<<I'll give you some facts... Many of those "terrorists" had no involvement with terrorism before we invaded.
How do you know that? While it could be true because our involvement has had a duration of two and a half years, I've seen no factual evidence that our presence in Iraq itself is creating terrorists. That is the assumption of the anti-Bush folks. Of course the pro-Bush explanation is that the occupation is drawing terrorists to a single theater for engagement with our military.>>
Bill, is that a serious question? I'll assume that it is and try to answer.
First, we all have to acknowledge that no one can "conclusively prove" what motivates another person. That creates, of course, the luxury of deniability. Despite that fact, there are hundreds of instances in everyday life where we attempt to influence the behaviors of other people through our own actions. We try to intimidate them, persuade them, tempt them, play on their fears, their loves, their faith, their sense of loyalty, and on and on. We do that because we KNOW that, although there are individual differences, most people will likely react in predictable ways to the things we do.
So we start with the absolute certainty that, deniability or not, we are intelligent and wise enough to be able to make general predictions regarding the likely type and range of the reactions of other people to certain actions we take. That's what we call "common sense," and it's the reason we don't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre or "free drinks" while standing between a group of Irishmen and the bar.
Second, after we act and create a stimulus, we can observe the reactions of the people impacted by our actions and then try to determine how much we can attribute to the stimulus we provided, and how much might have been caused by other factors. We can do this by assessing the timing of the action/reaction and by listening to what they tell us.
And, finally, we can look to the people who have the most expertise in assessing such things, consider their assessments, weigh their biases and try to find expert guidance to augment our common sense.
In this case the question posed is whether our actions in invading, occupying and policing Iraq is, as you've worded it, "creating terrorists." And the primary group of potential terrorists encompasses the Iraqis themselves (all sects), radical Islamic believers and young Middle Eastern men looking for a cause.
What is it about the Iraqi invasion that might create the passion in them to become terrorists? Well, we've created pictures of their naked countrymen being tortured and their religious taboos mocked, we've broken down doors and hauled away their fellow Muslims without trial and some of them never came back, we've created what we call "collateral damage" and what they've seen as pictures of the broken, screaming or shattered bodies of their women and children, we've sent men in uniform who don't speak their language or understand their customs to "control" them, we've decimated entire blocks and cities such as Fallujah with bombs, missiles and artillery and we arrogantly claim we're doing it "for their own good" because we're certain that our way of doing things is best for them. And, of course, we claimed the right to start it on the basis of "self defense" from the "threat" of wmds and they KNOW how valid that excuse was.
Now I don't know about you, but if I was in their shoes I'd be a little upset, especially if myself, my wife, child, mother, father, sister, brother or friend was at the receiving end of a broken down door, a bomb, a bullet, or a missile. In fact, in the scope of "normal" reactions that might range from depression, to anger, to full fledged "don't care if I die to get even" hatred, I'm not sure that I wouldn't be in the most extreme category. And I'm not even a religious nut who believes in "infidels" or "heathens."
Bill, surely even you must acknowledge that the actions we're taking in Iraq are much more likely to inflame the passions of those who might be prone to terrorism than to calm them?
But hey, why not take a look at what's happening on the ground. How many suicide bombers are there in Iraq who are attacking Americans or our supporters? How many attacks, some almost suicidal in nature, are being conducted against armoured, heavily armed and highly trained American soldiers every month in Iraq? Why have the number of worldwide terrorist attacks increased since we invaded Iraq, both in terms of number and the intensity? Why are many of the attackers justifying their attacks based on the rationale of our invasion of Iraq? Surely it seems that based on the timing of the increases, the worldwide condemnation of Muslims, the angry rhetoric from the Muslim populations and the words of the extremists themselves, there must be some connection to the passionate dedication to terrorism and our invasion of Iraq?
And then there's the opinions of the experts, particularly the experts on Middle Eastern, Islamic cultures and terrorism. You may have noticed that virtually all of the experts who've spoken out on this issue seem to have no difficulty concluding that our actions in Iraq have increased the number of and support for radical, dangerous and committed men who are willing to die to cause us harm and change our policies in the Middle East?
And if none of that brings you around, why do you think that even Rumsfeld had the integrity to publicly question whether "we're creating terrorists faster than we can capture or kill them." Of course he created a firestorm with that statement and he hasn't gone there recently, but it's clear that any thinking person, no matter what their bias, should understand that regardless of whether you support the war in Iraq, it is certainly creating more terrorists.
And the magnet theory that we're cleverly drawing a limited number of terrorists into Iraq so that we can capture or kill them; that theory has to ignore common sense, actual experience and opinions of experts who should have special insights. In my view it's a little like trying to identify violent mothers by torturing their kids; it clearly works and you'll certainly find a lot of violent mothers.
I'm sure that the people who were clever enough to construct the "magnet" theory of "attracting" terrorists to Iraq are far too clever to believe it themselves. Ed |
