Five Years Later

"Most worrisome ... is the likely damage to American security. President Bush argues that an invasion of Iraq will diminish the terrorist threat to this country, but the opposite will be true. The expected upsurge in anti-Americanism among Muslims everywhere will prove a powerful recruiting tool for terrorist organizations."

Michael T. Klare, "Options Exist Short of War," USA Today, March 19, 2003.

"None of the (9-11) hijackers were Iraqi, no major figure in Al Qaeda is Iraqi, and no funds to Al Qaeda have been traced to Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has provided no evidence for his assertion that important Al Qaeda operatives are in Iraq under Saddam Hussein's protection. Despite the regime's occasional use of Islamist rhetoric, the decidedly secular ruling Baath party in Baghdad and the Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda have long been in vehement opposition to one another. The State Department's latest annual study, Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001, did not list any acts of international terrorism linked to the government of Iraq."

Stephen Zunes, "Why Not to Wage War with Iraq," Foreign Policy In Focus, August 27, 2002.

"A surge in "Yankee go home" sentiment could be expressed in increased attacks on U.S. forces by new groups in new, often Shi'ite areas,"

Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.), "Iraq: Descending into the Quagmire," Foreign Policy In Focus, June 1, 2003.

"Time is running short. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He is working on nuclear weapons. And he has every incentive to pass them on to terrorists who will use them against us."

Charles Krauthammer, "We Can't Blow It Again," Washington Post, April 19, 2002.

"The ‘right reason’ for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states -- young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us."

Thomas L. Friedman, "Because We Could," New York Times, June 4, 2003.

"Now that the major military operations in Iraq have ended*, our primary focus should be, as President Bush says, to find and eliminate terrorists wherever they may be."

"Message in Attacks: Terrorists Still Are Capable Of Hitting Us," Miami Herald editorial, May 14, 2003

(*This quote reflects a common trend beginning in May 2003 of newspapers referring to the war in the past tense, indicating that it had ended already. Gradually, references to the war as having never let up beginning with the March invasion became universal.)

Justification for War/ Failed Diplomacy?

"There is simply not enough evidence for war. There is no evidence of Iraq posing an imminent threat, no evidence of containment not working. [Secretary of State Colin] Powell is asking us to go to war -- risking the lives of 100,000 Iraqis in the first weeks, hundreds or thousands of U.S. and other troops, and political and economic chaos -- because he thinks MAYBE in the future Iraq might rebuild its weapons systems and MIGHT decide to deploy weapons or MIGHT give those weapons to someone else who MIGHT use them against someone we like or give them to someone else who we don't like."

Phyllis Bennis, "Blix Versus Powell,The Case for War Remains Unmade," CounterPunch, February 6, 2003.

"Choosing to go to war is the most fateful decision a president can make. Before placing American troops in harm's way, he must be able to show the American people that all options short of war have been exhausted and the benefits of combat outweigh the risks and costs involved. In the case of Iraq, President Bush has failed on both counts."

Michael T. Klare, "Options Exist Short of War," USA Today, March 19, 2003.

"One would have to go to the annual convention of the John Birch Society to find as many invectives directed against the United Nations as have been spewed out in recent weeks by the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress and in the media. With the United States on the verge of launching an invasion of Iraq without approval of the United Nations Security Council, a concerted effort is underway, taking advantage of the lack of knowledge most Americans have of the United Nations' structures and procedures, to discredit the world body in the eyes of public opinion. This could prove pivotal, because currently a majority of Americans oppose an invasion of Iraq unless the UN Security Council authorizes the use of force."

Stephen Zunes, "The Bush Administration's Attacks on the United Nations," Foreign Policy In Focus, February 14, 2003.

"It is well established that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. Among other things, Iraq still has tons of material that can be made into biological weapons like anthrax and into chemical weapons like mustard gas ....  There's no doubt that Hussein with his stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction is an affront and a threat to the international community."

"The Right Way in Iraq," Los Angeles Times editorial, March 14, 2003.

"Today, the Bush administration is preparing for war in the wake of its biggest diplomatic setback. Instead of leading a broad global alliance against Saddam, the U.S. is heading into battle with a small group of partners in defiance of an embittered world community. This startling failure is not likely to threaten the success of the U.S. military campaign. While war is always a dangerous undertaking, it is, in this case, the best of the bad alternatives. Twelve years of trying -- and failing -- to do the job peacefully testify to the uselessness of options short of force."

"Diplomatic Blunders Don't Nullify Arguments for War," USA Today editorial, March 19, 2003.

"Bush Makes It Final: Saddam Must Go," Boston Herald editorial, March 18, 2003.

"The U.S. insistence on the right to attack unilaterally has effectively undermined the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and could encourage international anarchy."

Stephen Zunes, "Fallacies of U.S. Plans to Invade Iraq," Foreign Policy In Focus, June 1, 2002.

"President George W. Bush's determination to go to war with Iraq with or without the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council risks undermining our economy and our diplomatic influence on key global security issues ... We may find ourselves digging out from the economic and diplomatic fallout of unilateral war on Iraq for years to come."

William D. Hartung, "Going It Alone Is Pit for Economy, Diplomatic Efforts," Newsday, March 14, 2003.

