Great Article from the Salt Lake Tribune

 

Terrorists' Excuse du Jour

By Jonah Goldberg

Of course the war in Iraq has made us less safe, and I didn't need the National Intelligence Estimate to tell me so. Who could possibly deny that Iraq has become, in the words of the NIE, a "cause celebre" for jihadists? One need only read the newspaper to conclude that Iraq is spawning more terrorists. (Indeed, one fears that all the NIE authors did was clip from the newspapers.)

If you've ever stood up to a bully, you know how this works. Confrontation tends to increase the chances of violence in the short term but decreases its likelihood in the long term. Any hunter will tell you that the most dangerous moment is when you've cornered an animal, and any cop will tell you that standing up to muggers puts you in danger. American colonists were less safe for standing up to King George III, and the United States was certainly safer in the short term when we stood on the sidelines while Germany was conquering Europe. Heck, we would have been safer in the short run if we'd responded to Pearl Harbor by telling the Japanese they could have the Pacific to themselves.

var zflag_nid="598"; var zflag_cid="14/4/1"; var zflag_sid="1"; var zflag_width="300"; var zflag_height="250"; var zflag_sz="9"; on error resume next c0=IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.5")) if(c0 var tcdacmd="sa=o;sz=3;ad";

After 9/11, there were voices on the left warning that an attack on Afghanistan would only perpetuate the dreaded "cycle of violence." Today, Democrats tout their support of that "good" war as proof they aren't soft on terrorism. Fair enough, I suppose. But guess what? That war made us less safe too - if the measure of such things is "creating more terrorists." A Gallup poll taken in nine Muslim nations in February 2002 found that more than three-fourths of respondents considered the liberation of Afghanistan unjustifiable. A mere 9 percent supported U.S. actions. That goes for famously moderate Turkey, where opposition to the U.S. ran three to one, and in Pakistan, where a mere one in 20 respondents took the American side.

In other words, before Iraq became the cause celebre of jihadists, Afghanistan was. Does that mean we shouldn't have toppled the Taliban?

Going back further, it's conventional wisdom that we helped "create" Osama bin Laden, or his Taliban and mujahedin comrades, when we supported the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union. So we shouldn't have done that either?

Every serious analysis of the Islamic world today describes a genuine tectonic shift in a vast civilization, an upheaval that cuts across social, religious and demographic lines. This phenomenon dwarfs transient issues such as the Iraq war. Are we to believe that once-moderate and relatively secular Morocco is slipping toward extremism because we toppled Baathist Saddam Hussein? Do we believe that the mobs who burned Danish embassies in response to a cartoon wouldn't have done so if only President Bush had gone for the 18th, 19th or 20th U.N. resolution on Iraq? Millions of young men yearning for meaning and craving outlets for their rage would have become computer programmers and dental hygienists if only Hussein's statue still towered over central Baghdad? Would the pope's comments spark nothing but thoughtful and high-minded debate from the Arab street if only Al Gore or John Kerry were in office?

Iraq is the excuse du jour for jihadists. But the important factor is that these are young men looking for an excuse. If you live your life calculating that it's a mistake to do anything that might prompt murderers and savages to act like murderers and savages, you've basically decided to live under their thumb and surrender your civilization in the process.

For me, the truly dismaying news this week didn't come from the NIE but from the German media. A German opera house announced that it would cancel its staging of Mozart's "Idomeneo" because Berlin police concluded that staging the opera - which includes a scene in which Jesus, Buddha, Poseidon and Muhammad are beheaded - would pose an "incalculable security risk" from jihadists. Germany, recall, proudly opposed the Iraq war - but still narrowly missed a Spain-style terrorist attack on its rail system this summer.

A leading Muslim spokesman in Germany explained that he was all for free speech, as long as it didn't offend Muslims. The Germans' all-too-typical appeasement of terrorism no doubt makes them "safer" and "creates" fewer terrorists.

And all it cost them - for now - is Mozart.

Comments

# re: Great Article from the Salt Lake Tribune

Monday, October 02, 2006 1:27 PM by RationalRepublican

I think it was stupid to invade Iraq from purely a strategic point of view.  What was the strategy and why was it important to invade?

The reason for invasion changes with the phases of the moon.  What is the reason du jour?  Well, one poll suggested that over 50% of americans thought that Saddam was one of the people directly responsible for 9/11. He wasn't.  Then it was weapons of Mass Destruction. Then it was Saddam is a bad man.  

