Posted on 01/09/2005 10:16:15 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Even strong supporters of President Bush's foreign polices are not blind to the merit of some of the opposing strategic arguments. Those who maintain that the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror and that Bush was dead wrong to assert that Iraq was the frontline in the war at least deserve a nod to the respectability of their case. As for those who claim Bush is wrongheaded to push democracy on the Middle East, some weight of history seems on their side. And, to those who label advocates of the Bush Doctrine ignorant of the complexities inherent in the Islamic world, I plead nolo contendere.
But no less an authority than Osama bin Laden has settled the strategic argument, for he has now joined Bush's policy of doing battle with international "jihadism" in Iraq.
In his newest tape he has demanded that Iraqis refrain from voting in the upcoming elections and has declared those who do exercise the franchise to be apostates. In effect he has confirmed that what is really going on is an Islamic civil war. Bin Laden's vision of a restored caliphate and a resurrection of Saddam's fascistic absolutism are at war with acceptance of the need to reconcile Islam to modernity.
In contrast, Ayad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, believes in consent of the governed. There is no in between in that struggle. And on that score the issue should now be settled for Americans of all stripes.
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
Better that we fight the terrorists on their soil than ours.
Bin Laden has "mis-underestimated" both GW and the American people once again. He must be getting advice from Kerry's campaign staffers.
Interesting way to look at things...thanks!
I fearless predict that if Allawi wins, the other side will form a new obstructionist party and call themselves Democrats.
should read - fearlessly
But maybe these need to re-assess their understanding of just what is going on. With the conversion of Iraq to a semblance of a democracy, Bush has, in essence, broken up the entire islamic middle east. Pakistan is now isolated from Iran by Afghanista, Iran is isolated from Saudi Arabia by Iraq.
Now, if Syria was given the Iraqi treatment, the breakup would be unmistakenly complete.
It's an ambitious vision, I'll agree, but not impossible. It's amazing the ease of bringing about the fall of the government of Afghanistan when Russia couldn't do it, so we've already accomplished way more than history might have predicted.
Baghdad was (is to bin Laden) the seat of the Caliphate and as such Iraq has always been very key to these islamofascists and their world view.
This is about fascism and despotism. Bin Laden and the rest of the murderous terrorists couldn't give a flying freep about the Caliphate.
The Soviets brought down Afghanistan's government almost as quickly as we did. What the Sovs didn't have that we do is an indiginous population sympathetic to their form of government. The Afghans tried the fundamentalist way for 20 years after the Soviets withdrew, that's why they were primed for democracy.
Ditto Iraq, except they had fascism of a secular nature. Iraqis want American-style freedom and liberty, watch and see.
Also, like you I have to disagree with the 'nod to the respectability of their case' BS.
Those wussies need to grow a pair - the innocent cannot wait for the world to finally get tough with terrorists.
No matter the reason we are in Iraq, whether it was strategically important or just because Saddam kept jumping up and down screaming "shoot me" the results are the same.
If we leave Iraq to terrorists we will have to go back there to clean up the eventual mess. Iraq cannot fall to the Mujahadeen or we'll be getting air mail once a week from them.
Bush is right. It may not be the smoothest approach, but we must fight this to the end.
We certainly hope so. From what I hear, something like 15 of the 18 Iraqi provinces are pretty content with the state of things.
So you disagree with the above in this article?
Talk about having a grudging respect!!
I should give a nod to Michale Moore?
As for those who claim Bush is wrongheaded to push democracy on the Middle East, some weight of history seems on their side.
Freedom isn't for everyone, right?
And, to those who label advocates of the Bush Doctrine ignorant of the complexities inherent in the Islamic world, I plead nolo contendere.
Islamofascists believe the world should be ruled by Islamic law. If we deny them this goal, they will kill us.
The Middle East is an oppressed region where dissenting thought is not allowed, nor are other opportunities to make a decent living. Family members will often volunteer for suicide missions just because they have been promised their family will be fed if they do.
State sponsered propaganda controlled by the Islamofascists makes it nearly impossible for the Truth about our actions in the Middle east to be heard. Instead prejudices have been instilled we wish to convert and rule them. When you consider what proponents of Islam have done in that religion's name, along with memories of Europe's abuse of the Church centuries ago, it is not difficult to understand why they are susceptible to the belief this is the goal of all nation states.
Still, word of the freedoms now being experienced in Afganistan is spreading. The freedoms Iraq will soon have will spread. This is causing a rumbling we cannot see, especially in Iran. The hope is a domino spread of Liberty without the necessity of military force in every nation. Should this occur our nation will ultimately be safer as they will not be as likely to place their lives in danger when they themselves are a free people able to practice religion in peace and provide for their families. They may take pot shots at the U.S. as other nations do, but do not anticipate jets flying into our buildings.
Syria and Iran have sent people to Iraq to stop democracy because they understand the stakes. The U.S. knew this would happen. They made Iraq the battlefield in a carefully laid strategy to keep them occupied away from our land, and to lure terrorists to one spot to wipe out. Iraq is a strategic place in the M.E., as is Afganistan. they border a majority of Islamic states. It was by no accident these two were chosen to spearhead the war on terror.
This is the reality.
It is also reality that "nuance" failed to reform the M.E. for decades. G.W. has a strong vision that may or may not succeed. i tend to believe it will if we remain steady. At least he has acknowledged the previous strategy of ignoring the threat, bribes and conference table discussions has failed. Until they can come up with a better approach to protect this nation and spread freedom to this region, I will embrace the straightforward no nonsense approach that has born fruit already in Afganistan and some sense of cooperation in Pakistan, saudi Arabia and the like.
Probably the provinces without the terrorists.
Excellent post, my thought exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.