We Made the Right Decision to Invade Iraq
Mark Nuckols / Townhall Columnist

The U.S. was absolutely right to invade and conquer Iraq
in 2003. It suddenly has become a stock question to ask candidates for
the Republican Presidential nomination a seemingly simple question:
would you have invaded Iraq in 2003, knowing then what we know now? And
most of them have fumbled badly. And the usual liberal suspects are
jabbering away about how the war was based on a bunch of lies and
utterly unjustified. Let me explain the proper and most sensible answer
to this question.
I have always been surprised that nobody seems to see the
crucial importance of one essential fact.
The price of oil for the last
decade has averaged around $100 a barrel. In the decade or so prior to 2003,
it was well under $20. In 2003, Saddam’s Iraq was, absent WMD, merely a
potential threat to the security interests of the U.S. and our allies in
the Middle East. (And. yes, the United States of America has serious
and legitimate security interests which we would be foolhardy to deny.)
Boxed in by sanctions and no-fly zones, and with oil at low prices,
Saddam was financially broke and militarily broken.
But fast forward five or ten years. If we had not overthrown his
regime, sooner or later Saddam would have wiggled out from under the
sanctions regime. And with his coffers flush with record high oil
revenues, does anyone doubt that the French and the Russians would have
been more than eager to sell Saddam every kind of military hardware his
heart desired? We would have been facing not a pathetically weak
tin-horn dictator, but a well-armed menace to the security of the Gulf,
but by extension to our security. I believe that if you face a nasty and
vicious adversary who can someday potentially harm you, better to stomp
him into the ground when he’s weak and helpless, rather than being nice
and giving him a chance to arm himself.