Let me clue you in; there are a lot of bad men in this world. Why haven't we gone into Darfor? (WAIT!  One right winger blogger on this site might anwser: The Sudaneese government won't  LET us.)  How many years of genocide does it take for someone to be seen as a BAD man?  Why don't we invade Iran? They are activley building a nuclear program and they supported terrorists in lebenon. How about our favorite North Korea?

The reason is that we are tied down in a stupid conflict spending billions of Dollars,  wasting lives, money and political capital.  We have divided our friends and united our enemies.  We could have done the exact opposite had we tried thinking before acting.

The idea is to win this conflict. Since we have limited resources, we need to use a force multiplier, in this case it would be our brains.  Too bad our current force multiplier seems to be .5.

# re: Great Article from the Salt Lake Tribune

Monday, October 02, 2006 2:46 PM by chefinfidel

Uniting our enemies is right.  
Moving the GWOT to Iraq was (as history will prove) a brilliant move, only luckily, most liberal armchair generals and the terrorists are too shortsighted and consumed with hate to see it.  If your looking for battlefield to fight islamic fanatics why not Iraq? Setting up shop in the middle of the middle east, and letting the terrorist from all around the world rush into our sights as we mow them down in awesome numbers is not genius?  Isn't that using a force multiplier in it's truest form?  Yes, we are taking losses, it's a horrible situation there and in Afganistan, but why spread our forces all over the world, trying to hunt them down in jungles, cities, etc.?  I'd rather hunt them down in sand dunes, not L.A. The terrorists are flocking to Iraq, it's big distraction, and if you don't think that wasn't planned on (by really real military geniuses), your missing the point.

# re: Great Article from the Salt Lake Tribune

Monday, October 02, 2006 6:01 PM by RationalRepublican

See, yet another new reason for the war in Iraq.  This has got to be one of the few wars we have ever fought in my memory in which no one knows why we are there.  You don't know, you are guessing.  Talk about a reason du jour.  Thanks for proving my point.   Tomorrow, I am sure, there will be yet another reason once this idea falls flat.  Fall flat it will because it so bizzare I can't even believe anyone would think of it.  

4000 dead terroists is not an Awsome number, what is an awsome number is the 10's of thousands of innocent iraq's dying to pursuit your war.  Innocents are the ones getting mowed down.  I assume there are many militia being killed, but they are not terrorists in the sense of traveling to the US to cause damage.  There are a bunch of Iraqies who would will only fight as long as we are there.  You can't count them as terrorists in the sense of Osama. (BY the way, Osama is in Pakistan, not Iraq--this just seems not to be able to stick in the memories of republicans. A bizare fact I know, but true.)

Here is an exercise for you. Calculators are allowed. Take the known number of Muslims in the world,  multiply by .001% as the number of potential terrorists (feel free to pick a number of your chosing.  Now divide a trillion dollars, by 4000 and multipy by the first number.  How many trillions does it take to kill of all the terrorists?

Right-wing Armchair generals pat themselves on the back thinking up after the fact yet another reason to pursue thier brilliant strategy oblivious to the pain and suffering they are causing and oblivious to whether the strategy is effective.

Also, you forget the other really stupid part of the war. Placing a huge part of the world's oil under one group's control.  Brilliant.  And thanks to the republicans we have no alternative fuel plan.   So if the civil war continues, there is a risk of losing control of IRAN and IRAQs oil.   Absolutely brilliant.  Proof positive, the world should not entrust the future of our children to the republican party.

Oh and by the way. I am not consumed by hate.  I am shocked by the stupidity of the war.   Completely different emotion. I don't need to hate someone to disagree with them.  George Bush is wrong.  I disagree.

# re: Great Article from the Salt Lake Tribune

Monday, October 02, 2006 6:07 PM by Desechado

Amen to the Chef.

I also agree with RationalRep. He said: " Let me clue you in; there are a lot of bad men in this world. Why haven't we gone into Darfor? (WAIT!  One right winger blogger on this site might anwser: The Sudaneese government won't  LET us.)  How many years of genocide does it take for someone to be seen as a BAD man?  Why don't we invade Iran? They are activley building a nuclear program and they supported terrorists in lebenon. How about our favorite North Korea?"

