08 July 2005

Bush War on Terror, Iraq Strategy: Miserable, Immoral Failure

TCR, self-styled "honest conservative," has a terrific post on why the Bush "war on terror" is such a miserable failure and how the "flypaper" strategy in Iraq is both totally misguided and unsuccessful, and morally bankrupt.

My comment is that it isn't honest conservatism that bothers me. It's the total contempt for the people and the truth consistently demonstrated by this administration. At 52, I've never felt more alienated from the centers of power of American government.


  1. So what is a "success" on the war on terror in your opinion? Since, according to your prior posts, the only legitimate response to 9/11 was to go after those directly responsible for those attacks. Hence your opposition to the overthrow of Saddam (a supporter and backer of numerous terrorist attacks). TCR and those that agree with him on his "blog" are pretty naive. To believe that the capture/killing of Bin Laden or whoever is the boogey man de jure will end terrorism is short sighted and frankly shows a fundamental ignorance of the challenge facing the targets of Islamic terrorism. Leaders must be captured/killed/neutralized but there has to be a fundamental change in both the Middle East and the expat Muslim communities throughout the world. The strategy being employed on a policy basis in Iraq has never been tried before in dealing with terrorism. It is far more akin to the defeat of Nazi Fascism then Vietnam or any other half baked analogy. Mistakes have and will be made, no doubt. But where is the constructive analysis and ideas coming from the opponents of this "war"?

  2. I should think it obvious enough, in response to Anonymous's comment above, that the burden of establishing the usefulness of attacking Iraq as part of a
    war on terror is upon those arguing for it. The case that invading Iraq has made us in any way safer from terrorist attacks by radical Islamists is not just weak; a strong case can be made that the war has been overwhelmingly counterproductive in this respect, giving Islamist terrorists a fertile new training ground and grist for their propaganda mill.

    I haven't time to respond to each point made in this comment in depth at the moment, but I reject the assumption that because someone is critical of a policy they must have no alternative ideas. As time permits, I will try to lay out an answer to these questions, which may surprise the writer, as my ideas on how the U.S. should have/should respond to the threat of Islamic Fundamentalist agression is not typical of liberals, and may resemble what TCR believes more closely.

  3. Well if the utility of overthrowing a regime that funds ($25k per suicide bomber in Israel), shelters (Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, etc.) and incourages terrorist acts (World Trade Center in 1993 and the attempted assasination of Bush, etc.) is not self evident to you, you may not be the best one to opine on the "war on terror" and its success. Like it or not, accept it or not, give credit where credit is due or not, the world is changing for the better as a result of Western Civilization getting involved in the liberation of Iraq. Polls are showing a shift in Muslim lands away from the support of terrorists and their "leaders" (http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050714/wl_mideast_afp/usreligionislampoll_050714220012).
    CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER has an excellent piece on the "neocon" agenda and success of same (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006921).

    Say what you will about the battlefield of Iraq and the chaos in the Sunni Triangle (to expect the place to look like Sweden after two years is simply illogical), the fact that Western leaders have taken a long view on the terrorist problem is refreshing and needed. So now that a murderous dictator that executed hundreds of thousands of muslims and threatened the protectors of the holiest cites in Islam has been deposed and his government replaced by officials elected by the people, the Islamic terrorists are NOW really pissed? HA! The civilized world must stop giving ideological quarter to barbarian killers and excuses for their acts (these people want Spain back as part of the Caliphate, do you think maybe then they won't blow up kindergartens?). The number of attacks and the body counts of killers or victims will not define victory (although the homefront has been pretty bloodless since 9/11). Confronting and changing the conditions, the means and the support for Islamic terrorism is the goal and condition for victory. I am convinced that had the US only overthrown the Taliban, there would be the same amount of terrorists in the world with the same conviction. I certainly have not heard any good ideas from the anti-Bush crowd on defeating Islamic terror but I am prepared to be "wowed" by your response.


Gyromantic Informicon. Comments are not moderated. If you encounter a problem, please go to home page and follow directions to send me an e-mail.