Iraq: Two Views

It is now three years since the invasion of Iraq. What was the point, and what have we gained?

At Princeton University, former Secretary of State George Schultz called for a dual track of military strength and diplomatic outreach, according to Regina Lee of the Daily Princetonian.

"The world has never been in a situation of better promise than now," Shultz, who served as secretary of state for seven years under President Ronald Reagan, said. "The terrorists must not be allowed to abort this opportunity. We win the war against them by positive action and helping people see these improvements."

Schultz noted the three stages of the terror war. First was the period prior to 9/11 when the US did nothing. Second was the active phase when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and the third phase of consolidation requires “economic and military sustainability.”

In the London Times Gerard Baker relates what might have happened if the US had not invaded Iraq.

in Iraq Saddam strengthened his hold. Shia “enemies” disappeared by the tens of thousands; even Kurds no longer felt safe.



Outside Iraq, in the Middle East, it was business as usual. The region remained immune, as it had done for 600 years, to the currents of democratic change that had swept through the rest of the world. Syria tightened its grip on Lebanon, with targeted murders and intimidation.

And in Iran the mullahs took Saddam’s ability to escape attack as a green light for them to proceed with their expansionary adventure.

It’s easy to point to all the mistakes made in Iraq. It is always easy to criticize any endeavor. But the fact is that the US has got Iran and Syria surrounded by inserting itself into Afghanistan and Iraq. If you were a mullah in Iran you would regard the US occupation of Iraq as a very serious obstacle for your plan to rule the Middle East.

Maybe that is why Iran wants to talk to the United States about Iraq.