"Americans rightly fear the multitude of threats that are emerging around the world, from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to 9/11-style terrorism. The idea that we can protect ourselves from these threats by unilateral military adventures, however, is an illusion that undermines the one strategy that can really protect us."

Jeremy Brecher, "Let's Join, Not Fight, the Global Coalition Against War in Iraq," Foreign Policy In Focus, November 5, 2002.

"We are on our own. If America intends war against Bush's 'axis of evil,' do not expect French, British or German troops marching up to Baghdad beside us, or standing with us as we confront Tehran. The halcyon days of the Great Alliance are over. Any U.S. war in the arc of crisis from the Middle East to Central Asia will be fought without NATO.

Europe is done. Her crusades are history, her empires gone, her glory and greatness behind her. Europe wants to enjoy her golden years in peace and quiet consumption, as she slowly passes away."

Patrick Buchanan, "As Europe Fades Away, USA Will Have to Go It Alone," USA Today, March 5, 2002.

"Today is the right time. This war crowns a period of terrible diplomatic failure, Washington's worst in at least a generation. The Bush administration now presides over unprecedented American military might. What it risks squandering is not America's power, but an essential part of its glory."

"War in the Ruins of Diplomacy," New York Times editorial, March 18, 2003.

"The Iraqi people, a nation of political prisoners, don't deserve more heartache. But Saddam deserves what's coming. At any time, he could have come clean about his weapons of mass destruction. He could have beaten swords into plowshares. Instead, when the UN -- fickle France, too -- passed Resolution 1441 in November, Iraq responded by playing charades. The UN ultimately has wimped out on the demand that Saddam give up his weapons or face military action...."To his enormous credit, Bush refuses to give up on his vision of an Iraq free of Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. That is an outcome that can only benefit the Iraqi people, and the world. As we stand on the brink of war, Americans should take comfort that this country stands for making the world a safer place and is willing to make painful sacrifices to achieve that end."

"Countdown for Saddam," New York Daily News editorial, March 18, 2003.

Democracy/ Post-War Reconstruction

"So here we are on the eve of destruction, fighting over which thug, crook, or king should take over afterwards, while crowing to a credulous media about democracy flourishing in the region as a war dividend. 'What sort of Iraq do we wake up to after the bombing and what happens in the region?' asked UN General Secretary Kofi Annan recently. Good question."

Conn Hallinan, "Favored Post-Saddam Leaders Belie Bush's Democracy Rhetoric," Foreign Policy In Focus, November 26, 2002.

"The power vacuum left by the collapse of Saddam's dictatorship has cleared the way for social and political organizations led by Shiite clerics, who -- unbound by the more egalitarian structure in Sunni Islam -- can take advantage of their hierarchical organizational structure to mobilize quasigovernmental institutions."

Stephen Zunes, "The U.S. and Post-War Iraq: An Analysis," Foreign Policy In Focus, May 1, 2003.

"An occupation will spark widespread resistance among the Iraqis and could conceivably stimulate an upsurge of support for terrorist activity throughout the region....The economic and material costs of any unilateral enterprise could also make it prohibitive in the long term. Reconstructing Iraq will likely cost up to $25 billion per year over a five-year span. Coupled with the cost of maintaining troops in the country, estimated by the Pentagon to be $2 billion a month, it is clear that this is a burden that Washington will be reluctant to incur without external support. Contrary to reassurances offered to beleaguered U.S. taxpayers, the Iraqi oil industry, whose infrastructure has been severely degraded by a decade of sanctions and war, will only cover a small portion of the costs of reconstruction."

Mark Sedra, "Who Will Govern Iraq?" Foreign Policy In Focus, April 1, 2003.

"Iraq will face many of the same problems that faced ex-communist Eastern Europe after the overthrow of totalitarian regimes. Much will have to be done to rebuild civil society, political institutions and a market economy; security will be a subsidiary issue. The United States will not have to provide many if any forces; if Iraqis need the assistance of foreign military forces, they are more likely to turn to moderate Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt or Morocco. And Iraqis will be able to pay for what aid they need, thanks to having the world's second-largest oil reserves."

Patrick Clawson, "Why Saddam Hussein Is Ripe for a Fall," Washington Post, January 1, 2002.

"Bush argues that liberating Iraq from Saddam's totalitarianism might open the floodgates of democratic reform across the Middle East. Doubters will scoff but he could be right."

Robert J. Caldwell, "Bush's Vision for a Liberated Iraq and a Democratic Mideast," San Diego Union-Tribune, March 2, 2003.

"The first and most important role for the United States is to ensure the safety of the Iraqi people by establishing a security presence throughout the country. At first, this will likely require a presence of as many as 200,000 troops. But within one or two years, that contingent should be replaced by a multinational force of 50,000 to 100,000 troops, including American and foreign forces, preferably acting under a U.N. mandate. The U.S.-led peacekeeping force should ensure that no group or individual can use violence for political advantage. It is a role for which U.S. and European troops are eminently well-qualified, and which they have played successfully in the past."

Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack, "Iraq’s Coming Democracy," Blueprint Magazine, April 15, 2003.