Say Anything Blog

The profound difficulty with any such study (as the authors make clear) is it cannot judge how things would have been in the absence of intervention.  And in my mind the most important intervention that was taken was the invasion of Afghanistan, from the perspective of global terrorism.

With respect to Iraq, what we do know for a fact is that Saddam had the capability of projecting violence upon those he saw as enemies (most of the world), and generally exercised that capability whenever he got the chance.  So when you consider the equation, you must also include the effects of removing that violent monster from power on regional stability, which is a much different question than what it’s effect on global terrorism is.

For example, we do know that starting in 2001, the Jerusalem Brigade, to infiltrate Israel and “liberate” Jerusalem.  While this sounds a bit far fetched, so too does the notion that he would have invaded Kuwait, had we heard that assertion in 1989.  We do know that he was funding suicide attacks against Israel, and that the frequency of those attacks has gone way down, since his fall.

That all aside, I think the question is framed improperly.... even the body of the report contains gems like the quote of Shehzad Tanweer:

What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq

Even had we not invaded Iraq, the presence of non-Muslim troops in Afghanistan would have been an impetus for terrorist attacks.  And if it hadn’t been Afghanistan or Iraq, it would have been US troops in Dubai.  And if not in Dubai, it would be Israeli soldiers in the Golan Heights, and so forth. 

In my view, the underlying problems that are generating terrorism in the Middle East have less to do with US policy or our presence in Iraq, than with long-standing social inequities in that region, and a group of totalitarian nations and principalities who are bankrolling terrorism in those countries as part of their own long-term strategic aims. 

If you want to stop terrorism, you have to stop the money flow to terrorist groups, first and for most.  Secondly, you have to address the social causes of terrorism, which are almost entirely regional in origin.

Ironically, the US invasion of Iraq did address both of those issues.  It is unfortunate that the post-war occupation was bungled so badly, or we might have seen real fruits to the strategy of democratization of the region.

In the end, it may well be argued that to the degree that the Iraq War has inflamed passions among jihadist terorrists has more to do with the mis-implementation of the strategy, than the strategy itself.

MikeA: Common sense will tell you that the constant undermining of the war on terrorism by our MSM and the Dems in Congress emboldens the terrorists, who can’t possibly ignore the fact that if the Dems get their way, we will run away from Iraq and Afghanistan, and then from the rest of the fight against terrorism, leaving the US as the battleground.

---

Save America; boycott the MSM.

R108
This, “Common sense” you speak of sounds like quite a propagandist to me!

---

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

R108 This, “Common sense” you speak of sounds like quite a propagandist to me!

You illustrate the truth of what Mark Twain said, Sparkie: “There is nothing so uncommon as common sense.”

Here’s another one that suits you, as well:  “Most people see the world not as it is but as they are.” (from the movie, “Anna and the King")

You see “a propagandist” because you are, above all on this blog, a propagandist.

---

Save America; boycott the MSM.