the fact that Iraq and the "war on terror" can be distinguished from each other.....
"That may be your opinion, but it is not a fact...."
Well...its all opinion. Let's look at it this way..would there still be an Iraq war if the War on Terror had not been formally launched after 9/11? Doubtful, in my view...Saddam would still be bottled up and if the world were worried about his WMD programs and UN violations, it would have been dealt with in a different manner than it was in fact.
But if Iraq had not been invaded the War on Terror would still exist. The fronts would be different, the tactics and use of our precious resource different, but after 9/11 it would be happening. Maybe it would be more Afghanistan focused, or we would be dealing with Pakistan differently....or even (gasp) Saudi Arabia...but we didn't need to bog down in Iraq to fight the War on Terror.
The Administration would tell us they are indistinguishable, but they are not....unless you ignore the Senate Intelligence Commitee reports and all the rest.
Now, if you want to say the incompetence of dealing with Iraq has made it a hotbed for terrorism (i.e., the recent NIE), then the argument is that we have made Iraq something it was not, and never would have been but for our actions.....a part of the war on terror.
Just because the President keeps saying something, despite consensus conclusions from professionals to the contrary, doesn't make it true.
Opinions abound. |
