Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Why America Invaded Iraq

British historian Andrew Roberts explains in the newest course from Prager University.

by
Jared Sichel

Bio

September 9, 2013 - 9:56 am

With an approaching Congressional vote on the use of force in Syria, there’s a fear that a U.S. strike against the Assad regime could lead down the slippery slope of a full-scale Iraq-type invasion. That fear is unfounded. See just how unfounded it is by watching Prager University’s newest video, with British historian Andrew Roberts, on why America invaded Iraq in 2003. Intelligent people can disagree on whether America should have gone to war in Iraq. Regardless of your position, Roberts provides the clarity needed to make a sound judgment.

Jared Sichel is the VP of Communications for Prager University and a journalist. He has written dozens of news stories, investigative reports, and feature pieces for the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, the PA Independent, and Watchdog.org. Raised in North Potomac, MD, a sleepy suburb 30 minutes outside Washington D.C., Jared attended Tulane University in New Orleans, LA, and received in 2012 a masters degree in accounting and a bachelors degree in finance. In 2011, he interned for Dennis Prager's radio show in Glendale, CA, an experience that told him that media and journalism were a better fit than accounting. He lives in Los Angeles, CA with his baseball glove, football, fountain pens, and most importantly, cigars. If you say anything bad about the New York Yankees, New York Giants, Downton Abbey, or The Americans (both the FX show and the people), Jared will write mean things about you. Follow him on Twitter @TheSichel.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (19)
All Comments   (19)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Read Friedman's "America's Secret War" sometime. He explains post 9/11 very well.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is one primary element to the decision only touched on by Mr. Roberts. Namely, the reality of the no-fly zone(s).

The no-fly zone(s) was a creation entirely of the vaunted United Nations. But it was almost entirely the job of the US to enforce it. That was our number one footprint in the Arab world. To enforce them meant bases in Saudi, and THAT was what motivated Osama BL more than anything to visit New York. And by August of 2001, they were proving expensive and ineffective, while the sanctions they were enforcing were falling apart like wet toilet paper.

So in the aftermath of 9/11, the US had three, and ONLY three options regarding those zones, and our presence in Saudi and Iraq.

1 - Retreat, and leave the field to Saddam. This would have been a titanic strategic victory for both Saddam and Al Qeada, proving that massive terrorism would be totally effective. Thus an utter non-starter as a course of action.

2 - Status Quo. No one.... NO ONE in the US was prepared to accept a status quo in the Arab world following 9/11. No one. There was universal agreement (that Dems love to pretend was not the case) that the status quo gave us a smoking hole in New York and 3,000 corpses. A radical change in our Middle East strategy in general was a full-on mandate (also something far too many wish to pretend was not so.)

3 - There it is. Can't go backwards, can't stay put. There is no "sideways". What does that leave you? I always sort of compared it to Lawrence Chamberlain at Little Round Top.... retreat was not an option, standing fast was not an option.... what's left? You fix bayonets, and you charge.

Time passes, people like to forget, particularly when it suits them. But you have to remember that those no-fly zones were a story.... year after year after year after year after year after year. (The UN said we were starving 5,000 kids a month because of them.) I can't rule out that they STILL would be there today had we not gone in. And we sure haven't heard much about Saddam lately, or even Iraq in general since, have we?

Having spoken my piece, I am not going to go around and around the Iraq mulberry bush yet again. I am plenty exhausted by that, a primary reason for my Syria wariness. I am just about done with these people. But what I write here are a series of facts, just as Mr. Roberts has also presented. You are free to dispute them.....but you would, of course, be wrong.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I still believe that the creation of a massive new security administration and a very expensive war costing loads of treasure and lots of American lives, only enhanced and extended the damage done by the terrorists in NYC. I do not know what other options would have been better. All I know is that the American economy sunk during the Bush administration and never came back.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
The recession that began in 2008 had more to do with Bush's housing policy than with foreign policy.

Even so, we would probably have recovered from it by now if not for all of Bush's, Obama's and congress's many misguided baillouts, stimuli, onerous new regulatory regimes, and other attempts to save us from ourselves or "fix" things, not to mentioned Obamacare, which is the economic equivalent of fighting a new war every year into perpetuity.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
That 'housing policy' was set by the Clinton administration, not Bush's.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
More like the Carter Administration, when the Community Reinvestment Act became the law of the land. It was just continued under subsequent Presidents.

It was so-called community organizers such as obama who coerced the banks into abandoning the "safe and sound operation" aspect of the law's lending provisions.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Utter baloney. Please show us one single loan that a bank was "forced" to loan because of CRA. You cannot. This was the bank's playing with our money and getting bailed out when they lost. CRA had nothing to do with it. Please prove otherwise.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your comment implies that the US economy could have avoided the Iraq
iceberg and steamed on; In sad fact it has been taking on water for
decades, with the flooding finally breaching the water-tight bulkheads
in 2008. The US is on the way to the bottom of the fiscal sea, and
nothing can be done about it.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
We invaded Iraq again? Oh, you mean we did it before. A couple of times.

Video is a bunch of crap.

The 1991 invasion was very nearly an accident.

The 2003 invasion is because we needed to retaliate for 9/11, and Bush was still ***hole buddies with the Sauds so we went for the secondary target.

I'm sure all the stuff on the video is more or less true, but it leaves off much bigger facts.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
1. Sadam provided material and moral support for Palestinian terrorists. He egged them on. Palestinian terrorists have attacked Americans and American interests in the past.

2. Sadam violated the cease fire agreement. That meant that the war could and should resume. To win a war any war (like the 1991 Gulf War) and then to let the losing side to violate the cease fire/armistice agreement is to subsequently to lose the war. That has serious consequences.

If you deny #2, then I will operate under the assumption that you are okay with us losing the 1991 Gulf War
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
To nit pick: one notable error of fact.

Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 not 1991. The latter year was the moment of his defeat.

As for his chemical agents; they seem to have been shipped to Assad.

In so doing, Saddam was replicating the flight of his air force in 1991, which went to Iran -- his arch enemy -- rather than throw up the white flag.

Iran rather promptly put them into service. Russian machines are flying for Iran even at this hour, as a consequence.

Very late in the game, Saddam's most loyal engineers finally gave up his blueprints for atomics and such. In the early years of the Kay investigation, they'd been lying. These engineers ultimately had to be rescued from their neighbors -- emigrated to the West under new identities. That whole program still flies under the radar, for the most part.

49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
If Saddam was willing to send his air force to his arch enemy Iran, he would be willing to send his WMDs to Syria which was a Baathist regime like the Iraqi Baathist Regime.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I do remember something about 500 tons of uranium being found in Iraq during the present war.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes 550 tons of yellowcake that was reportedly shipped to Canada for clean-up. But, Joe Wilson said the yellowcake wasn't from Niger, Sadam's documents were supposedly forged, and Valerie Plame's (International Woman of Mystery) cover was blown.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Of Niger's exports, foreign exchange earnings from livestock, although impossible to quantify, are second only to those from uranium" -wiki

If the Iraqis visit Niger, they were there after the uranium. Whether they actually got the uranium or the government was interested in selling is another matter. They were not there for the cattle.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
But, but, but, Boooossshhhh lied!!!
/off
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
If we find Iraqi WMDs in Syria and that the Russians moved them will the left apologize?
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
That little video needs to be shown all over the world every time someone starts blaming Bush for all our troubles now.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All