Bush Is Right

Submitted by John R (United States), Oct 29, 2006 at 19:13

Bush: Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the war on terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan under the Taliban. … The fact that the fighting is tough does not mean our efforts in Iraq are not worth it. To the contrary; the consequences in Iraq will have a decisive impact on the security of our country, because defeating the terrorists in Iraq is essential to turning back the cause of extremism in the Middle East. If we do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in Iraq, they will gain access to vast oil reserves, and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middle East. They will launch new attacks on America from this new safe haven. They will pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia. … If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's security, I'd bring our troops home tomorrow.

I agree 100%

Actually, the Bush administration has already helped Islamists take over in Baghdad (not to speak of the Palestinian Authority) through elections; is that really so different from their winning a military victory? And speaking of a military victory, that is what Islamists are currently achieving in Somalia, with barely any response from Washington.

The corollary to successfully invading Somalia is apparantly, virtually nothing. For Iraq, it's the opportunity to make America and the world safer. We went to war with Iraq because of the threat of nuclear weapons amid the World Trade Center terrorist attack still fresh on our minds. Somalia does not posess nor do we perceive weapons of mass destruction, unlike Iraq, hence we cannot treat Iraq and Somalia the same way. Iraq being a source of oil is another reason.

I think it has little to do with the dangers of Islamists taking over there but results instead from the accumulated inertia of what I yesterday called the "mouse that roared" or "Pottery Barn rule" assumption. This holds that when the United States protects its interests by invading a country, it then has a moral obligation to rehabilitate it. That's a mistaken mentality that is leading to major damage. It needs to be focused on and reassessed. (October 25, 2006)

We are not rehabilitating for altruistic or moral reasons a country that we invade, Dr, Pipes, as if Americans are a bunch of saints. We do that for our own self interest also, therefore it is not for moral reasons and therefore there is nothing wrong with it. In the case of Iraq, we rehabilitate for the sake of lessening terrorism against us.

I would like to see us go to the mat over our plan of establishing democracy in Iraq, etc, etc, those that Bush and his acolytes have been saying despite Iraq's devolution of internecine strife. To fall short is to sugarcoat a failure. Hang in there, we'll make it.

John R.

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".