Posted on 07/16/2005 9:00:34 AM PDT by CHARLITE
THERE IS A STRANGE PAIRING of positions on the left.
The first is that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were not connected. The work of Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn in THE WEEKLY STANDARD, which is supported by other serious investigative reporters such as Claudia Rosett has already established beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a web of connections, but the combination of the left's indifference to inconvenient facts and the international version of the soft bigotry of low expectations--an Arab dictator couldn't have had a sophisticated intelligence service capable of hiding such matters--make it an article of faith among Bush haters that there was no connection.
Exactly the opposite approach to facts and evidence is emerging on the left's claim that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. "Breeding ground" means something quite different from "killing ground." The term conveys the belief that had the United States and its allies not invaded Iraq, there would be fewer jihadists in the world today--that the transition of Iraq from brutal dictatorship to struggling democracy has somehow unleashed a terrorist-breeding virus.
The fact that foreign fighters are streaming across Syria into Iraq in the hopes of killing America is not evidence supporting the "breeding ground" theory. "Opportunity" to act is not the same thing as "motive" for acting. There is zero evidence for the proposition that Iraq is motive rather than opportunity, but the "motive" theory is nevertheless put forward again and again. As recently as Wednesday the Washington Post
account of the aftermath of the London bombings included the incredible--and unsubstantiated in the article--claim that the "the profile of the suspects suggested by investigators fit long-standing warnings by security experts that the greatest potential threat to Britain could come from second-generation Muslims, born here but alienated from British society and perhaps from their own families, and inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war."[emphasis added]
In an interview with the London Times, Prime Minister Tony Blair disputed the idea "that the London terrorist attacks were a direct result of British involvement in the Iraq war. He said Russia had suffered terrorism with the Beslan school massacre, despite its opposition to the war, and that terrorists were planning further attacks on Spain even after the pro-war government was voted out. "September 11 happened before Iraq, before Afghanistan, before any of these issues and that was the worst terrorist atrocity of all," he said.
While it is theoretically possible that some jihadists were forged as a result of the invasion of Iraq, no specific instance of such a terrorist has yet been produced. Reports in the aftermath of the London bombings indicated that the British intelligence service estimates more than 3,000 residents of Great Britain had trained in the Afghanistan terrorist camps prior to the invasion of Afghanistan--which suggests that the probability is very high that most of the jihadists in England date their hatred of the West to some point prior to the invasion of Iraq. And though two of the London bombers appear to have traveled to Pakistan for religious instruction post-March 2003, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it was Iraq which "turned" the cricket-loving young men into killers. In fact, it is transparently absurd for anyone to claim such a thing.
So why is the claim being made, and not just post-London, but in all of the contexts where the "breeding ground" rhetoric surfaces?
Of course it's a convenient stick with which to beat the Bush administration. But it has a far more powerful lure than that.
As the bloody toll of the Islamist movement grows and its record of horrors lengthens from Bali to Beslan to Madrid to London, the incredible cost that can only be attributed to the Afghanistan metastasis that went unchecked from the time of bin Laden's return there in 1996 until the American-led invasion of 2001 becomes ever more clear. That was the true "breeding ground" of the world's menace, not the Sunni triangle, where jihadists are continually under pressure and increasingly desperate. The long years ahead in the global war on terrorism will be spent trying to undo the damage done by allowing the Islamist radicals a safe haven from which to export their ideology and to train and deploy their converts.
The realization of the price of inaction through the '90s has a huge political cost attached to it, one that the Democrats will bear if a full accounting is ever compiled. Thus the "breeding ground" rhetoric--empty and absurd as it is--is a convenient and even necessary bit of smoke. There's no fire underneath that smoke. Just a desperate hope that noise will drown out voices pointing to the real history of the rise of the Islamist threat.
In an exchange with Ron Reagan on MSNBC this week,
Christopher Hitchens sharply rebuked the "motive" school of terrorist psychologists: "I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean." [emphasis added]
Hitchens's point, which must be made again and again, is Blair's point: The killers are killers because they want to kill, not because the coalition invaded Iraq, or Afghanistan, or because there are bases in Saudi Arabia, or because Israel will not retreat to the 1967 borders.
Until and unless the left gets this point, and abandons the idea that "breeding" of terrorists is something the West triggers, they cannot be trusted with the conduct of the war.
Hugh Hewitt is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show, and author most recently of Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That is Changing Your World. His daily blog can be found at HughHewitt.com.
There would be a big price to the USA in doing so, but I can see lots of benefits too.
It is also doubtful that Congress would ever agree with me. :0)
"Where does the insistence
"War in Iraq is creating terrorists" come from?
Probably from the post 9-11 adage,
"Every time a left wing know nothing opens his or her mouth, ten people vote Republican.
While I agree with the general thrust of the column, I do disagree with Hitchen's statement. Yes, killing does not bother them much, but we must be aware of their goals, not just their methods. Their oft stated goal is clearly a greater Islamic empire. With Iran going hard line in the last "election", and with Saudi Arabia ever closer to falling, the goals are now quite achievable...that is if they can get the US out of Iraq before it stabilizes.
