"If we were to fail, they'd come and get us. … If we let up, we'll be attacked. … It's better to fight them there than here."
Clearly, this is nonsense on three levels.
First, the vast majority of the insurgents have nothing to do with al-Qaida or its ideology. They're combatants in a sectarian conflict for power in Iraq, and they have neither the means nor the desire to threaten North America.
Second, to the extent that the true global terrorists could attack us at home, they could do so whether or not U.S. troops stay or win in Iraq. The one issue has nothing to do with the other.
Third, what kind of thing is this to say in front of the allies? If our main goal in bombing, strafing, and stomping through Iraq is to make sure we don't have to do so on our own territory, will any needy nation ever again seek our aid and cover?
But PAF is feeling nostalgic. Remember the good old days not so long after 9-11 when the President was "not that concerned" about bin Laden and Al Qaeda? You know, when he was trying to divert our attention from Afghanistan by downplaying Osama and Al Qaeda because (a) he had just let them escape and (b) he wanted to refocus our attention on Iraq to convince us Saddam was somehow a greater threat?
March 13, 2002. We invaded Iraq one year later. Now, of course, we can't possibly end that senseless war because of, you know, al Qaeda.
No comments:
Post a Comment