Invading Iraq probably would not have been at the top of the list...
It wasn't at the top of Bush's list, either.
But I think the administration quickly realized that while Iraq wasn't the CAUSE of 9/11, it could be an important part of the solution.
By eliminating Saddam you deal with lots of problems. You get rid of a chronic problem in the Mideast. You get rid of a brutal dictator. You stablize the oil situation. And most importantly, you put a free country right in the center of the Middle East, one which over 20 years can become a model of what freedom can be.
It is difficult for many to see, but over time this will prove to have been a brilliant strategy. Iran just needed a push. Iraq will, eventually, serve to give them that push. We've seen radical change in Saudi Arabia already (radical, when compared with the usual rate of change there). We've seen the caving of Libya. Iraq, once tidied up, will set an example for the entire region.
People will question the move for years. But there is little doubt, if you think this through fully, what we've done in Iraq has been the MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT of the war on terror. History will remember that our freeing Iraq was fundamental to reducing the level of anti-americanism in the Middle East.
To compare the War on Terror with the War on Drugs is TOTALLY missing what has happened here. Iraq is a perfect example of addressing a problem at the root (i.e., anti-Americanism). The war on drugs has been ANYTHING BUT addressing the problem at the root. The only similarity between the two has been that the enemies both are cellular in structure, which makes conventional military means ineffective.
In Iraq, the military has been applied almost tactically rather than strategically to address the problem of terror. |