The wanton killing is simply to get the American people to demand a pullout, and at the same time to get the Iraqi people to lose any confidence they may have in the democratic process that is currently under way.
Just imaging an Islamic coalition of Syria-Iraq-Iran, with all of that oil and with Iranian nuclear capabilities. How long would it take Saudi Arabia to crumble?
But if Iraq is permitted to stabilize and defend itself, and if the US and other Western powers are able to keep a reasonable presence in the Middle Ease, that is the end of the Islamic empire. Iraq is the key.
Of course, the useful idiots here, the bottom of our gene pool, thought it made total sense and have been parroting it ever since.
Muslim logic.
Can you make such a hard and fast distinction? Without certain real world circumstances, deeply buried motives don't necessarily come to the surface. That's not to say that such circumstances are the reason or motive for the action either, but they are catalysts that work on individual psyches and bring out motives that otherwise might not have been acted upon.
From the Democrats, where else?
"If they had to level Baghdad to avoid a few American casualties, I personally wouldn't have had any problem with that."
It we had leveled Baghdad, then there would not have been any reason to plan anything for a future Iraq. The federal government of Iraq will reside in Baghdad for many very good reasons. You figure it out if you don't understand what has been planned for phase 2 through 3+. But surely you are entitled to your opinions. I wonder for those that take your approch in constantly speaking of "nuking" cities, etc., if you ever gave any thought as how quickly our nuclear arsenal would be diminished. Would you like to suggest how many thousands of cities, military facilites, etc., would have to be nuked for months on end to "sorta" accomplish what you and others somehow believe could be a solution? I am not holding you to an answer, nor trying to bash your sentiments, I assure you I am no lover of Islam, nor Arab mentalities. And my question is poised to all that take the nuke option whatever that really means, not one individual, not you personally.
bump
These homicidal maniac losers hated us with a strong desire for vengeance long before 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember there were five Al-Qaeda attacks on Americans resulting in substantial loss of life before the war.
That's the question that the libs and Big Media refuse to ask themselves. They should put both their tiny brain cells together and ask themselves: if Hussein hated Al-Qaeda and had no ties to it, why should all the Al-Qaeda bigshots care about Iraq? You would think that Bin-Laden would be happy to see Hussein in chains. Instead Bin-Laden and Zarqawi have made statements to the effect that the loss of Iraq will deal a major blow to Al-Qaeda and Islamo-fascism. Do the libs really think that if we withdrew from Iraq immediately, all the Al-Qaeda terrorists would withdraw also? They can't be that stupid...or can they?
Ping
Not that I am of the "Nuke 'em all, and let God sort them out" school, but we have tens of thousands of nukes, and could build more if needed. There aren't that many cities and military sites worth a nuke in the entire Muslim world.
At this point, Congress need take positive action. All they need to do is *not* cut off funding. President Bush isn't up for re-election and is free to do the right thing, as he sees it. It's what he was re-elected to do as Commander in Chief.
"Not that I am of the "Nuke 'em all, and let God sort them out" school, but we have tens of thousands of nukes, and could build more if needed. There aren't that many cities and military sites worth a nuke in the entire Muslim world."
I believe you are quite serious! But I think that is a sort of drastic measure. I guess we all have different view points on what constitutes wholesale murder. Millions of babies and little children go poof along with the Ali Babba and the ones that just sit on the sidelines for lack on whatever. Don't no how else to answer you El Gato. Not that you ask my opinion, you where simply stating your slight displeasure with the religion of peace. Sad the assholes don't realize they may have pissed enough folks off this time around and with their upcoming terrorist bombing plots to do things in Italy, Holland, and Canada, they may have stepped into a pile to deep to get out of this time.
Guess we shall see how Britain and some of Europe start to act over the next few months.
Keep your fingers off the button for a bit.
I heard this claim before the Invasion of Iraq. Most people I worked with liked the Invasion of Afghanistan, but most also didn't support the Iraq War.
They want a theocracy too. Ten commandments everywhere, make kids pray in school, throw homosexuals in prison or worse, same beliefs, same hatred.
"And as for the future plans for Iraq or its government: I don't really care - nor do I think it should be any of our business. Whatever happened to the Bush who said nation building wasn't going to be something he'd ever attempt?
My goals are strictly punitive and meant at most to set an example. How, (or if) our enemies ever pick up the pieces is their problem - not ours."
Good question. When GWB was running the first time, he did make comments to the effect he was not planning on nation building. I think we should try to be fair and very carefully examine the whole record/history of events 9/11 and post 9/11. The GWOT came pretty much in focus, though we obviously can list dozens of terrorist attacks both, ground,sea,air, prior to 9/11, that where against civilians in general, US interests, US military, etc..
How can we place in a few sentences an anwwer that requires carefully prepared reams of data/dialog to be displayed to approach what you brougth out as to how now we all should view what he said some six years back.
As for the "nuke solutions", many of us propose, I have gotten to the point, where it seems futile to address the ramifications involved in such a military action. I just seems like many of us speak on the fly, or often a very justified anger, and the nuclear option comes out because out of frustration, folks don't know what else to say, etc..
Surely we must respect all freepers opinions. So I'll leave it go at that.
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.