It is a shame that in the late 70's we had to deal with Iran holding our embassy hostage. The families of the 200 U.S. Marines that were attacked in Lebanon in the mid-80's may wonder why we left the responsible party without punishment. Why do we let an insignificant speck on the map called North Korea bully the rest of the world. Personally, I think that South Korea should be an island.

Maybe what we need to do is keep fighting evil by having evil come to us in Iraq as the Chef speculates instead of opening ourselves at too many battlefronts.

# re: Great Article from the Salt Lake Tribune

Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:50 AM by Splittfinger

This one is for RR.  It is an article from Amy'sBlog Contributor:

President is Right on Iraq

The President made two great speeches last week on the war on terror and Iraq. One speech was to the Reserve Officers Association in Washington, DC, the other to the Bob Riley for Governor Luncheon.

With this excellent commentary from the President of the United States, there are several points to expound briefly upon:

First, the war in Iraq did not create terrorism. This is obvious. Are some terrorists inspired by the cause of fighting the West and Israel? No doubt, but terrorists are not being provoked by anything new. Their hatred for us predates out involvement in Iraq, predates the Clinton Administration, and predates the Reagan Administration. However, it is important to note that America is not less safe because some terrorists may have joined the cause to fight against us. Have faith in your country, Democrats, because the Pat Tillman’s of America have stepped up to the plate to counterbalance any increase in terrorists. If hatred inspires some terrorists to join the fight against us, let them know that patriotism and love creates young Americans who will defend Her and Her citizens. This is valor, honor, duty, and love of country. No enemy can rival this.

Living on a basic training post affords me to see THOUSANDS of new, young recruits entering the Army every single week. These are those patriots of which I speak. It could be argued that soldiers enlisting after 9/11 didn’t know they’d be going to war in Iraq, but this is clearly no longer the case. Every soldier who enlists today knows he will likely be going to either Iraq or Afghanistan, and certainly going to fight this enemy in one form or another.

Recruiting and re-enlistment rates in the military in the past 2 years have been consistently above the goal in every branch. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have been enjoying 100%+ rate of recruiting and soldiers, yes even soldiers in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN, have been consistently re-enlisting. My husband is one such soldier. He re-enlisted in Baghdad in 2003 at the height of the battle in Iraq.

Democrats feign concern about the safety of America because they don’t know America, or that we are full to the brim with good, honest, brave patriots who won’t let America be attacked again. Democrats underestimate our character, because they have only their own as a reference. “Cut and run” certainly doesn’t instill courage, except for enemies like Osama Bin Laden.

Secondly, the information exploited by a National Intelligence Estimate leak concludes that if terrorism loses and freedom and democracy wins in Iraq, terrorists will not be inspired to continue on in their fight. The President is right; Democrats cannot have it both ways. To say more terrorists are being created on one hand and that we should leave Iraq on the other is a double negative for the United States. If indeed there is inspiration for terrorists now, that inspirtation would quadruple if we left Iraq. Think Somalia, think Osama bin Laden, think USS Cole…..

Thirdly, the idea that Saddam Hussein left in power would be better for the world, let alone Iraq, is a gaping hole of ignorance. Even Democrats supported the invasion in 2002-2003 not based on “faulty intelligence” (which turns out to not be so faulty), but based on what we know about his past accomplishments and future hopes. Need a reminder? Watch the Democrats in this video.

Finally, the National Intelligence Estimate also states a very important fact that America needs to capitalize on and understand. That is that the terrorists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ideology is “unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims.” This is absolutely true. If American can respect moderate Muslims, particularly those who publicly reject the violence and acts of terrorism, we are on the fast track to winning this war on terror.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said when he visited the Congress in July 2006:

I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of the war on terror. Let me be very clear: This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person’s liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak; in reality, waging a war on Islam and Muslims and values.

The truth is that terrorism has no religion. Our faith says that who kills an innocent, as if they have killed all mankind.

He is absolutely right. Islam may be a religion many of us do not yet fully understand, nor may we ever fully understand it, but the key to victory over terrorism is unifying with moderate Muslims who reject the hijacking of their religion by terrorists.

Finally, the President’s comment that “Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut-and-run,” hits the nail on the head. If anyone can offer any positive solution that the Democrats have proposed or enacted about Iraq, the war on terror or homeland security, please feel free to share it.

Cross-posted at Amy’s Blog: Bottom Line Up Front