Ignoring the Obvious about Iraq

[traditio]

Sometimes it seems that the most important things are rarely said. People in the know take them for granted, and people not in the know don’t know them. Here is what seems to be left unsaid about Iraq because it is too obvious to some and too obscure to others:

9/11 made it clear that tolerating any radical regime anywhere in the world is too dangerous because the regime might ally with terrorists to commit mass murder of Americans. A favorite high-school debating trick of the opponents of invading Iraq is to set the goal of eliminating Saddam against the goal of eliminating Al Quaeda, when we obviously have to do both. We also have to eliminate the mullahs of Iran, the Saudi wahhabis, the dictatorship in Syria, and so on. The order in which we do this is a question of strategy, not goals. We would prefer to attack one country at a time, and we hope that after we conquer one country, regimes in other countries will fall without full-scale war. Al Quaeda wants us to have to fight all radical countries at the same time.

Now Bush is not going to say that we have to defeat Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and so on. The appeasers will call him a warmonger. (He did come close, however, when he denounced the axis of evil.) So when the appeasers say that we should go after Al Quaeda before Iraq (which is, of course, exactly what we have done), they are obviously lying since they are opposed to an invasion of Iraq at any time. Supporters don’t want to say why they believe that an attack on Iraq makes strategic sense now because they don’t want to discuss the sequence of attacks (if it comes to that) on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. Opponents don’t want to discuss the sequence of attacks because they don’t believe in any of the attacks. So opponents get away with their little debating trick, which allows them to oppose the attack currently on the table while seeming to support the attacks not on the table. They sound like hawks, but they have no beak or talons.

Of course, opponents are making nowhere plans for nobody, especially now that they have concluded that the problem is that they didn’t slander Bush enough or oppose the war on terror enough.

These thoughts are somewhat embarrassing in their obviousness. My excuse is that I spent Thanksgiving with people who understand none of them. It confirmed me in my opinion that the Democrats are incapable of supporting the war. They simply reason thus: “War is evil, especially when Republicans wage it. Therefore, we should not invade Iraq.” The specifics of the situation are irrelevant to them. They just have a general antipathy U.S. to military action. It didn’t take them long to forget the attack on us or the liberation of the women of Aghanistan, and they never realized that Al Quaeda has been murdering Blacks in Africa. They’re back to thinking that supporters of the war are a bunch of racist, sexist warmongers.

[JZoback]

Ignoring the Obvious about Iraq

One little fact that you over looked is who controls the "oil" has a whole lot to do with what is going on in the middle east.

I am NOT saying Saddam is on the front burner for "oil" alone, but I am saying "oil" is a part of any strategy that the Bush team employs.

Safe free flowing cheap oil is a national security issue, it is naive to think otherwise.

Why do you think ANWR is not an issue to loss political clout over with the Bush administration.

[Trickyguy]

Well, let's see...I'm not a racist, sexist warmonger and I oppose the war on Iraq. I don't see Iraq invading us, but I see Mexico doing it. I see anti-American Third Worlders invading the US. How about first of all we throw all of the invaders out of here before we invade other countries on the other side of the world?

[moneyrunner]

I made similar comments in an earlier post:

Terrorism, The War, and Islam

One of the most nonsensical statements I hear opponents of the war against Saddam make is that it distracts from the war on terrorism. That is true only if you define terrorism as that which is committed by Al Qaeda. The reality is that, despite political noises coming from Washington, the US – and by extension the West – is in a war against militant Islam, or as one writer terms it: Islamofacism.

Of course, the Bush administration denies this. And the denial makes sense in geo-political terms. It does little good to force schizophrenic countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia and a whole host of other Muslim countries into active opposition, when a little bit of fudging they are can remain officially neutral (like Saudi Arabia) or favor us tactically (like Pakistan) when telling the brutal truth would force them into opposition or lead to revolution – before we are ready.

But if the war on terror is more than the war on Al Qaeda, what is the evidence of this? There can be little doubt that the 9/11 attacks were the work of Bin Laden’s terrorists. But the problem is wider than that, as evidenced by the reaction of the Islamic “street.” Reaction to the attack of 9/11 ranged from jubilation by crowds in Middle Eastern streets to calls for “Death to America” by Muslim religious leaders to … silence by the “Moderate Muslims” in the US and overseas. No, worse than silence; an immediate claim to victim hood for suspicious looks and covert glances. The Muslim community did not rally to its US brethren, because we and they are – apparently - not brethren. When Muslims had to decide if they are with us or with those who murdered 3000 of us on 9/11 their loyalties went with the terrorists.

