"Its The War (in Bosnia), Stupid!"
The conventional "wisdom" these days (and among certain commenters on this site) is that Bush's Iraq war has "bred" a new crop of terrorists that would not have otherwise existed. This, in turn, has made the U.S. less safe. I do not intend to get into a whole debate about the Iraq war. Admittedly, there were plenty of good reasons not to get rid of Saddam when we did, and plenty of good reasons to take action. Its just that "Bush lied," "war for oil," "U.S. imperialism," "Bush was avanging his father," and "3000 troop deaths" are not among the serious arguments why the war was not a good idea.
Anyway, a few points on the "Iraq caused more terrorism" argument:
1. We were not in Iraq on September 10, 2001.
2. I have a hard time believing that the terrorists, or Muslims teetering on the brink of becoming terrorists, were just "A-Okay" with the war in Afghanistan. Why is Iraq responsible for more terrorists, but not Afghanistan? No one ever mentions troop deaths or "women and children" in connection with the war in Afghanistan, either. I guess war is the answer, sometimes.
3. Attempts to rationally explain terrorist motivations are futile and often contradictory. According to one of the 9/11 terrorists, his involvement was "inspired by an urge to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya." That's right. He was set to blow up the WTC, the Pentagon, and likely the White House because of... Bosnia.
Yeah, I'm scratchin' my head about that last one, too. I mean, our involvement in that war saved the lives of thousands of Muslims. Guess that guy didn't get the memo.
But if we're to take the terrorists at their word, which the left seems willing to do, who is to blame for our involvement in Bosnia which resulted in 9/11? Clearly it was Clinton.
Yet, for some reason, I don't hear the Bush critics blaming Clinton for 9/11. I wonder why that is...
posted by Jordan's Dad @ 10:54 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
1. You're right, we first got into Iraq when we the CIA was supporting Saddam fight Iran in the 1980s.
2. Your comments amount to, "Iraq? But What about Afghanistan?" and I'm not sure that's an appropriate or even logical response to questioning why we're in Iraq, how we got there, and what we're not going to do about it.
3. Attempts to rationally explain terrorist motivations are futile and often contradictory
Certainly. Bush's "They Can't Stand Freedom" to explain terrorism was pretty ridiculous. But seeking to understand what motivates the terrorists is a step in the right direction to defusing them, even if their motivation is contradictory and illogical.
Given the fact that terrorists are relgious fanatics and frequently social outcasts/misfits (at least in the west), it's hardly surprising their logic flow is a little thin and circular. I expect a little bit more from our elected representatives.
The point of the post was not to question why we are in Iraq. As I said, there were reasons for and against taking action when we did - and they've been argued ad nauseum. At this point, either you agree the decision to invade in 2003 was correct, or it was a mistake.
The point of the post was to respond to those, like you, who state that the fact that Iraq has increased terrorism is a reason this war was the wrong decision.
I don't think that's a good argument because it assumes the conclusion - that the war was the wrong thing to do. To prove this, I pointed out that those of you who make this argument never complain that Afghanistan created more terrorists (or resulted in troop deaths or civilian casualties) - which it most certainly did. I assume this is because, unlike Iraq, there is little argument that the war in Afghanistan was the correct action to take.
Thus, if you agree with the military action, the creation of more terrorists, troop deaths and civilan casualties is acceptable to you.
Take troop deaths - if you agree with the military action, more troop deaths will be acceptable to you. That's why says the civila war or WWI were unjustified, even though there were 500,000 killed in the civil war, and 100,000+ killed in WWII. It was accepted that those actions were justified. Just as low troop deaths do not justify a war, high troop deaths do not make the war unjustified.
The "creation of more terrorists" is not a reason in and of itself why a given military action was the wrong decision to make. If so, then the invasion of Afghanistan would also have been a mistake. This argument is simply a complaint by those who have already concluded that the war was unjustified.
Post a Comment
<< Home