"Reconstructing" Iraq
In The War On Terrorism

September 11, 2003
by Debra Opri - Attorney and Legal Analyst

If there is anyone out there who believes there is no justifiable connection between Iraq and the terrorist war which "officially" began on September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon were hit, then that someone is either politically illiterate or in severe denial. However, if there is anyone who can prove that connection, then they should be president.

In the two years since the worst attacks on American soil in our nation's history, much has been done in our fight against terrorism, and yet, maybe, not enough of what should have been done.

Today, we are embroiled in what should no longer be a political conflict about why we are in Iraq, and what "justification" we had to go there in the first place. Rather, we should be addressing just how Iraq is connected to our war on terrorism, and how the infrastructure of Iraq can help us take "world terrorism" down.

To understand the importance of the Iraqi infrastructure in this "post-war" Iraq, we need to examine previous "post war" nations, such as Germany, and Japan, as well as our own reconstruction period after the Civil War, and analyze how each nation‚s infrastructure contributed to and defined the government that would later evolve, mostly in a non-confrontational, co-existence with the United States.

In each of these wars, there was much conflict about, well, mostly, who had the right to decide the particular nation's political evolution. In the instance of Japan and Germany, it took well over five years of American occupation in each of these countries before they could begin again. Their steps were slow, and pragmatic, but they would eventually rank among the top global powers on all levels. Lest we forget, American interests in the Reconstruction Era following the Civil War, although divided, came to produce a government and world leader second to none. Our stature on that front has not changed -- not even with the Vietnam conflict, a conflict that taught us more than any other to understand fully the infrastructure of the enemy. Iraq is no different; we, however, should be in our resolve.

The Iraqi people are not our enemy, but time and an inherent American impatience for results are. And President Bush, while extolling the infrastructure of Iraq as the core element of what will formulate the future government definition, must understand that a significant segment of the Iraqi population will continue to have either an allegiance to its prior leader, Saddam Hussein, or remain true to its traditional lack of regard for America, either one which will perpetuate terrorism for many years to come unless there is a reeducation of the infrastructure, which could demand a huge time commitment and tremendous determination from the American public.

According to President Bush's understanding, to fuse this splintered infrastructure may require a long term American troop and political presence. However, this is already weighing heavily on the patience and the pocketbook of the American public. However, any serious lack of understanding of this infrastructure will only make Iraq President Bush's "Waterloo." [It was, historically, Napolean's "Waterloo" (and later Hitler's) in their vast and somewhat stubborn misunderstanding and miscalculation of the Russian infrastructure, and which brought down both of these leaders.] And, while certainly not identifying President Bush's mission to that of these past leaders, it is clear that, in this instance, the longer the Iraqi infrastructure remains fractured and undefinable, the more perilous the situation becomes for the United States, and it will mean uncertain defeat for President Bush in the next election. Time is not on his side.

So there are many issues which need to be quickly resolved. And the American and world audiences must be placated sufficiently. Their questions must be answered to their satisfaction.

Those questions must be:

Where are the weapons of mass destruction? The U.N. inspectors found them in Iraq several years before 9/11. If they were not destroyed, where did they go? We need a definitive answer and soon.

If the Iraqis are to lead Iraq, will there be a defined governmental and constitutional structure? How quickly will it evolve?

Was the government of Iraq a terrorist nation in business with Osama Bin Laden? What was the connection? Where are the firm answers and firm evidence?

While Monday morning quarter-backing has come to be the norm for the American public, it doesn't belong in the debate on the reconstruction of Iraq. What we do need is an emphasis on the courageous and inspiring "situational leadership" that President Bush has provided after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and where we must go as a nation on the world stage.

We'll forever remember President Bush at Ground Zero with the firefighters. We'll all remember his rush to get back to the White House, and to show his country he was still in charge. And we all remember the hunt for Osama and the "sudden" ill-fitted connection to Iraq a short time later.

It was that ill-fitting political resolve to "remove Saddam" which never connected with the American public, let alone the rest of the world. We do remember the United Nations after Collin Powell spoke. Unlike the Cuban Missile crisis, outside of the U.N. inspection, there were no "smoking gun" pictures. A lot of innuendo - but no precise fit.

Lest we forget, it was on this world stage of the United Nations that President Bush used the existence of weapons of mass destruction in his justification for his invasion of Iraq, and which justification came with the blessings of the American public. If President Bush's miscalculation and inherent misunderstanding of the American public's potential wrath, is not addressed; that is to say, that he does not present the clear and convincing evidence of those weapons of mass destruction to the American and world audience, then clearly, President Bush's Iraqi "agenda" will be his ultimate Waterloo.