Posted on 10/02/2006 6:00:42 PM PDT by lancer256
The November elections are fast approaching, and we still don't have the faintest idea what the Democrats would do in Iraq. That's because they have no earthly idea and certainly no consensus. That's why we should call their bluff and make this the issue of the campaign and debate it every day.
For purposes of argument let's assume as true their debatable allegation that attacking Iraq has set us back in the war on terror because terrorists have used it as a recruiting tool. How should we use this information constructively?
We first have to ask why our attack has driven terrorist recruitment. The antiwar left's unspoken insinuation is that our attack was immoral, perhaps even criminal, and terrorists, being morally sensitive creatures, are justifiably outraged at our alleged neoconservative imperialism.
Without question, Democrats have been trying to paint America's invasion of Iraq as criminal. How else can we interpret their endless allegations that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD and about a relationship between Saddam and 9/11 to fabricate an excuse for war?
(Excerpt) Read more at davidlimbaugh.com ...
That we allowed him to keep his atomic bomb kit, undeclared wmd, and prohibited missle programs showed the jihadis that the west wasn't serious.
That we allowed him to corrupt the oil for food program, train terrorists to attack us, conspire to kill American presidents and fire on American and British aircraft on a daily basis showed the jihadis that we were stupid.
We were attacked on 9/11 because the jihadis belived that we were weak, stupid and not serious.
Yeah, there was no connectio between 9/11 and iraq./sarc
It's the Democrats who are boosting recruitment, by giving the terrorists hope that they may succeed.
This makes sense only from an American perspective. From an Arab one, it's nonsense. Given that it's the Arabs we're trying to understand, look at it from their viewpoint.
A small, but sophisticated invasion took place in the heart of the Arab world. The biggest, most aggressive Arab leader was knocked off his throne in no time, and was dragged out of his hole looking more like Bad Santa than Saladin.
Arabs don't want us in Iraq for territorial and cultural reasons. It's irrational, but normal human behavior. People of similar backgrounds or ethnic groups will put aside their differences to repel foreign invaders, for no other reason than they're foreign. Where tribal ties are the ones that bind, you stick to the Devil you know.
Liberals here, and conspiracy theorists there float ideas like colonialism, imperialism, blood for oil, crusades, criminal enterprise, etc. That's fine for the detached observer, and despite how upset they seem, that's all they really are. For the people actually going to fight, it's for personal reasons. Humiliation. Revenge. Honor. Ethnic solidarity. Territorialism. The kinds of things that actually motivate people to fight, absent an organization telling them to.
Terrorists have their own twisted reasons, and they pretend to represent the Arab masses who genuinely are upset. Still, there's no advantage to lump liberals, Arab masses, and terrorists in together. The best way to win is to divide and conquer, and defeat each of them on their own terms. Treating the problem as one big mass makes it seem insurmountable and unfathomable. It's not, and we shouldn't create more work for ourselves by being intellectually lazy.
Very good, Steel Wolf.
I hope you are a person with influence. Good sense is a rare commoddity.
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.