Skip to main content

Ten Years after the Second Iraq War Began: Was it Just? What have we Learned? Comments

Before the intervention on March 19, 2003, I disturbed some colleagues and friends by publicly opposing intervention in what came to be called Iraq II. I had supported the first intervention in Iraq, after the Kuwaitis requested our assistance against an unjust aggressor named Saddam Hussein.  However, in light of the teaching of the Catholic Church, and based upon my own efforts to inform my conscience by it, I opposed the Second Iraq ... Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 17 Comments

  1. KarlVDH
    1 year ago

    So, the answer is, "no," no one can offer anything we got from Bush's disgraceful War in Iraq that was actually worth one single dead American soldier. NOTHING. Except that the shareholders of Halliburton and its subsidiaries- a huge number of whom serve in Congress and were the very people- in both parties- to vote us into that wasteful, murderous stupidity- all got fabulously wealthy. \

  2. Brian D.
    1 year ago

    I tend to side with Bob Hugelmeyer's assessment. What disappoints me in the Deacon's article where numbers of dead Iraqis and American soldiers etc. were cited was the fact that there was no citation of the number of Islamists killed; weren't their forces decimated? And is it not the goal of the Islamists to destroy everything Western, everything Christian? For all that went wrong with this war, did it not substantially reduce the number of Islamic fighters determined to kill us and destroy our way of life? With all the death and destruction war brings, what war can be called good? However good can come out of horrible events and I would think the elimination of Saddam Hussein here and Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo in the past were good results

  3. KarlVDH
    1 year ago

    Barbara, respectfully, the Nazis were demolishing European democracy in favor of fascism, and conquering neighboring countries while committing a genocide of unmatched proportions, and Hitler had the stated goal of unifying Europe and the British Isles under the Swastika with an eye toward global expansion. Saddam couldn't even manage a wart of aggression against Iran, which he lost after ten brutal years. His advance into Kuwait was an abject failure (though one that DID merit US involvement) and his economy was decimated. Of COURSE we know he had weapons of mass destruction... we still have the receipts! He GOT the bloody things from us, the Russians and the French. But he had NO means of delivering them on anything like long distance, and no means to develop it. Further, Al Qaeda was unwelcome in Iraq under Saddam's reign, because he wouldn't share his peoples' loyalties. Osama Bin laden was persona non grata in Saddam's Iraq, with a price on his head. It wasn't till WE invaded that the organization, "Al Qaeda in Iraq" was even formed, and that was done from Syria. Saddam's Iraq was a COMPLETELY secular country, which even had a small but present Jewish community, and he was SURE to keep religion out of the law because sectarian violence would threaten HIS power. NOW, however, Iraq is likely to be an Islamic state within the next ten years. And the cost to us, in the trillions and STILL climbing daily... ("Over?" Oh no, it's nothing like, "over.") not to mention the human toll of a butcher's bill we'll never really know and can never repay...
    So, in all honesty, I ask you the same simple question I asked earlier... tell me, as a veteran of that futile and wasteful war, what, exactly we got from Operation Iraqi Freedom that was worth one single dead American soldier. I eagerly await a real answer.

  4. Aime Casavant
    1 year ago

    I agree with the comments.

  5. Barbara Koch
    1 year ago

    I'm curious, Deacon Fournier, should we have fought Hitler in WWII? After all, it was the Japanese who attacked us.

  6. KarlVDH
    1 year ago

    AvantiBev.... with respect, your premise is entirely wrong. Just wrong. Except in the most basic and superficial ways, Iraq and Afghanistan are two completely different wars, with TOTALLY different enemies, who have/had entirely different goals, motivations, cultures, histories and reasons for fighting. In fact, the ONLY similarity between Iraq and Afghanistan is that both countries are in the Middle East. From there, there is no real way to compare the two at all.

  7. AvantiBev
    1 year ago

    Sadly both our secular and religious leaders refuse to acknowledge WHOM we are fighting. Labeling Afghanistan and Iraq as two different wars rather than 2 different theaters of war shows a misunderstanding of the reality of jihad - total world war, indeed the FIRST world war -- which rages still across ethnic groups and national boundaries just as Communism has done.

