Thursday, June 30, 2005

True, except that maybe it's not.
From David Ignatius, we get:

The war in Iraq has in fact made America's terrorism problem worse. The CIA reached that judgment in a recent report, and any fair-minded person would come to the same conclusion. By toppling the cruelly repressive regime of Saddam Hussein, the United States turned Iraq into a new breeding ground for jihadists. That doesn't mean the war was wrong, but it does make it hard to justify as an anti-terrorism stratagem.
OK, let's look at this rationally. It was the undisputed policy of the US government to support regime change in Iraq. Presumably, short of invading as we did, we should have hoped for a popular uprising to overthrow Saddam?

What history is there of such revolutions? Hmm... I'm thinking of... Afghanistan—which resulted in? That's right: Al Quaeda, and the initial creation of bin Laden's power. Sounds like something to replicate. Not fair, because it was our actions that created him? OK, let's look at another example...

Iran—certainly no one can accuse us of sponsoring that revolution. And, oh look, it resulted in Terrorist/jihadist training and recruiting grounds as well!

So here's the thing: the MIDDLE EAST is a recruiting ground for jihadists and the only way that's going to change is when its people get to taste and prosper under freedom's reign.

Yes, our action initiated a jihadist revolt—but so would waiting for Saddam's death, or encouraging the Iraqi people to rise up on their own. To suggest otherwise—that the nation would have been just fine on its own—is irresponsible and deceptive.

No comments: