What hogwash. Iraq had nothing to do with "Islamism". Go to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and you will find the enemy that you claim is "our enemy".
Sure, sure - that's why Sadaam imported fedayeen to defend himself and the jihadists are pouring in, because there was no relation between himself and Islamism. That's why Saddam proclaimed himself a pious Muslim and the heir to the caliphate, because there was no relation between himself and Islamism. That's why Iraqi Intelligence backed Ansar Al Islam, because there was no relation between himself and Islamism.
Not to mention Mohammed Atta's little training sessions with Abu Nidal, if they pan out, as I think they will. Al Qaeda did not mount 9/11 without intensive training from experts, and I think we'll find that some of those experts took their marching orders from Baghdad.
It's true that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not to mention Syria and Iran, are bigger and more open terrorist bases. We ARE going to them, with as much pressure as we can muster. If we had left the Taliban and Saddam alone to defy us, we could have exterted no pressure either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, don't you get that? Now we have bases next to these countries, and have shown a willingness to fight, and to take casualties in our own defence. Musharraf cut Pakistan's support for the Taliban. Saudi Arabia is now starting to fight Al Qaeda and is making noises about elections. This shows that the pressure exists. Directly invading either of these countries is not feasible! what did you want us to do? Invade Saudi Arabia, sink our troops in a real quagmire, with Saddam ready to take advantage at our back? was that your advice?
You are always ready to demand that the US take some "pure" and impossible course, and always ready to condemn any feasible course of action. All your advice amounts do "Do nothing. Ask yourself why they hate us. Wait for the next attack." |
