Nagging questions about the war in Iraq - (piercing article; intelligently written!)

AMERICAN THINKER.COM ^ | MAY 27, 2005 | RACHEL NEUWORTH

[Tommyjo]

Not a very well written article. Is she really serious about Egypt? The money and defense equipment given to Egypt is all part of the Israeli/Arab peace agreement. Israel gets F-16s - Egypt gets F-16s. Israel gets F-15s - Saudi Arabia gets F-15s. There is no way that Egypt is going to send troops to Iraq simply to take over from US troops and neither does the US want such a situation. Thousands of Egyptian troops in Iraq would be a disaster for the current Egyptian government.

[bad company]

Clearly there were WMDs there. Where are they now????

It drives me nuts that that question isn't being asked or answered.

[WFTR]

I sometimes wonder why we are there.

The big advanatage to being there is that our Muslim jihadist enemies are having to focus their resources on preventing Iraq from being a success. If Iraq shows the Muslim world a new way to live as happy, prosperous, and free people, the jihadist groups will lose much of their momentum. To prevent that from happening, they have to keep fighting. As long as they are fighting and dying in Iraq, they are not killing Americans on American soil. As in every war that we've ever fought, we're losing soldiers who must die to protect our freedoms. We honor them for their sacrifice, but we must continue this war against the Muslim jihadists. We must keep killing the enemy until they are all dead or until the remaining ones surrender.

Bill

[Sam Cree]

"If Iraq shows the Muslim world a new way to live as happy, prosperous, and free people, the jihadist groups will lose much of their momentum"

I do understand how another friendly country in the Middle East would change the entire complexion of the WOT. It has been pointed out to me that terrorists require friendly countries to provide them with space in which to operate. So on that level, I understand the benefit of taking out Iraq.

I'm fairly sure that our president has decided (correctly) that America can never be safe until Islamic terror is eradicated. That probably means to him cleaning out the various hornet's nests that comprise the Middle East. As many of them as possible, maybe all. Although Saddam has not particularly been implicated in 9/11, I suppose, as a clear danger to the world, and an obstacle in the way of Middle East peace, and hated by his subjects, he seemed like an obvious place to start. Besides which, I can easily imagine that he had knowledge of Al Qaeda and its plans.

The above makes some sense to me and I'd probably consider it sufficient justification for us having gone in there. But I don't recall that particular justification ever having been put forward by the president, perhaps because he knows that the press and the Left would raise holy hell at such an indirect cause for taking the nation to war. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that most Americans instinctively understand the above, assuming it is correct. And they understand that doing nothing is not an alternative.

"The big advanatage to being there is that our Muslim jihadist enemies are having to focus their resources on preventing Iraq from being a success."

Unfortunately, the Democrats and the Left are focusing their resources on the same thing, for pretty much the same reasons, lust for power. This doesn't escape the notice of the terrorists, I am sure.