Hey, anti-war crowd, I got a question for you: WAS IRAQ ALL ABOUT OIL - OR ISRAEL?

I think the war in Iraq is all about living in a post-9/11 world, and confronting this era's new dangers.

The "anti-war" crowd doesn't see it that way.

They say we went to war for the oil.

And they say we went to war for Israel.

And they say we should not go to war for either.

It seems to me that it there's a lot wrong with these anti-war arguments.

First, both arguments cannot be true: we cannot have gone to war for Israel AND for oil.

This is ridiculous on its face - though people who believe this don't seem to see the contradiction. They seem comfortable saying that Bush is simultaneously in Israel's back-pocket, Saudi Arabia's back-pocket, and "Big Oil's" back-pocket - even though these three groups have highly differentiated and even conflicting interests.

Another thing that's nutty about this: Even Mearsheimer and Walt admit in their book that Israel lobbied Bush NOT to go to war against Saddam.

But the real kicker is this: No US troops have ever been directly deployed to defend Israel, while US troops have been deployed to defend Muslims MANY times: in Kosovo, in the No Fly Zones, in the Gulf War, and so on. The TRUTH is that US troops have been DIRECTLY used to save Muslims and Muslim lands while US troops have never EVER been used to defend Israel. The idea that US foreign policy is "dictated" by Israel or "the Israel Lobby" is simply not supported by history.

The "blood for oil" argument is also ridiculous: If we wanted Iraq's oil all we had to do was end sanctions. Very US Big Oil company could have WALTZED into Iraq and made any deal they wanted. Bush could have easily done this. If ALL Bush wanted was access to Iraqi oil, then he could have blamed the failed sanctions on Clinton and decided tom "engage" Saddam with trade - called "IRAQI DETENTE."

Certainly the Persian Gulf is strategically important because of its oil - THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO EXPEL SADDAM FROM KUWAIT IN THE GULF WAR - a just war, which MOST Democrat US Senators VOTED AGAINST! (This is one reason so many voted FOR the 2002 Saddam War Resolution: the didn't want to make the same mistake they made in 1991!) Persian Gulf oil has been considered a VITAL US interest and a vital interest to the Free World since 1980 - when President Jimmy Carter said - in his final SOTU that the USA would defend the Gulf and use military force of necessary.

So, oil was a factor. We can not ever let the region fall under the hegemony of al Qaeda or Iran.
And Israel was a factor. Saddam was supporting jihado-terror against Israel.

Probably both contributed to the decision, but neither was decisive.

What was decisive was the fact that the UNSCR's were the de facto armistice of the Gulf War and it was proven beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT - and accepted by David Kay and Blix - that Iraq was in violation of several of the UNSCR's. Saddam filed a FALSE declaration, and hampered the inspectors, and was in violation of several UNSCR's. UNSCR #1441 was an ultimatum; we told Saddam: "This is your last chance to obey - or else!"Saddam flunked and paid the consequences. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

If the antiwar crowd would accept that - and stop bellyaching about the war, then not onl;y would we sending a less ambiguous message to al Qaeda and Iran vis a vis their meddling in Iraq, we would ALSO be sending a much less AMBIGUOUS signal to Iran regarding their nuclear programs. As it stands now - because of the anti-war belly-aching - Iran thinks they can get away with violation the IAEA and the UNSC.

And that just makes war MORE likely.

When "or else" means nothing, diplomacy will always fail.

The stronger and more united we are, the LESS likely our foes will do things we must counter with force.

Unity and Resolve are important parts of Deterrence.

The anti-war crowd's irrational attacks on our motives, and their awfulization of the campaign only aids the enemy and makes another war more likely.

It's time for the anti-war crowd to STFU.