Originally posted by: glenn1
I don't think it caused confusion so much as an opportunity for those with already decided views (whichever side those might be on) to pick what they think is the salient point onf the memo and use that as an additional club to beat over the head of those who disagree with them.
I will concede the point that "the war in Iraq is a cause celebre for jihadists" if others will similarly concede that it is also self-evident that if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, there would have been those who chose the jihadist path for other reasons. Obviously since jihadists existed before the invasion, I don't think this is too difficult a point to concede.
Now, that leads to the next logical questions, which I would like to see if people can give serious answers to and not simply a flippant partisan dismissal:
1. Did the invasion of Iraq cause more people to choose a jihadist path than would have absent the invasion?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, then can we guesstimate how many more?
3. If achieved, did/do the stated military, strategic, and political objectives put forward for the invasion outweigh the downside of answering "yes" to #1?
4. If we had chosen to *not* invade Iraq, what would have been the positive and negative outcomes of this decision?
a. If you feel the negatives would outweigh the positives, do you feel the negative consequences of not invading would be more significant than the consequences of #1 being true?
b. If you feel the positives outweigh the negatives, please explain how you would achieve the goals which Mr. Bush described as his reasoning for invading (peace in the middle east, ensuring no WMD in Iraq, etc) or do you feel his objectives were not desireable to begin with?
5. Is the often mentioned "flypaper theory" (by creating an irresistable destination for jihadis in Iraq, this means they won't be attacking civilian targets in the U.S.) a valid option and does it make question 1 a moot point?
What the heck, I'm having trouble sleeping
Questions #1 and #2 are not legitamite questions because we do not agree on what causes people to choose a jihadist path. If you contend that people choose a jihadist path because they hate our freedom and our way of life, then the answer must be 'no' because our freedom and way of life remain unchanged (barring our loss of liberties from the patriot bill, which were minor when compared to global standards). If, however, you contend that people choose a jihadist path because of American presence in Saudi Arabia, aggression in the Middle East to protect oil interests, and support of Israili hegemony, then the answer must be 'yes' because all of these things have increased markedly (excepting the first) since the invasion. As for the 'guesstimation', the increase would be
huge. In fact, the violence that is going on in the Middle East right now probably means that an average middle eastern arab is about as predisposed to terrorism as he possibly can be right now.
#3 is impossible to answer without knowing what the stated objectives are. I didn't see any in the link, but I'll assume you're talking about the stabilization of Iraq as a U.S. client state. The benefit to us is increased control over the world's oil supply. We have already lost more men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan than we did in the WTC (so say nothing of the massive loss of life in those countries) so in terms of humanity I don't see how the answer could be anything other than no. If you want to balance the economic advantage of the control of the oil against the loss of life, I don't think I can quantify that.
#4 You need a fortune teller to answer this question, but this much is virtually indisputable
* There would be more than 50,000 people alive that are now dead
* We would have $318,000,000,000 more in the treasury (or, more accurately, less debt)
* The world would be in no greater danger of attack from weapons of mass distruction
* Saddam Hussain would still be in power
#5 Often mentioned it may be, but I have never heard this common attitude articulated as the "flypaper" theory. But to answer the question, lets step back and examine the threat. Before 9/11; the last time civilian targets in the U.S. were attacked by a foreign entity was the war of 1812 (Hawaii was a colony of the U.S. and the attack on Perl Harbor hit military targets). 9/11 involved Saudis, Egyptians, and Lebanese. There where no Iraqis or Afghans on either plane, and the mastermind was Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian. The attack required massive planning to hit an extremely high profile target. If there is no connection between the 9/11 attackers and Iraq, and there is only a tenuous connection between the 9/11 attackers and Afghanistan (Al-Qada is highly fragmented and decentralized)
So I don't see believe this war has reduced our vulnerability to a 9/11 attack at all. Of course, that is pure conjecture, and is not provable either way.
Facebook
Twitter