So we are in a war on a scale not seen since World War 2. We are faced with an enemy that can be defined by ethnicity and religion, concentrated in the Middle East and Asia, with a large community within the West and funded by the oil wealth of the Middle East.

We are faced with a violent clash of incompatible cultures. Islamofacism has demonstrated a rare fanaticism plus the financial resources to fund a global war. The war was also made possible by a defect in Western culture characterized by ”multiculturalism,” the false belief that all cultures have an equal moral value. That, in turn, made it politically impossible to identify and arrest, prior to 9/11, those individuals in our society who were plainly attempting to do us harm. And even today, the Left in the West are divided in their loyalties. They have spent so much moral capital on their hatred of the West that now, when they are under attack, they have lost the instinct to defend themselves and the ability to understand their peril.

Which leads us to the broader question of: what do we do now? If we wish to win this war we must take a broad view. To win we will need to deny the enemy his bases, his materiel and his financial resources. We must break his will to fight. We must demonstrate that attacks on us leads to destruction of the attacker…his adherents… his possessions … his family and all he holds dear. “War is Hell,” and it is necessary to remind those who would wage war against us of that fact in ways they will whisper – in fear - to their grandchildren.

Fortunately, Saddam Hussein has volunteered, after the Taliban in Afghanistan, to be the first Head of State to become an example. Fortunately … because he is so universally reviled that no one will mourn his passing. The US needs Saddam because he is to be the casus belli – the reason for going to war with Islamofascism (without appearing to go to war with Islam).

If for no other reason, Saddam must be removed before Iraq develops nuclear weapons. Nukes are the global “Great Equalizer.” They are the weapon that allows a small band – or a small country – to destroy whole cities with a single device. They are the ultimate terror weapon and, for that reason, must be denied to fanatics who would commit homicide on a massive scale.

But the reason for his removal is much broader. His will be the first regime in the Middle East to become an American occupation zone. Iraq will become the base from which the US will extend its power to those Muslim regimes that breed the particularly virulent brand of Islamofascists that threaten the West.

Saddam’s fall will prove that America is both morally and militarily capable of taking on and defeating its enemies. It will be the staging area from which “neutrals” like Saudi Arabia will be induced to end their support of Islamofacism or face the overthrow of their regimes. If the Ayatollahs of Iran have not fallen by that time, we will provide the resources to the student movement that will hasten their demise. Syria, Libya and the other Islamic states of the region will find themselves in a unipolar world where enmity to the US is deadly. The Palestinians will find it much more difficult to carry on their campaign of terror as their former allies either fall or are intimidated by the US military presence, and peace may actually come to that blood soaked region.

As the oil money funding Islamofacism dries up, insurgencies in Indonesia will be easier to stamp out and the funding of Islamofascist religious academies in Pakistan, other parts of the Mid East and Asia, and even the West will stop breeding the next generation of homicide bombers.

This is an ambitious plan, but, like World War 2, is one that is forced on us because of the scope and virulence of the enemy facing us. It will not be easily won or quickly over because, unlike Desert Storm, it cannot end with a cease fire. Because a cease fire will only be the lull between battles. It must end with the destruction of the will to fight on the part of the enemy – the enemy being defined here as an entire culture.

And, in the end, there may still be a tragedy. We will win. But we will have established an empire. And empires have built into them the seeds of their own destruction.

[Teacher317]

How about we do everything that is required to defend the nation all at the same time, as the Constitution charges? That would include Saddam, al-Qaeda, AND the border. Why must it be one first before the others? We have one of the largest militaries in the world to do it all with (1.4 million?). I think we can cover it all wthout much sweat. 50K on the borders, 200K in Iraq, the Special Forces get unleashed on al-Qaeda, and the rest in reserve for contingencies.

[DB]

Oil is a big issue, BUT, if that were the only issue it would be far cheaper and easier to get the oil flowing by lifting sanctions on Iraq.

Cheap oil doesn't make up for a vaporized US city.

[JZoback]

Oil is a big issue, BUT, if that were the only issue it would be far cheaper and easier to get the oil flowing by lifting sanctions on Iraq.

