Hawk, all this started because of September 11 and war on Al-Qaeida. But it is ending up as a mission to democratizing Iraq.
No.. it was not just a war limite to Al-Qaeda, but any current, or potential, terrorism that could executed against the US.
And obviously we have priorities when ascertaining which regions pose the greatest security risk, both physically and economically.
Invading Iraq is similiar to how we invaded Vichy France. We weren't at war with Vichy France, but we "liberated" those areas in order to get a better logistical base of operations from which to attack the real enemy.
But in this case, the threat is militant Islam, spawning out of Saudi Arabia's holy Islamic sites, ruled by Wahabbist clerics.
But obviously we could invade Saudi Arabia because they were still, allegedly, a US ally, and doing so would have risked interrupting the global supply of oil and sending the world into a economic depression.
But we could invade Iraq, especially since Saddam was blatantly in violation of binding UN resolutions and the fact that no one has yet accounted for thousands of tons of unaccounted for WMDs.
Eliminating Saddam's regime has FINALLY opened up the region to an incredible range of possibilies for change, as well as peace, in the region. All regimes in the region now know that their governments only a couple of weeks away from being effectively overthrown, should they support terrorism against the US, or it's allies.
And once Iraqi oil is brought online to the global market, it will rival Saudi Arabia's production. Saudi Arabia will find it's role in the global oil market, as well as the dominant nations in the regional power structure, diminished significantly.
That will force the Saudis to finally act to constrain their militant Islamic clerics or risk having their regime replaced by the Hashemites, from whom they they seized control of the Hijaz (where the holy cities of Islam are located).
Furthermore, having US troops in Iraq has disrupted the transitting of weapons, money, and personnel between Iran and Syria/Lebanon.
Finally, Iraq, having been a secular state for so long, is MUCH more capable of accepting and implementing democratic ideas than most nations in the Arab world (Iran is not Arab). They don't have the overly zealous religious population base as Saudi Arabia has. Thus, the greatest chances of succes lie there, where significant oil reserves should provide sufficient resources to rapidly rebuild the economy.
So I think you are racing to a conclusion on the War on Terrorism. We have not won it, it is not done.
I think you're racing to the conclusion that I said any such thing (which I did not). There are two ways to fight a war... Defend and let the enemy shatter themselves on your defenses, or attack and seek to deny the enemy their own sanctuaries. Defence means the enemy has the initiate and you have to react to their actions. Attack means you keep the enemy off kilter and unable to marshal significant resources or planning to engage in significant attacks against you.
This war is DEFINITELY not over. It won't be over until militant Islam is replaced by moderation and modernization. And because the enemy lives in a shadowy stateless world, it is extremely important that we punish any regime that provides them safe haven, or provides financial and logistical support.
Iraq may, or may not, have been an "ideal" target with regard to fitting into the "war on terror". But there was certainly irrefutable evidence that Saddam had provided haven and support to various terrorist groups, even if no connection is eventually found to Bin Laden.
Iraq is a stepping stone to creating the necessary change that provide sufficient economic and political change to neutralize the threat of militant Islam.
Ultimately the war on terrorism will be won economically, not militarily, just as any "war on crime" cannot be won without dealing with economic poverty. Thus, military force is merely a means to an end.
Hawk |
