Liberal myth

The war in Iraq is premised on lies and distortions, so America should withdraw its forces quickly.

The facts

Congress voted to go to war in Iraq to secure American national security and to establish a secure and free Iraq. A rapid withdrawal would be a catastrophic mistake.

• There existed a substantial consensus for a decade before the 2003 invasion that Iraq posed a threat to American national security
• While substantial stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, Saddam Hussein's regime failed to cooperate fully with UN arms inspectors and significant evidence exists that his regime sought to retain technical knowledge and capabilities to resume secret WMD programs when sanctions were lifted
• Not only has al-Qaeda sought to obtain weapons of mass destruction, but mounting evidence suggests that it had numerous contacts with Saddam's regime, which had a long history of supporting terrorism

American interests secured

U.S. national security has been enhanced by the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

• American investigators uncovered components of Saddam's illegally concealed weapons of mass destruction programs, including undeclared “laboratories and safe houses” and “reference strains of biological organisms” for the production of germ agents
• The United States has an opportunity to recast Iraq as a stable democracy that will be a force for stability in the volatile Middle East and a useful ally in the war against terrorism

Iraqi ties to terrorists

Iraq had a long history of supporting terrorism and numerous contacts with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

• Coalition forces discovered signs of terrorist activity at the Salman Pak training facility near Baghdad
• A Hussein-era Iraqi intelligence document has identified “the Saudi Osama bin Laden” on a list of “collaborators”

Iraq viewed as a threat

For several years before the Iraq war began, liberals, like conservatives, believed Iraq and its weapons programs posed a growing threat to American security.

• Liberal former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) said in 2003 that “there is a long line of evidence going back to the early ’90s that Saddam Hussein had lots of weapons of mass destruction and that he used them against his own people. The UN believed that. Hans Blix believed that; President Chirac, President Schroeder, certainly Bill Clinton and his administration and now this administration.”
• In 1998, President Clinton told Congress that “the policies and actions of the Saddam Hussein regime continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, as well as to regional peace and security.”
• President Clinton told military leaders in 1998 that if America failed to act against Saddam Hussein, “he will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”
• Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said Saddam Hussein should be treated as a threat since he was “a weapons of mass destruction repeat offender.”
• Former Secretary of State Albright insisted Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat: “I don’t think that the world has seen, except maybe since Hitler, someone who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. ... If you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far—that he can do untold damage.”
• Liberal congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in 2002 that “Saddam Hussein is evil, has evil intentions, is developing weapons of mass destruction, have used them on his own people, these facts we have known for a long time.”

Rapid withdrawal would be a military disaster

A politically driven pullout would be a military disaster.

• A political pullout would send a dangerous signal of weakness and fecklessness to both our allies and enemies
• The Iraqi government forces would be demoralized and could begin to hedge their bets by making deals with, or even defecting to, the insurgency
• Insurgent groups would be emboldened to redouble their efforts against Americans to strengthen their claim to a military victory and attract more recruits

An Al Qaeda victory

Many would perceive a sudden U.S. withdrawal as a major victory for Al Qaeda.

• Al Qaeda has made Iraq a crucial theater in its global terrorist campaign
• Osama bin Laden would gain a flood of new recruits inspired by the successful “jihad” in Iraq
• Iraq would be transformed into a base for a global terrorist network
• Bin Laden or other Islamic extremists might be able to use Iraq’s oil wealth to finance terrorism around the world.

Political disaster

• A withdrawal would undercut efforts to increase international support for the Iraqi government, just when it appears to be gaining momentum

Related Heritage research

• James Carafano, “In Iraq, Fear Shouldn't be Our Guide,” November 18, 2005
• James Phillips, “Firm and Patient Realism Needed in Iraq,” June 23, 2005 
• James Phillips, “Slow But Steady Progress in Iraq,” April 15, 2005
• Issues 2004: “Iraq”

Other resources

• "Key Findings," Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, Central Intelligence Agency, December 13, 2004