Home      About Me      Coupons      Freebies      Contact      Advertise

January 26, 2005

Iraq is a Distraction

By MJ

I can see Rummy and Cheney now, consoling the president about the 37 soldiers who lost their lives today in Iraq. “Cheer up little buddy, it’s war, these things happen. You watched it on TV during Vietnam too. You should know that watching wars on TV never gives the full story. You know in a couple days people will forget all about it. It’s okay little guy; you’re going to have good days and bad days. And this is just a bad day. Let’s turn it to Fox News. After these elections Iraq will be a democracy, and it’s all because of you. Now let’s go give that 20th press conference. Remember, you don’t have to answer any question if you don’t want to.”

Iraq is a sad display of American interventionism. I expected so much better from us. Everything about it is a total contradiction. You would think after Vietnam, America would have learned that getting involved in unnecessary wars is a mistake. I think it was Mark Twain that said history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. The threat from Iraq was not imminent. He was a powerless dictator-tyrant that posed no threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Sure he wanted WMD and anything else he could get his hands on, but so does everyone else in this messed up world. The occupation of Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. That, and I guess it depends on what sort of terrorism it is that we are fighting.

The IRA is a terrorist organization. There’s the MLA in Montana that’s also a terrorist organization. There are thousands around the world. So which terror are we focusing on? Well, right now, it’s the one in Iraq that we largely created, and the one that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. Again, makes no sense. Our war is a vague war against terrorism, not Islamic terrorism, just the single word terrorism.

Let me make some comparisons if you will. The war in Iraq today is like if in 1941, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on America, FDR decided to send 10,000 troops to aid England in defeating Hitler and then sent 150,000 troops to Argentina to fight fascists there. The whole world would have been wondering what in Haiti’s is FDR thinking, which is exactly what the world is doing today. What if FDR said, “We are aiding Britain in her struggle against the Fascist forces in Europe, and we will also bring the fight to the Fascists in Argentina where there is proof of collaboration of Nazi endeavors, and also a desire for Argentina to become more powerful by obtaining German alliance. The threat is real and growing stronger every day. We have proof that Argentina has been harboring Nazi sympathizers. We will make Argentina the central location for this Second World War, and make no mistake about it, we will prevail.”

If FDR had done that, we would still be fighting WWII today. It would have been a total distraction for America to fight in Argentina, where there was just as much circumstantial evidence of Argentina and Germany as Iraq to Al Qaeda, but it would not have won the war. The same is true for Iraq today. The fight against Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, the very country harboring him, and Pakistan, the country in which he probably spends most of his time and which he has the largest following. We have sent 10,000 troops to Afghanistan to fight the real tyrant and terror and over 150,000 and billions of dollars to Iraq to fight circumstantial evidence.

If people actually believe that Iraq has centralized Al Qaeda and “terrorists” to the ruins of Babylon, then this war against terrorism is in worse shape than I thought. I spoke to an Iraqi friend today who lives in Baghdad. This friend totally supported the overthrow of Saddam and he cannot wait to vote. But, when I asked him about Al Qaeda, he said that the actual insurgents fighting American forces and those Iraqis who want freedom, fewer than 1% have any connection to Al Qaeda and the 1% that might was probably a very small connection at that. He said that the main problem for American forces is that we keep referring to these fighters as terrorists. “They are not terrorists, they are insurgents. They are Iraqis that have been brainwashed by false hope, because there is still no hope here. America promised to bring hope, so far all we have seen is violence,” he said. Again, another distraction.

3 comments:

  1. Thanks for the comment Hymer.

    I sat as an advisor to a U.S. Senator on the sub-committee of the 9/11 Commission. I was involved in the hearings of the Commission's findings. I have read the entire Report. I do not recall the Report linking Iraqi money to Al Qaeda. In fact, the Report did just the opposite.

    The only discovery between Iraq and Al Qeada was a meeting in Turkey between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. The meeting has never been proved or disproved. I believe the meeting took place. But there is no solid proof of it. It's all circumstantial and does not warrant proof of cooperation, or reasons for invasion.

    The Report did, however, site numerous links between Iran and Saudi Arabia with Al Qaeda. Those links are substantial and solid. The cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iran and Syria before and after 9/11 are serious, but the president chose not to focus on that.

    If the Report sites a money trail between Al Qaeda and Iraq, I am not aware of it. I will do some research on it. I offer you do the same. And I will be the first to admit the omission.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey MJ

    2 Things, the left is not a monolith and I do not lump all all people left of center in the same category. If my generalization about the left doesn't define you then I probably wasn't talking about people like you. If factored every variance into my columns they'd be 100 pages long so some over generalization is bound to happen.

    2nd, Musharraf was given a choice after 9/11, essentially, join us or die. He chose to join us. There have been over 700 captured al Qaeda operatives since late 2001 despite the fact that as you pointed out, Pakistanis sympathize with the al Qaeda mission. So attacking Pakistan was in no way an option. THat being said, I think I made my argument for creating regional leverage clear. IF you disaggree with that strategy then I think we'll both have to settle for not seeing eye to eye on this particular subject, which is fine.

    You know, I may read the Clarke book now, especially because I can get it on the cheap : )

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well Mark sounds like you have everything figured out then.

    I guess when you ask for comments, you only mean ones that walk the line with you.

    ReplyDelete