Contradiction: The war was wrong but the outcome is favorable?

Submitted by dahvid (United States), Jun 20, 2014 at 07:38

That the war was wrong but the outcome is favorable seems to be a contradiction. Wasn't the plan all along to destabilize the enemy and incite internecine warfare among them? The offer of a stable democracy may have been a pipe dream but at least that valiant effort was made.

If the outcome is favorable then shouldn't Bush be thanked rather than blamed? Is Obama helplessly just following the script or is he playing politics? Doesn't he do whatever he wants regardless of the law. Even now there are news reports about Obama sending troops back in.

Flashback to the time just after the WTC attack:

* Israel was constantly the victim of terror attacks. The president and the world would wag their fingers at Israel if they dared respond. Recall the moral equivalence debates.

* Islamic terrorists were detonating bombs in India and elsewhere.

* Passenger planes were frequently disappearing or targeted by terrorists.

* Jihad was declared against Jews everywhere in the world.

*Kurds and others were being hurt.

* Did Saddam declare war against the USA?

* Iran and Iraq had been intense wars.

* What else, I can't remember it all.

Put yourself in Bush's shoes for just a moment. The WTC has been attacked, a financial hub of the nation, and 3000 died. The nation is defensive and on war footing. The terror bombings have been wearing patience thin. The enemy is gloating and goading for war. The enemy is a shadowy figure, Islamic, and America does not understand it. The issue of Sunni vs Shiite is not clearly understood.

Should you attack and if so who to attack? If you do nothing the enemy will be emboldened and the citizens fearful that you are not defending the nation. The emboldened enemy would strike again and again and harder. What would you do? Bush was damned if he did attack and damned if he didn't.

Who to attack, that was the question. Some shadowy suicide sect with members from Saudi Arabia?Why not attack Saudi Arabia? Because of oil? The reason why he decided on Iraq is unknown to me, perhaps it was part of some 7 step plan (I read in the news) to weaken the enemy and turn it against it's self. The end result of destabilization and internecine war among the enemy could have been accomplished via airstrikes and covert operations, could it not? But the citizens would not approve of bombing and inciting war and so Bush decided to try to offer a western style democracy by invading. It was an audacious move that infuriated many and so was the WTC attack and all the previous terror attacks.

It may have been purely evil as so many people believe, or merely poor judgment. It is clear that no matter what you do these Islamic sects will fight each other and everyone else, Bush or no Bush, Iraq or no Iraq.

Fast forward to today, the troops have withdrawn:

* The terror attacks in Israel, India, and elsewhere have dropped significantly.

* Airplanes are not frequently disappearing, blowing up, or being hijacked.

*Kurds returning to their previous land that was taken away from them.

* Mr. Pipes says in a speech, "Implications of the ISIS Conquests in Iraq" that the result, (dividing the land into smaller ethnic areas) is positive, and so far the comments here agree.

*It is 4:30 AM and I am sitting here typing this and wondering why.

Bush is blamed here while Obama is blameless. Although Obama is now considering sending troops back. Did he make any effort to halt the withdrawal or is he playing politics?

Here's a new twist that has appeared as the delicacies the the Islamic sect feud surface. There are some reports that Obama a Sunni Muslim. That would explain a lot. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Here's a couple of links some of these claims about Obama being a Sunni Muslim:

http://patriotsbillboard.org/this-is-why-obama-is-a-sunni-muslim/

http://adinakutnicki.com/tag/the-ties-that-bind-barack-hussein-obama-to-sunni-islam-and-the-brotherhood-mafia/

Mr. Pipes regarded opinion on if Obama is or is not a Sunni Muslim please?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".