It is not stupid for Americans to believe that there were links between Iraq, Saddam Hussein and those who attacked us on September 11th.
Andy McCarthy has opined about the issue on National Review Online.
From the article:
But they (democratization, etc.) are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.
That is why we are in Iraq.
. . .
Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.
16 comments:
The Pentagon apparently disagrees.
D'oh! I hadn't heard about that report--good censoring, I guess.
But here's a key statement from the report: Sponsored by the Pentagon, the report found no "direct operational link" between Saddam's government in Iraq and bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror ring before the U.S. invasion, an official told McClatchy.
I think "direct operational link" is a more serious assertion than Bush & Co.--not to mention, I have ever made.
Oh, and it appears that reporting on the Report is a little slanted.
See here.
Ned,
It appears the links they show are between Saddam Hussein and Palestinian terrorists...which would include just about every Arab/Muslim country.
Most of their terrorist activities were related to dissidents in and outside of Iraq. Bad stuff to be sure, but nothing that Russia hasn't been doing.
Fair point, and this whole issue brings to light different perspectives on the War in Iraq: I view Iraq as simply theatre II in the GWOT (or war against Jihadists), others think that Bush and neocons just wanted a pretext for invading Iraq.
Ned,
Considering Saddam was a Ba'athis who was hated by Al Qaeda, I have trouble buying into this notion. Iran or Syria would've been better targets if that was our goal.
This was a grudge and ideological exercise. Maybe the people who made the decisions thought it would help us in the war to transform the Middle East, but regardless, I think they thought Iraq was the easiest target as it had been isolated and decimated after 10 years of sanctions, so they'd be easier to take out and try and implement their capitalist/republic domino theory.
[note: I should note that Syria is Ba'athist too, but they were less isolated than Iraq was]
No doubt that it was perceived to be the easiest target . . . it was unfinished business, and that fact coupled with Saddam's nose-thumbing of the international community, rendered foolish a decision (by Bush and Co) to start Theatre II anywhere else, don't you agree?
Ned,
Well, personally I disagree that we needed to have another theatre just for sh*** and giggles. I think we should've stayed in Afghanistan and stopped them there/gone after them into Pakistan.
While you may be attracting genuine Al-Qaeda into this battlefront, you are also further radicalizing the region and creating insurgents/terrorists where they weren't before.
I understand. Unfortunately the effort to be effective in Afghanistan (militarily and democracy-building-wise) presented difficulties. Misjudgments were likely made. Misjudgments are endemic to war and foreign policy.
Ned,
And policy makers should be judged accordingly for their mistakes or else they might be as careless in the future.
I hear you. That being said, I don't think it is as cut and dried of a test of competency to govern as many on the Left contend. And I believe that's why the Left is so vested in all their accusations of malevolence and cravenness and deception.
Ned,
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge they believed the reasons for launching the war was just and in the best interest of America.
I also think it was an academic argument gone awry. It was the result of an echo chamber in which basic questions were dismissed, and faulty assumptions were taken as the gospel, to the point where there was only one right thing to do, and people like Colin Powell were dismissed because his views didn't jibe with their own.
Now, maybe when all is said and done history will judge this effort as a worthy cause. But the simple truth is that I believe today what I believed the day before we went to war...Saddam Hussein was not a threat to America, and was a negligible threat to the region. It was a distraction from the war on terror, and has now become a proving ground for Muslim fundamentalists looking to join a movement...and I fear the next terrorist attack will include many who were tested and trained on the Iraqi battlefield.
I'm not sure I'd disagree with anything you said, but I think it is significant that former Iraqi insurgents are now fighting against the Jihadists and that many Jihadists are meeting their maker on what is arguably the frontline of the war against militant Islam. I still wrestle with whether it is worth risking American lives.
Btw, did you catch "Bush's War" Part I on Frontlines last night?
Consider our government's assesment of the Bush so-called GWOT, striking as to what it has accomplished after 6 yrs, nearly a trillion spent, 4002 US dead, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed and tens of thousands of US maimed.
National Intelligence Estimate:
the Islamic terrorist organization’s rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
-----
By any measure - a total failure and actually counter productive to the goal.
Your numbers are off, William. There are over 7,000 Americans dead, and your numbers of Iraqi dead are specious, and your assigning responsibility to Americans (even William!) is especially so.
Post a Comment