16 February 2005 - Wednesday
Just because . . .
. . . I haven't said anything about Iraq in awhile:
Unrest in Iraq is providing Islamist militants with training and contacts which could be used in new attacks abroad, the head of the CIA has warned. . . .I sympathize with the vision of Iraqi democracy as much as anyone. I would love to believe that democratization can be the top priority for American foreign policy. I will be as happy as anyone if this invasion ultimately succeeds in creating a stable and benign Iraqi government (I have doubts, but we won't have the whole story for a few more years).
In Iraq, [DCI Porter Goss] said, the militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was seeking to exploit the conflict to recruit for broader operations.
"Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism," he said.
"They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks." [emphasis mine]
But whatever its humanitarian merits, this invasion was not a legitimate part of a war on international terrorism. It destroyed a government that was, at worst, a second-order and relatively deterrable threat to our interests. There was no confirmed terrorist threat from Iraq for years before the invasion. Now the country hosts multiple organized and uncontrolled groups of anti-American militants.
You may defend the invasion on humanitarian grounds if you like, but please don't call it part of the "war on terror."| Posted by Wilson at 19:06 Central | TrackBack
| Report submitted to the Power Desk