In case you missed it, the latest National Intelligence Estimate on the threat posed terrorism is out, and its filled with very little - if any - good news. I've been busy the past two days, so I missed my chance to comment on the initial release. But no worries... there's still plenty to say about the administration's response:
In talking with reporters in the Oval Office yesterday, Bush concentrated on a single paragraph in the assessment that placed the enemy in Iraq in a larger context of international terrorism. The estimate said bin Laden's organization will "probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa'ida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland."
Although only a portion of the instability in Iraq is attributed to al-Qaeda and the group had no substantial power base there before the U.S. invasion, Bush again cast the war as a battle against its members, whom his aides have described as key provocateurs there."These people have sworn allegiance to the very same man who ordered the attack on September the 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden," the president said. "And they want us to leave parts of the world, like Iraq, so they can establish a safe haven from which to spread their poisonous ideology. And we are steadfast in our determination to not only protect the American people, but to protect these young democracies."
I've probably heard Bush say something like this nearly 1,000 times now, but for some reason today it really stop and made me think. And the more I thought about this, the more confused I got.
According to this statement, the reason we are in Iraq isn't even about terrorism. It is about combatting the spread of an ideology that convinces people to commit terrorist acts. We are, according to this logic, engaged in a military conflict to stop the spread of a set of ideas. Not to stop the spread of terrorism, but to stop the spread of the ideas that lead to terrorism.
And this is supposed to make sense how exactly? You can kill people. the U.S. Army can kill lots of people, in fact. But how they are supposed to use Hummers and Apaches against an ideology, I really have no idea.
I realize this sound like I'm just picking nits here, but I'm not. If the argument was that we were fighting a war to prevent the establishment of a safe haven from which individuals could launch terrorist attacks - you know, like the ones that currently exist in Afghanistan and Pakistan - I might understand it. But fighting a war to prevent the establishment of a safe haven from which individuals can spread ideas? Surely there must be a better way than this.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
