Let me throw this one by you
I was thinking today, which is a rarity in itself, about this "war" that we are in. The commonly-used talking point in the pro-war camp is that we need to fight terrorism there to prevent another attack here in the U.S. Now, here is my problem. Since when do terrorists have to fight us in Iraq? It has been made pretty clear that there wasn't much of a terrorist problem in Iraq while Hussein was in power. Now there is - mostly because we are there. However, if terrorists wanted to attack the U.S. again they could just do that. I mean, if we want to prevent Iran from attacking us we could attack Iran. Unless they want to give up their country then they'd be forced to defend themselves in Iran. Terrorists, however, have no home. In fact, one high ranking government official had this to say about terrorists In a 2004 speech,:
"The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased, or negotiated with." (my emphasis)So we can't expect them to stick around and "defend" Iraq right? Oh, by the way. The quote was from Dick Cheney in case you didn't check the link.
This brings me to the question. Exactly how is fighting in Iraq preventing terrorists from attacking the U.S.? What incentive do terrorists have to stay in Iraq? There may be some that ultimately want to control Iraq, but that does not seem like Al Qaeda's mission.
I know what the next pro-war point will be. We can't leave Iraq because chaos will become the order of the day. I ways back I went to the Pasadena Civic's Distinguished speaker series and listened to Mikhail Gorbachev. One of the points that he made that stuck with me was that no stable democracy can be created by an outside force. Those within the budding democracy need to create it on their own. I feel like the people of Iraq need to be the driving force behind their new government. This is an opinion that the majority of Iraqis want as well. (Just look at the charts in this link)
In short, I have found myself incredibly frustrated of late on this issue. I am not seeing that there is light at the end of the tunnel. I'm probably preaching to the choir a bit and only repeating ideas that are all over the internet, but I really wanted to say more than "I agree". Assuming that the publicly stated reasons for staying in Iraq are bullshit, what other possible reason could Bush have now other than giving Halliburton more money?
Posts
2 comments:
“What incentive do terrorists have to stay in Iraq? There may be some that ultimately want to control Iraq, but that does not seem like Al Qaeda's mission.” The goal, at least of Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, is to get the US out of there so they can establish an Islamic dictatorship. Al Qaeda’s mission is to seize terroritory over the long run and they have been quite clear that their long term goal is to establish a united Islamic Caliphate. They will not defend Iraq, but they will control portions of it like they did in Somalia and Afganistan and use it as a base of operations. Also, not all of the terrorists in Iraq are part of or directly connected to Al Qaeda, such as the ones being sent by Iran and Syria and the ones that are left over from Saddam’s regime. All three of these organizations have different motivations with Iran being theologically opposed to the Sunni Al Qaeda with a belief that they can herald in the end times with the returning of the 12th Imam. The Baathists in Syria are mainly interested in holding onto power, but both countries see a destabalized Iraq as being in their long term interest. Meanwhile the Baathists in Iraq are mainly interested in regaining power and avoiding retaliation from other groups. You may put “war” in quotations all you want, but Iran has been at war with the US since 1979 and Al Qaeda declared war on us since 1998 with the specific goal of driving all non-Islamic elements out of all territory held, or formerly held, by Muslims.
"no stable democracy can be created by an outside force" You might want to let Italy, Japan, and Germany know about that. You do realize that it was General Macarthur who wrote Japan’s now sixty year old democratic constitution. Gorbachev does know somethiung about occupying forces since he had his troops butcher unarmed Lithuanian prostestors when they peacefully demonstarated against Soviet occupation, but what does Gorbachev, an unrepetent communist dictator, know about starting a democracy?
“Assuming that the publicly stated reasons for staying in Iraq are bullshit, what other possible reason could Bush have now other than giving Halliburton more money?” You can do better than that.
I knew you'd jump on this one. I'm not sure I see foiling the world domination plans of Islamic terrorists as a legit goal for being in Iraq. Are they really that much of a threat to a world with that many democratic nuclear powers? If this was the goal from the start, why didn't we say so? Reason #1: WMDs and get rid of Saddam. Reason #2: Democracy in Iraq. Reason #3: prevent terror from coming here again. At what point have we really argued that we wanted to prevent world domination by Islamic extremists? If that was the terrorists goal all along, why didn't Bush say so from day 1? I can see your point sort of, but your reasoning is not the one we are being told.
Italy's independence/unification was started partly by Italians like Garibaldi, no? If so, I'm not sure I agree with that one. Germany may have been freed from the Nazis during WWII and "given" a new democracy, but what role did we play in their government? Unified Germany after the Cold War came with the hopes and desires of the people on both sides of the wall. I see your point with Japan, but I'll stick with my argument on the others because they were democracies created by their people with some help from outsiders. We are no longer welcome by most Iraqis, now even among the Kurds who want our protection from everyone else.
Just because Gorby is an unrepetent communist dictator doesn't mean he doesn't understand democracy. You are a conservative-ish Christian Texan but seem to know a good bit about Islamic extremism. (hmm..maybe there is something we are all missing here about you?)
The Halliburton comment was a joke, although not a good one. I'm serious though. If the reasons that Bush has used in his attempts to justify this war are bullshit, which seems more-and-more the case every day, what is the reason? Maybe deep down its more like your "Islamic extremists are trying to take over the world" theory or maybe he just likes fightin' like other Texans (no offense to more peaceful Texans)
Post a Comment