Published: Friday, June 6, 2008
Iraq a better place without Saddam
According to Jim Sawyer -- Al Qaeda in Iraq's local Minister of Propaganda -- prior to 2003, Iraq was a paradise to its people, who freely flourished under the benevolent leadership of Saddam Hussein. ("How would we react if US were invaded?" Enterprise, May 16) Then one day, this peace-loving leader's regime was brutally invaded by thuggish Westerners bent not on eradicating an evil regime, but destroying the country by bringing "unimaginable carnage" and causing "wholesale genocide."
Wrong-headedness of this scale needs to be answered with the truth. We invaded Iraq to take out the regime of Saddam Hussein, which we accomplished. Iraq wasn't a democracy -- it was run by a brutal dictatorship, aggressively violent to its own people, but also against other countries such as Iran, which Saddam attacked in 1980. Ever since then, Hussein plotted to regain his military power and prowess, including nuclear weapons.
So after coalition forces won the conventional war to oust Saddam and his henchmen, our goal was to rebuild the country and allow its people to live in peace with a democratic government where individuals would have the power to elect their own leaders. The people of Iraq participated enthusiastically and bravely in these elections. But as the United States and our allies attempted to rebuild the infrastructure of the country, "insurgents" saw this as their opportunity to make war upon our armed forces and the Iraqis who wanted peace. It should be noted that whenever our forces have fought, we have tried to keep non-combatant casualties to a minimum. This is just the opposite of the enemy whose strategy is to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible.
Jim Sawyer says we ought to surrender, which is exactly what Al Qaeda wants. Sawyer has already given up, but we need to support our leadership and our troops by giving them what they need to finish the job to help the New Iraq stand on their own. Then our troops can come home...
Mark Terry
Mill Creek
Wrong-headedness of this scale needs to be answered with the truth. We invaded Iraq to take out the regime of Saddam Hussein, which we accomplished. Iraq wasn't a democracy -- it was run by a brutal dictatorship, aggressively violent to its own people, but also against other countries such as Iran, which Saddam attacked in 1980. Ever since then, Hussein plotted to regain his military power and prowess, including nuclear weapons.
So after coalition forces won the conventional war to oust Saddam and his henchmen, our goal was to rebuild the country and allow its people to live in peace with a democratic government where individuals would have the power to elect their own leaders. The people of Iraq participated enthusiastically and bravely in these elections. But as the United States and our allies attempted to rebuild the infrastructure of the country, "insurgents" saw this as their opportunity to make war upon our armed forces and the Iraqis who wanted peace. It should be noted that whenever our forces have fought, we have tried to keep non-combatant casualties to a minimum. This is just the opposite of the enemy whose strategy is to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible.
Jim Sawyer says we ought to surrender, which is exactly what Al Qaeda wants. Sawyer has already given up, but we need to support our leadership and our troops by giving them what they need to finish the job to help the New Iraq stand on their own. Then our troops can come home...
Mark Terry
Mill Creek