Why the war in Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror

[TexasLawyer]

From super-RW website townhall.com
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20041230.shtml

It's sad that we liberals just don't "get it." Maybe if you read this article you'll understand just why we're in Iraq. I've got to say, though, that the article didn't help me much.

by Ben Shapiro

December 30, 2004 | Print | Send


Since the invasion of Iraq, liberals have been arguing that the war in Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. John Kerry said that the war in Iraq was "a profound diversion" from the war on terror and "the battle against our greatest enemy: Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network." Paul Begala, the human echo chamber, agreed completely with Kerry: "John Kerry is right. Hasn't the president's war in Iraq made us weaker in the face of the terrorist threat?" Joe Klein of Time Magazine concurred on CNN, stating that the Bush administration "conflated the war on terror with the war in Iraq, which are two very separate things."

President Bush, meanwhile, steadfastly refused to separate the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Calling the war in Iraq a "central commitment" in the war on terror, Bush cited terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence that the Iraq war and the war on terror were inextricably joined. "If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces, does Sen. Kerry think he would be leading a productive and useful life? Of course not. And that is why Iraq is no diversion."

This week, the evidence came pouring in for President Bush's position. Bin Laden sent in his latest audiotape to an Islamist Web site. On the tape, the al-Qaeda leader told fellow Muslims that they would be committing a "grave sin" if they did not wage jihad against U.S. forces and the government in Iraq. He labeled as "infidels" any Iraqis who participated in the upcoming Jan. 30 Iraqi election. He explained that al-Qaeda was spending at least $275,000 each week in Iraq. And he appointed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi his proxy in Iraq.

This puts liberals in a tight spot. It seems that the war in Iraq is indeed an integral part of the war on terror, since Bin Laden is now expending much of his energy fighting American troops there. The war in Iraq hasn't distracted us from the broader war on terror; it has distracted Bin Laden from his war on American cities. The war in Iraq wasn't a diversion for us; it was a diversion for him.

<more>

[LiberalVoice]

1. what a fucking moron...

275,000 bucks is chump change to bin laden...the money we're spending in iraq is hurting us more then its hurting bin laden.

I'll bet you ten bucks that if a popular shiite sheik in Iraq can offer up 100,000 troops to help with the election process(which is obviously an attempt to sway the new govt. if the elections don't fall apart) then you can bet that bin laden has them in the hundreds of thousands across the globe...Its a grimm thought but from where i'm sitting it's true.

[marcologico]

2. what is this, new reason #637?

"The war in Iraq wasn't a diversion for us; it was a diversion for him."

So now we're supposed to see Bush's failed colonial occupation as a brilliant strategy to keep terrorists off of airplanes? Sorry chimpy, keep trying.

[LiberalVoice]

3. By my calculations...

It has so far cost bin laden 28,600,000 dollars...A man who father split of billions of dollars to his surviving children.

[CHIMO]

4. Terror Is

Not a country. Terror is a description of activities. Discussing the war on terror is trying to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It is pure bunk.
A gun in front of you in a robbery is terror. A spouse being beaten is terror. A child being abused is terror.
Get the language and the logic right before trying to fight something.
Just try and defeat shadows. See how effective you will be.

[neweurope]

5. Oh, a new Bin Laden tape *yawn*

Won't be long before with these timely tapes Bush will have most Americans convinced that the slaughter in Iraq is a war fought to protect their country...

Just stop believing them. NOTHING they say can be believed.

[Wilms]

6. What 'help' where you looking for?

Personally, I "got it". And now I'd like for my eyes to roll back down.

If you're saying that since we bombed Iraq to smithereens there's a terrorism problem there, I could go along with that.

But prior to Thug's invasion, the only connection between 'terrorism' and Iraq was STUPID FUX NEWS, and the fact that we'd invite terrorism and a civil war if we Americans had "a failure of imagination" like so wonderfully displayed with that author's argument.

And many liberals pointed this out ahead of time. Please.

If the L's were wrong about anything it was just how awful it all would become and how incompetently the 'war' would be organized. Forgive us.

And I don't even think ThugCo was intent on dismantling Al-Q in Afghanistan. Just their bases so pipelines and poppies could go in their place.

And just like a landlord I once had, who offered me a new place to live if I promised not to cause trouble that he was evicting me from my (his) house in order to sell it, ThugCo just set-up the 'terrorist's' with some new digs in Baghdad. And they're collecting the rent.

Dozens of billions of dollars in rent. Armor not included. Landlord not responsible for blood or trauma.

Can't some people get that Saddam is a creep AND Bush is..., you pick one.