....but by lifting the sanctions, Saddam would still control the oil, the price and amount. That is still a problem.

Cheap oil doesn't make up for a vaporized US city.

Can't agree more

[DB]

The more he pumps the more oil on the market.

The more oil on the market, the lower the price.

[JZoback]

I think you are missing my point!

I am sure Saddam knows all about supply and demand economics.

Saddam wants to control the price of oil or at least have the handcuffs taken off so he can MANIPULATE the barrel price to make the US pay as much as possible to help build his military and weapons. Not to threaten america, but to threaten the other oil producing countries to toe the price line.

Neutralizing his weapons of mass destruction are also a very important piece of the US policy.

The US is trying dethrone the guy so we can keep the US and other countries safe from him. Why do you think the Saudis are such willing players behind the scences?

With Saddam out of the picture our influence in the region will be stronger.

[VirginiaGreek]

How do empires have in them the seeds of their own destruction?

[RonDog]

I am NOT saying Saddam is on the front burner for "oil" alone, but I am saying "oil" is a part of any strategy that the Bush team employs...

Please explain to me how President Bush's relatively aggressive support for Israel fits into the "Bush for Oil" strategy.

If the current administration's PRIMARY motivating factor in making political and military decisions is insuring easy access to oil, why would we not simply abandon Israel?

Is is possible that Bush is animated not only by pragmatism, but also - at times - by morality?

[dennisw]

Good. I have the same ideas but you put it all down and 100x better.

[Steve Eisenberg]

I don't see Iraq invading us, but I see Mexico doing it. I see anti-American Third Worlders invading the US. How about first of all we throw all of the invaders out of here before we invade other countries on the other side of the world?

From a standpoint of pure political reality, there only exists support from the American people to overthrow a single rogue foreign regime, now and for a good long time to come. The question is whether Iraq is that regime, rather than Syria, or Iran, or North Korea. It is, for a bunch of reasons including that Iraq is the only one of them which actually uses poison gas against its enemies (not to mention its own civilians), and it is the one which the US has been ineffectually bombing every few weeks for 12 years. The current policy of bombing Saddam year after year without ever defeating him is what really troubles me.

As for Mexico, there is today little politically realistic possibility of enforcing our southern border, but, after Iraq, America may look inward a bit more. Bush may get there yet.

[dennisw]

20k-30k of our military on the border is all we need. We need to make huge training base there. Will serve double duty.

[JZoback]

Please explain to me how President Bush's relatively aggressive support for Israel fits into the "Bush for Oil" strategy.

You already said it: It would be immoral for Bush to drop support for our only friend over there for the sole purpose of easy oil.

[RonDog]

Thanks.

Personally, I have no problem with the fact that "the free flow of oil at market prices" ( a la Rush) is a factor in our decision to liberate Iraq. It just aggravates me to hear the libs talk abour "War for Oil" as if President Bush is only acting as he does for his own personal monetary gain, particularly when his loyalty to Israel clearly refutes that point - as noted by Dennis Prager.

[upcountryhorseman]

So what's wrong with that? Energy in the form of oil has
made the industrial West possible.

[okie01]

"I don't see Iraq invading us, but I see Mexico doing it. I see anti-American Third Worlders invading the US. How about first of all we throw all of the invaders out of here before we invade other countries on the other side of the world?"

With all due respect, these particular invaders are unlikely to be bringing bio, chemical or nuclear devices with them.

Iraq, on the other hand, is prepared to supply such devices to people who are prepared to launch them against us.

Ergo, Iraq deserves its higher station on the pecking list, does it not?

[okie01]

"This is an ambitious plan, but, like World War 2, is one that is forced on us because of the scope and virulence of the enemy facing us. It will not be easily won or quickly over because, unlike Desert Storm, it cannot end with a cease fire."

An altogether astute analysis.

The War on Terrorism is much bigger than that. It is complex and multi-level and has profound ramifications. And it is a war that must be fought -- to its conclusion.

[MHGinTN]

They sound like hawks, but they have no beak or talons. NIce turn of phrase! Sadly, they (the despotic democrats) are far more dangerous since their goal is to cause sufficient failure in the war against terror that the voters will elect them back into power ... and all hell will eventually be unleashed in this country by the terrorists then left to their own devices ... or worse, the democrats will take power and institute martial law to control what their degenerate leadership has brought to be.