Advertisement

City of Brass

City of Brass

Iraq War retrospective: How does attacking Iraq solve the problem of terrorism? #iraq10

The following post was written in late October 2002, after my earlier post about the Bali bombings, where I was still trying to work out just how the Iraq War would be related to terrorism. As the post makes clear, the connection did not exist, leaving really only the issue of WMD threat as a reason to support the war.

The question, “how does attacking Iraq solve the problem of terrorism?” is one that needs to be answered, and yet all those who support war on Iraq have shied away or evaded that question completely.

Possible answers that I have seen are:

Answer 1. “Remaking Iraq will bring democracy to the Middle East”

This is beyond speculation and approaches fiction. First, the proposed postwar plans all call for a significant military occupation, most likely a military government, with General Tomy Franks playing the role in Iraq of General MacArthur in Japan. It’s not clear how long or even how successful this will be – and Afghanistan is a great example. Previous imperial powers succeeded in winning the general battle in Afghanistan, but attempts at setting up colonial governments failed miserably. This was true of the British and it seems to be true of the American-supported Karzai government, which really only controls Kabul. And the airport, but that’s because we built an AFB there.

Advertisement

Second, most Arab governments in the middle east would rather see a weak and tyrannical Iraq than a strong and prosperous one. If anything, a strong Iraq (whose creation I am NOT conceding would be a guaranteed outcome of our military action) would cause those governments and regimes to crack down even harder. The most likely effect will be to intensify support of Islamic radicals which are the most effective means of pacification, because when your political authority is cast into religious form, it attains a measure of legitimacy that is very difficult to undermine, without being seen as an attack on faith itself. I think we would see a strengthening of the radicals’ hands, not a weakening.

Answer 2: “Iraq supports terrorism, therefore it is a legitimate target of the War on Terror”

Advertisement

The link between Iraq and 9-11 has been exhaustively researched and it’s fairly obvious at this point that no such link exists. The Bush Administration has admitted as such. Anyway that was a bad road for Bush to take, because if he argued that a weak link to Iraq justified all-out invasion, then what is implied about the much stronger, extensively documented, link between 9-11 and Saudi state-funded Wahabi extremism? All of Bush’s rhetoric about Iraq now centers on his Evil – “tried to kill my dad” etc. This rhetoric solves the problem of undermining his economic and political ties to Saudi Arabia, which he has never criticized, but makes him look like a petty fool, doling out foreign policy on the basis of a vendetta rather than a statesmanlike approach.

Advertisement

Answer 3: “This ISN’T part of the war on Terror, but Saddam is a bigger threat right now”

This answer makes me angry. It wasn’t Iraq that killed 3,000 Americans in NYC and DC, nor was it Saddam who killed 200 Australians (our noblest allies) in Bali. Nor the attacks on American servicemen in Kuwait, or bombing of oil tankers in Yemen.

This hasn’t stopped the Bush Administration’s fervent partisan supporters from asserting:

In truth, the men who “implemented” the “cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans” are not at large. They are dead; they died in the act of murder, last Sept. 11 … In truth, the “vast majority” of the men who “sponsored” and “planned” the crime are dead also, or in prison, or on the run.

Advertisement

Compare that fantasy to Gore’s speech. In the context of the Bali bombing, who is the disgraceful liar?

None of these answers do the job. If someone, anyone, has more to say that can sway me, I need to hear it. But right now the case is weak. And we will pay the price in the future for misdirecting our attention.

Original post, dated 24th October 2002: “still on the fence

Advertisement
Comments Post the First Comment »
post a comment

Comments are closed.



Previous Posts

the solution to the unschooled scholar problem - the Islamic dojo
I'm going to throw out some quick half-formed ideas in response to this article by Sufi Synik (via the indomitable Samar Kaukab): Half of the Muslims want me to shut up and take every single hadith (without considering its historical context) ...

posted 10:42:50am Apr. 17, 2016 | read full post »

Shari'a tectonics; Eurabia is still a lie
Of all the weird stuff I see on Facebook and Twitter, this pretty much beats all this week. Brother looks like he's got some knee pain. And tiny t-rex arms. Anyway, I'm sure we can blame Obama for this somehow. In all seriousness, this ...

posted 2:12:29pm Mar. 06, 2016 | read full post »

Valentine's Day Mubarak!
Happy VDay to all! Or, belated VDay depending on your madhab - according to Saudi moonsighting Valentine's was yesterday ;) The Gujarati origins of what was then known as "Velan-time Day" are well-established in the historical record. Rather ...

posted 10:45:17am Feb. 14, 2016 | read full post »

Obama quoted my letter about my daughter
This is a guest post by Ali Asghar Alibhai. There is no question that the America my generation grew up in is much different than the America of now. I grew up in West Texas, a place that some might consider as among the most conservative in ...

posted 1:30:00pm Feb. 04, 2016 | read full post »

Who was Saudi Shi'a Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr?
Yesterday, the Saudi government executed the Shi'a cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, as an enemy of the state. His ...

posted 2:12:32pm Jan. 03, 2016 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.