I’ve mentioned Steven Den Beste’s strategic outline on the war on terrorism before, but it’s helpful to point it out again for those who haven’t seen it yet. Den Beste gives the best explanation of what’s going on in the war on terrorism I’ve yet seen, but he also explains the underlying reasons why we’re doing what we’re doing. Those who are tempted to explain away the war in Iraq as a war for oil, Halliburton, revenge, or any of the crude shibboleths used by the radical left to explain Iraq would do well to use Den Beste’s research to understand the actual rationale for this war.
Necessary Reading
Published
Section III, part C explains fairly well why Bush is a failure: when we should have been focusing on the religious extremists that had actaully attacked us on Sept. 11, we instead attacked the only secular state in the region and incited new attacks against Americans, only now where we are most vulnerable.
JR: Youssef Bodansky among others have already explaned why Iraq’s connections to terrorism made it a crucial target in the War on Terror.
Furthermore, Den Beste specifically notes that is the “small solution” – the larger solution is the reformation of the Middle East, and goes into why Iraq is crucial to that goal in Section VI.
“Iraq’s connections to terrorism” don’t concern me, since those “connections” were not what caused September 11th. If anything, the ties between SAUDI ARABIA and terrorism should have been mentioned. Additionally, if the larger goal is to reshape the Middle East, why did we start with a secular state and not an Islamic regime that brutally oppresses its people under the guise of Divine Law? Don’t you think that would have been a better display of American resolve (especially considering that Saudis were the most represented nationality among 9/11 hijackers?)
So, again I ask: why Iraq if not political expediency? It sure as hell wasn’t in the interests of national security or global stability.
The answer is contained in Den Beste’s piece – Saddam was an important symbol of anti-Americanism in the region, he was a threat to that region and quite possibly to the United States, and he was funding terrorism.
The reason we’re not going after Saudia Arabia and the others directly is because if we win in Iraq we won’t have to – a free and democratic Iraq would quickly create a chain reaction throughout the Muslim world. Based on the reaction and the opposition to this project, it’s clear that the jihadis understand this as well.
Saddam may have been a symbol for anti-Americanism, but he was hardly a threat to the region (especially when surrounded by 300,000 US forces this Spring) as the quick war clearly showed.
Also, remember that other symbol of anti-Americanism, the one that we wanteed “dead or alive?” You remember: Osama bin Forgotten?
And you’re actually placing bets that a US-backed democracy in Iraq is going to create a chain reaction in the Middle East? Okay, I’ll grant that, but thinking that it will be a pro-democracy chain reaction is just delusional. AND you’re pushing the “increased terror is a sign of progress” line, which is also really, really dumb. Increased terror, Jay, is a sign of increased terror. That may be a tautology, but it’s at least true. If more attacks are occuring, how do you suppose that means we’re winning? By my estimation, that means we’re coming under fire more often and losing more brave soldiers. If that’s a sign of success, what the hell would it take to convince you of failure–someone trying to lob a mortar round at Paul “The Media is Exagerrating the Threat” Wolfowitz?
The greatest flaw with defending the course of the war by citing increased attacks on our troops, Jay, is that it would look exactly the same if we did the right thing or the wrong thing. If we’re right, and your defense holds, then the attacks are a sign of progress. If you’re wrong, and I’m right in saying that the attacks are caused by our failing policies…you see where this is going. You’re backing a position that is not only against the conventional wisdom and general consensus, but you’re doing it in such a way that you’ll never have to admit that you’re wrong, even when we come home and the Tinker Toy government we’ve left there comes crashing down.