The Future of Iraq
Predictable? Not So Much
Ray Mechmann
Issue date: 3/11/09 Section: News
On September 11, 2001, the unthinkable occurred. America's liberty was placed in jeopardy, as the nation was victim to one of the largest acts of war since the Japanese bombings of Pearl Harbor in 1941. The suffering endured by the families of those killed in the attacks was inevitable - but would not go unaccounted for. The Commander-in-Chief needed to act.
The Sunni extremist group held responsible for the hijackings - Al Qaeda - was believed to be headed by Osama bin Laden. But due to Al Qaeda's failure to comply with the U.S.'s demand for the group's immediate disbandment, an invasion was launched on Afghanistan in early October of 2001. The primary objective was to recover bin Laden from hiding at all costs, "dead or alive."
Numerous operations throughout 2001 and 2002 led to the gradual decrease of Taliban guerillas - Islamic terrorists and allies of Al Qaeda - across Afghanistan. Justice was served, as Coalition Forces overcame these radicals with much success. Aside from the Taliban in Afghanistan, however, there were other even greater dangers that needed tending to.
In late 2002, an overwhelming bipartisan effort contributed to the passage of the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution - an elaborate justification for the United States' use of military force in Iraq. The law noted not only that "Iraq continues to aid and harbor...international terrorist organizations...that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens," but also that the government has an inherent duty to "take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations...to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States." The resolution was approved by 43% of Democrats and 97% of Republicans in the whole of Congress. An invasion of Iraq took place the following March in Baghdad.
The race for 44th Presidency was underway just four years later, with the Iraq War still in full-force. The Republicans, naturally, sought to uphold the basic conservative principles envisioned first by their forefathers over two centuries ago. Opposite them, as always, stood those in favor of government reform, the change-advocates - the Democrats.
The Sunni extremist group held responsible for the hijackings - Al Qaeda - was believed to be headed by Osama bin Laden. But due to Al Qaeda's failure to comply with the U.S.'s demand for the group's immediate disbandment, an invasion was launched on Afghanistan in early October of 2001. The primary objective was to recover bin Laden from hiding at all costs, "dead or alive."
Numerous operations throughout 2001 and 2002 led to the gradual decrease of Taliban guerillas - Islamic terrorists and allies of Al Qaeda - across Afghanistan. Justice was served, as Coalition Forces overcame these radicals with much success. Aside from the Taliban in Afghanistan, however, there were other even greater dangers that needed tending to.
In late 2002, an overwhelming bipartisan effort contributed to the passage of the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution - an elaborate justification for the United States' use of military force in Iraq. The law noted not only that "Iraq continues to aid and harbor...international terrorist organizations...that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens," but also that the government has an inherent duty to "take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations...to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States." The resolution was approved by 43% of Democrats and 97% of Republicans in the whole of Congress. An invasion of Iraq took place the following March in Baghdad.
The race for 44th Presidency was underway just four years later, with the Iraq War still in full-force. The Republicans, naturally, sought to uphold the basic conservative principles envisioned first by their forefathers over two centuries ago. Opposite them, as always, stood those in favor of government reform, the change-advocates - the Democrats.