Anyone care to comment on this?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=6000

An excerpt:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Pick whatever argument you like. They should have had more troops. They should have had less troops. They should have listend to Chalabi. They shouldn’t have listened to Chalibi. Bremer was right. Bremer was wrong. Rumsfeld’s a bozo. Bozo could have done a better job. I’ll sign on to any part of it you like. They said this is a part of the war on terror, and of course that’s a lie too.

Ooops.

What do you mean, oops?

Well, what I mean is that part is actually true.

What part?

The part about Iraq being a part of the war on terror.

You’ve got to be kidding. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! There was no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda!

Maybe not, but there is now.

Well, who’s fault is that?

Doesn’t matter.

What do you mean it doesn’t matter?

I mean, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter how we got there. It doesn’t matter how you think you were lied to. It doesn’t matter if you think there was a connection between Sadam and Al-Qaeda. The only thing that matters now is that both Al-Qaeda and Iran and the terrorist groups they back and inspire believe that Iraq is their decisive battle. They have chosen it as the place where they will defeat America, and unlike the Viet Cong, they will not stay put. They will follow us home.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Read the whole thing. I think he's right on many points, but if he thinks rewarding the assholes who put us there by re-electing them is the answer because they won't let us leave now, he's fucked up.

[TomClash]

1. Only they're not there

Few of the forces fighting in Iraq are foreign jihadi.

Ask the US military.

So, frankly, this is crap.

[mike_c]

2. false logic...

...and I'm only commenting on the bit you excerpted-- if that's an example of the whole article's reasoning then I'm not particularly interested in reading it.

The bit you excerpted is false logic because even if we accept that it's true, it is true only because the occupation extends that importance to Iraq. Iraq is an important battlefield to whomever it is important to, and for whatever reasons, only so long as the U.S. makes it so. If the U.S. withdrew from Iraq immediately the country would become just another failing puppet government sliding into civil war and internal dissolution-- sure, that might present SOME limited opportunities for international terrorists but there are LOTS of those situations already extant.

Second, international terrorism is not a major problem in Iraq and never has been. It is a grand propaganda issue in the U.S., but the majority of the violence in Iraq is home grown, directed at the U.S. occupation or otherwise caused by the U.S. presence. The only sure way to end that violence is to leave, even if it results in an upsurge of civil war before the fighting stops. Iraq will likely fragment. The process will be ugly, but that is a consequence of the destabilization we have already produced and it cannot be avoided-- and the longer we stay, the worse the consequences will be. We've been saying this for three years now, and the situation has been steadily worsening for those three years, just as predicted. When are people going to start listening?

Finally, "they will follow us home" is pure fear-mongering. "They" are mostly sectarian Iraqis who have absolutely no interest in making war against America and no means to do so anyway. I remember that exact same argument being made in Vietnam-- if we don't stop the communists in SE Asia we'll have to stop them in America. It's propaganda, plain and simple.