Keeping the Peace in Iraq

Edwin Feulner reveals how former Reagan ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick defended the War:

"The 2003 act of force on Iraq was not going to war," she told
delegates in Geneva. "It was, rather, the continuation of the 1991 Gulf War, and
thus wholly permissible under the rule of law.''
She carried the day with
that argument, because it's correct. Iraq had spent some 12 years ignoring or
violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. Meanwhile, the United States and
our allies were fighting to enforce those resolutions. Our intervention in 2003
wasn't an invasion as much as it was a change of tactics. Instead of "keeping
Saddam Hussein in his box," we finally decided to remove him.
And direct
intervention was the only way to get rid of him. Kirkpatrick also writes that
Saddam "was a ruthless ruler with a boundless appetite for power and an
unlimited capacity for violence, a man who needed war like fire needs
oxygen."

This is true. Saddam was a one-man terrorist organization, and hence, after 9/11 a justifiable target. Some, I fear, use Iraq as an excuse for doing nothing to prevent another 9/11. I call it the "Iraq Excuse".