.S. troops in Iraq. In the past, although Zarqawi had been in Afghanistan training terrorists, he and bin Laden were at odds. It is more likely that Saddam let Zarqawi into Iraq because he would help fight the U.S. forces rather than commit attacks on American shores. This also brings to light the relationship between al Qaeda, bin Laden, and Saddam. Although there were meetings between the two, it is doubtful there was any significant cooperation. Saddams' regime and al Qaeda were ideologically at odds, and it is likely they could never trust each other. Saddam would see al Qaeda's desire to establish an Islamic based system of government throughout the Muslim world as a threat to his power. In addition, al Qaeda would see Saddam's secular style of government as a hindrance to fulfilling their aspirations for Islamic rule. I do not believe that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" notion would have got past their ideological differences.
Mr. Haun was trying to make a valid point that now is not the time to "cut and run," and that the War on Terror could be won or lost in Iraq. Yet he should have done his homework and stayed away from using examples that actually discredit his argument. Solid facts are always better than fuzzy details.
Torry Shealy is a student in the School of International Service.