Who could I ask to go there and deal with that?

[Skittles]

7. WHAT A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT

all this shows is tht TERRORISM HAS INREASED BECAUSE OF THE ACTIVITES OF BUSH INC.

[slor]

8. The war in Iraq IS an integral part of war on terror...

because if the chimp had not attacked Iraq, it would not have propelled the number of people that want to attack America into the stratosphere.

[ixion]

9. just another neocon shill trying to frame the argument for us

I don't accept his thesis statement that:

Since the invasion of Iraq, liberals have been arguing that the war in Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror.

And since the thesis statement is flawed, the argument cannot continue.

That is not at all the position I've been arguing. I've been arguing that the so-called 'War on Terror' is not a 'war' by defintion, and that Iraq and Afghanistan were both invasions of aggression, and those responsible are guility of war crimes.

But that's sooooo 'reality-based community' of me, I know. :grr: :eyes:

This is where is has to stop. Progressives and dems simply cannot allow these morans to define the argument for us and then sit there and try to tell us our position, because when we allow that, we lose the debate every time. You can't win on a biased playing field, when you're allowing the opposition to make the rules up as you go along.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Shapiro misses several points that DUers don't miss

Ixion is correct to state that there is no war on terror, at least not an honest one. Of course the US government should pursue Osama. No one should seriously dispute that. However, it is absurd to argue that Bush and the neocons were motivated by a desire to make Americans safer from terrorism; rather, they were motivated by a lust for a corporate empire in which US military power would be used to expropriate Iraq's natural wealth and place it in the hands of Bush's corporate cronies. This is an argument which I have presented on DU's home page both before and after the invasion. The argument has held up a lot better than any neocon or other right wing rationale for the invasion.

Broadly stated, Saddam was no threat to US security, had no weapons of mass destruction and had no ties to terrorist organizations; moreover, the Bushies knew this and deliberately lied during the run up to the war in order to justify it. Conclusion: the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

Shapiro's main point is about Zarqawi. Unfortunately, as Skittles suggests, Zarqawi was not operating as effectively in Saddam's Iraq as he is in US colonial Iraq. As an Islamist, Zarqawi was as much the secular Saddam's enemy as he is ours. He was as much a fugitive from Saddam perverted justice as he is now from the perverted justice in US colonial Iraq. Yet it is only since the invasion that Zarqawi has been able to operate on a large scale.

Broadly Stated, this suggests that Saddam was more effective on keeping a lid on international terrorists attempting to use Iraq as a base of operations than the US colonial occupation has been. The conclusion is that the US would have been better served by not invading Iraq. This supports a thesis that the invasion of Iraq, in addition to having nothing to do with the stated purpose of fighting terrorism, was actually a blunder in respect to fighting terrorism. It has opened opportunities for international terrorists seeking to use Iraq as a base of operations that were not there before.

This is not to say that Saddam was not a corrupt, brutal tyrant or that Zarqawi is not a dangerous terrorist who should be put out of business. However, US colonial occupation is also a form of brutal tyranny. While Saddam tortured Iraqis in Abu Grhaib, so does the US colonial administration; while Saddam attacked Iraqi civilians from the air at Halabjah, the US colonial rulers of Iraq attack Iraqi civilians from the air in Fallujah and Mosul. While Saddam used the oil-for-food program to support his own lavish lifestyle, the US colonial powers in Iraq seem unable to explain how they are spending US funds for reconstruction while overcharging the government, not employing Iraqis and living lavishly in the Green Zone. Meanwhile, most Iraqis experience long periods of power blackouts, safe drinking water is hard to find and the streets are not safe.

Conclusion: As bad a life was under Saddam, the US invasion has not made Iraq a better place to live, work and raise children. It is at best only marginally better, and arguably worse.

As for Zarqawi, he needs to be stopped. However, US colonial occupation is his reason for being. Consequently, a US colonial government, even if it stopped Zarqawi, would never be able to put down an anti-colonial insurgency. The end of Zarqawi would just give rise to another rebel-terrorist to fill the niche as long as this environment is maintained. A truly sovereign Iraqi government would stand a better chance to put an end to Zarqawi. The question is: will there ever be a truly sovereign Iraqi government as long as US troops occupy the country?

[dannynyc]

11. The argument about fighting terrorists "there" or "here" . . .

has one major flaw. It would be a valid statement if there were a finite number of terrorists. But, because of the Bush War on Iraq, terrorists are increasing in numbers. On the other hand, the number of US troops IS finite. So, who's getting low on fighting resources??