Many Saudi nationals were involved in the planning and execution of the plot. And many Pakistanis. And many Yemenis. And Egyptians. And so on.
The fact that a national of Iraq may have been involved in a planning meeting does not connect that state with the attacks any more than these other states. And with some of these other states, we know that government officials had both advance knowledge of the attacks and provided financial support to the planners.
That being said, regardless of how one views the Iraq-AQ ties, the ongoing military efforts in Iraq are not the same thing as the ongoing military efforts against the AQ leadership, and should not be equated with them. The goals are different, the methods are different, and the locations are different. And, given the choice between getting the leaders of the terrorists in Iraq and the leaders of the terrorists in the Afghan-Pak border region, I'll choose the latter every time.
Good points and I think the poster would have generated a lot less heat if he posed the argument the way you did. Personally, I think the state sponsored terrorism of an Iraq or in Iran is more dangerous than the quasi tolerated support for terrorism by elements of the Pakistani government, but reasonable minds can differ on that.
I think the real question though is whether there really is a "choice" between pursuing one set of terrorist leaders or the other. I do not think there is, and I think that is why the whole argument we lost focus is a false one. In fact, I think there is a lot of merit to the argument that the strategies are complementary. As you correctly point out the methods are different and I do not think the resources used in one place are hindering the effort in another. Knock out the state sponsors you can get to, and pin down the leadership in the wilds of the NW frontier. Better that than allowing them the freedom to hop from safe haven to safe haven all over the Middle East.
Just MHO.
I know we've had this discussion, and am sure we'll have to agree to disagree.
My feeling is that considering Iraq had advance notice of 9/11, as evidenced by their July 21, 2001 state run article about what was coming to NYC, they did more than just a little gossip with OBL.
As well, although there is no proof, I believe the terrorists were connected with the anthrax attacks and that Iraq is the country that knew how to weaponize it adequately so it was aerolicized (sp?).
Also, Iraq violated the no fly zones for so many years and we received 78 reports from different sources that Hussein's regime was actively training Iraq intelligence soldiers for terrorist attacks against the US and our interests.
The Senate Intelligence Report said that Iraq provided AQ with WMD training. Salmon Pak was obviously a major terrorist training ground. Direct meetings between senior Iraqimilitary officers and top AQ operatives took place for 13 years.
I know that a lot of that could be said for other countries, and I fully understand why we didn't, for example, invade Saudi Arabia or Iran. We're finishing what was started with Iraq and doing the best we can with the other countries.
I'm delighted we took the war to Iraq and that more and more jihadists are joining their brothers there; we can kill them and those are a few hundred less terrorists who will make their way here.
It may be simplistic, but it's how I feel. Strongly.