Iraq war was not worth it
To the editor:
In Mr. Sirvint’s analysis of “10 years later, was the Iraq war worth it” (April 25), many of us would say no. In trying to support his view, Rick Sirvint leaves out some inconvenient facts. The idea of WMD was first promulgated by the refugee Chalabi who pushed Colin Powell into his regretful announcement of the existence of WMD before the United Nations. The “shock and awe” bombing which then occurred, killing indiscriminately throughout Baghdad, certainly not the usual method for hunting down a dictator, caused the widespread killing of civilians.
During an early Army briefing, a soldier had the courage to ask Donald Rumsfeld why they had to drive around in unprotected Jeeps which had no protective armor on the sides of the vehicles. Rumney’s reply, “you go to war with the Army you have.”
Well, yes, if you are attacked, that is true. But we were not being attacked; we chose to be in a pre-emptive war on Iraq, a war never authorized by the Congress. A war which is being paid for on a credit card, plus interest; a war whose cost will fall onto our children and grandchildren.
And finally, with Bush’s blustery “mission accomplished,” early on in the war, meaning Saddam Hussein had been taken out, why didn’t we then end our invasion of Iraq. Ten years later and democracy still an illusion, the country is mired in bloodshed today.
Many dictators still exist throughout the world. One example, thousands have been killed by Syria’s Bashir Assad. Does Mr. Sirvint really believe it is the mission of the United States to go around eliminating these tyrants, one by one?