    Our enemy is encouraged by the somnulent nature of Western Christianity and Western cultural institutions. Why the main stream press can barely give a 2 paragraph column to the burning of 100 Christian Pakistani homes nor a 20 second mention on the nightly news to another 60 Christians dead thanks to Boko Haram in Nigeria. Again, most Americans think there is a significant ideological difference between a Boko haram jihadi and Al Queda or Indonesia's Jamaat Islamyah. Thank God - the TRUE one - that my parents and grandparents didn't think it was enough to fight one panzer division or just the Luftwaft during WWII; they knew they fought an ideology of many divisions, fronts and platoons.

    Yes, we are wasting our blood and treasure in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. But an understanding of Islam and Jihad with no rose colored glasses obscuring your vision is necessary as we cannot come home from Jihad. Indeed as Fort Hood and countless other attacks and thwarted attempts SHOULD prove, jihad has already come home to us.

    It was unwise though I think certainly not "unjust" to follow the snake into the high grass it calls home. But it would be an even bigger waste if we do not face up to the fact that the snake is now in our homes and he is not a garter snake but rather a Black Mamba.

  8. KarlVDH
    1 year ago

    As a disabled Veteran of President Bush's disgraceful war in Iraq, I have just one question: what did we get from Iraq that was worth the life of ONE SINGLE dead American soldier?
    ...anyone? Anyone at all?

  9. starzec
    1 year ago

    Thanks for the article Deacon. Huff Post has an article with the republicans who voted against the war and brief interviews with each. Fascinating.

    To Spiritus I present a situation. You live in house B. The neighbor in house A knocks down your door and damages your living room. Do you go to neighbor C and punch him in the nose? If so, welcome to the George Bush School on how to wage war. Your actions are no more justified than neighbor A's actions.

    To Mr Hugelmeyer, I ask: First Iraq war not over? Hmmm. Let's see. We pulled out of Iraq and Kuwait in 92 and total ops over by 95. Typically when troops pull back, that signifies the war is over or they are surrendering. As a veteran of that conflict, I do not recall us putting up any white flags. Since we were able to enforce a no fly zone throughout the 90's, I would say we did not surrender. So without surrendering, a withdrawal of troops meant it was over.

    The attack on the Kurds happened in March of 88 and 3 years prior to Operation Desert Storm. Not sure what your angle is on this but if you are referring to him as dangerous to the US because he gassed a Kurdish village I am not sure you fully understand what happened there. Hussein was having a border war with Iran and gassed the Kurds to garner support for his side (similar to Hitler dressing SS in Polish uniforms and having them shoot up a town to garner support to invade Poland in 1939).

    What we had was opportunism. The mostly Saudi and Kuwaiti attack on the WTC (9-11) was all Bush and Cheney needed to go to Iraq. Do you find it just a little unsettling that with all the unsolved murders in this country, they were able to identify the hijackers the by the evening? Do you find it a little questionable that we did not attack Saudi Arabia since 19 of the hijackers were in fact Saudi? Not a single Iraqi but we attack Iraq instead? This makes no sense. That is how we lost the world's support. Even the muslim world was with us until we attacked Iraq. The war was a failure all the way around.

    Someone will say "But we rid the world of Saddam Hussein." To what end? Give democracy to a people who have no idea how to operate in a democracy. As with cloning, we Americans believe we can clone our form of democracy where ever we want. We cannot do that anymore than we can clone another Einstein or Ghandi or Christ. Sure, we could get the DNA right but we cannot recreate the environment in which these people grew and were molded and without the precise experiences these men had, we would not get the same person. Likewise, our democracy grew out of an agrarian/ merchantilism into an industrialized nation that is now moving toward a society like no-one has ever seen. It cannot be thrust upon a people just because it works for us. At least Hussein in power gave the Europeans and Japanese cheap oil.

  10. John Mainhart
    1 year ago

    I think a preemptive war is morally wrong, but in this case the greatest evil was the decision not to let General Patraeus finish the job of touching the souls of the Iraquis ,by sending our troops into communities to convince them they could create a new country on trust. After the slaughter that followed the ,initial replacement of Saddam Hussein we finally decided on the right man and the right strategy for helping ,these people and then we went another way and left. Sad.

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Saint of the Day

March 1 Saint of the Day

St. David
March 1: According to tradition, St. David was the son of King Sant ... Read More