As we get more news of the unfolding intifada in Iraq, and as Condi Rice tells the 9/11 Commission that the Bush Administration never, ever, ever made a mistake about terrorism, it's important to keep in mind the "opporunity costs" of the Iraq War. Like this one described by Jeffrey Record of the Air Force's Air War College:
In the wake of the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, which the administration hailed as a great victory in the GWOT [global war on terrorism], the International Institute for Strategic Studies issued a report concluding that, notwithstanding al-Qaeda ’s loss of its infrastructure in Afghanistan and the killing or capture of perhaps one-third of its leadership, al-Qaeda is "now reconstituted and doing business in a somewhat different manner, but more insidious and just as dangerous as in its pre-11 September incarnation. "More insidious because the West ’s "counter-terrorism effort ...perversely impelled an already highly decentralized and elusive transnational terrorist network to become even harder to identify and neutralize." Among other things,the destruction of its camps in Afghanistan meant that al-Qaeda "no longer concentrated its forces in clusters discernible and targetable from the air," which in turn meant that the "lion ’s share of the counter-terrorism burden rested on law enforcement and intelligence agencies."
The United States is paying a high cost for going after Saddam Hussein's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction."
2 comments:
What do you suppose was going to happen? A terrorist family reunion where they would all pose for a picture so we could drop a big MOAB on their ass? Or maybe we should ask them politely to please not fight from within Mosques. I'm sure they will listen. They are listening to the rest of your partisan b.s.
We took the fight to the terrorists rather than waiting until they've broken into our homes and are holding our daughters hostage in our own homes. And people like you disapprove.
Non-existent WMD? Are you serious? No one denies the FACT that Saddam used WMD against his own countrymen and against neighboring countries. If you squeeze your eyes shut real tight, it doesn't mean that the Stop sign isn't there anymore. Open your eyes man!
It must be a sad existence to have to hope that the President and the United States does poorly simply so your party can move back into the White House.
I'm not sure if you're responding to this post or just piecing together favorite slogans from Fox News. I'll assume it's the former.
In late 2001, there *was* a heavy concentration of Bin Laden's al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, a fact that is not in dispute so far as I'm aware. Al-Qaeda is a transnational terrorist group that had been attacking the United States for years, including the USS Cole in Oct 2000 and the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Jeffrey Record's point is that this concentration of forces in Afghanistan represented a military opportunity to inflict heavier losses than actually occurred on al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that had attacked the US.
Neither Record in his article, nor I here in this blog, are suggesting that the US shouldn't have taken the fight to The Terrorists. On the contrary, what many critics of Bush's foreign policy were saying since his "axis of evil" speech in 2002 is that the Iraq War would be a terrible distraction from critical anti-terrorists efforts, including the Afghan War.
No one disputes that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and against Iraqis years ago. But the Bush team justified the Iraq War that is now being fought on the basis of *currently* threatening supplies of WMDs, including a nuclear weapons program. If you have an idea where any of those are, I suggest you e-mail Rummy's office about it. They haven't been able to find jack. - Bruce
Post a Comment