Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

How Can Iraq Not Be A Front In The War On Terror?

By Rob on November 28, 2006 at 07:30 pm
6 Comments

Many critics of the war in Iraq are fond of saying that it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.  Their answers to questions about what the war is really about, if not terrorism, are varied.  They range from “for oil” to “for profit for Halliburton, etc.”, but one thing these people are always consistent on is the idea that Americans aren’t any safer from terrorism because of the war in Iraq.

Yet recently the New York Times printed a story about a leaked government report (illegally leaked, naturally, you wouldn’t expect anything less from the Times) which indicated that terrorists in Iraq are tens of millions of dollars a year, possibly as much as $200 million a year, to run their terror operations in Iraq.

This was spun by the Times and other media outlets as a negative (the terrorists have money, let’s give up!) but I’m not so sure it is.

For obvious reasons estimating the funding and expenditures of international Islamic terrorists is a difficult thing, but I think we can all agree that $200 million (or even just tens of millions as the case may be) has to represent a big chunk of the total global Islamic terrorism budget.  And if that’s true, isn’t it a good thing that the terrorists are spending all that money in Iraq where they’re being absolutely slaughtered by our troops rather than spending it on planning attacks against targets here in America?  Or targets in Europe?

It is, obviously, and it also means that the war in Iraq is and always has been a part of the war on terror.  You cannot point out that international terrorists are raising and expending huge amounts of money on fighting us in Iraq and then turn around and deny that Iraq is part of the war on terror.

Iraq is part of the war on terror, we are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here, and the war has made Americans safer from terrorism in general.  The people denying these things are either morons or unable to see beyond the end of their partisan noses.

Comments

2Hotel9

Rob, there you go again, wanting to fight terrorists instead of understanding their pain and, and, Damnit! I could not finish that sentence without laughing.

Their point is that we should not be fighting terrorism anywhere. We are the evil, hegemonistic white devils and deserve to be killed by people of “color”. As far as they are concerned, America must be punished. That we have the unmitigated gall to stand and defend ourselves just makes us that much more guilty and deserving of death.

There, now don’t you feel better?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on November 29, 2006 at 03:45 am
Steve L.

We are the evil, hegemonistic white devils and deserve to be killed by people of “color”.

This is the entire basis of liberal political thought.  Look at any policy proposed by liberals.  In every case, you will find traces of this very thing.  We are evil and need to be punished for it.

"Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James

Steve L. on November 29, 2006 at 04:25 am
The Whistler

As I pointed out in this post, the Ba’athists (Saddam’s Party) are no longer fighting in Iraq.

That makes Iraq the central front in the GWOT.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on November 29, 2006 at 04:51 am
Avatar for Puzzlefeet

Bush wanted this report ‘leaked’ to the NYtimes, he ain’t screaming about it is he?  He’s trying to save face here so he lets the report leak to theNYTimes so he can get out of Iraq.  He supports this “leak”.

Puzzlefeet on November 29, 2006 at 04:29 pm
Carrick

Puzzle, you’re confusing the partially-leaked Delvin report with the memo.  Rob’s talking about the Delvin report here.

With so many leaked classified documents published by the New York Times, it’s a bit difficult to keep up with which one is which.

Carrick on November 29, 2006 at 04:58 pm
Carrick

Here’s a commentary on the leaked Delvin report:

Somehow, the Washington Post has managed to distort the conclusions of a secret intelligence assessment on the situation in Anbar so grotesquely as to somehow morph Marine Corps Colonel Peter Devlin’s recommendations for smashing al-Qaeda in Iraq into a fantastical military mea culpa, instead concluding that Devlin insists that it is impossible to defeat al-Qaeda or the insurgents.
Please forgive the self-reference, but in Distorting Marines As Martyrs, an attempt has been made to initiate a vigorous defense of Colonel Devlin, who in fact asserts that with another division (15k - 20k troops) and the Fallujafication of Ramadi, al-Qaeda can be defeated in Iraq.

H/T Bill in DC

Carrick on November 29, 2006 at 05:01 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 
 @ 
<a>
Close Tags

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.