So Iraq to some extent is a test of that basic fundamental proposition. Is their strategic view that we won't complete the job correct? Or is our strategic view correct, that we can, in fact, organize people in that part of the world, as well as use our forces in order to achieve a significant victory and defeat those elements that, among other things launched an attack on the United States on 9/11 and killed 3,000 Americans.
We're just not that stupid. Saddam was not Osama. Osama is not Saddam. Iraq is not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not Iraq. They were separate problems for us pre-9/11. In fact, they were separate problems until we went into Iraq. In fact, I think there are cogent arguments to be made that they are still separate problems, that Iraq is now in a civil war and its problems are, at most, minimally related to Al Qaeda.
Regardless, please stop peddling this particular conflation.
3 comments:
I'm beginning to think that Cheney himself actually believes there is a linkage--and there is, in a vague, ideological sense.
Of course, there's no physical connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of September 11th. But I think what the Vice President may mean when he speaks about a connection is a wider ideological connection: both insurgents in Iraq and Al Qaeda operatives elsewhere hate America, rejoiced in if not actually supplied tangible support for the events of September 11th, and thus are part of the same amorphous, America-hating blob to the Vice President.
Is this sufficient reason to invade Iraq? I think the American people, if belatedly, have passed judgment on that.
I'm not so cynical that I don't think that Cheney honestly believes that there was/is a physical connection.
And I have to agree with you that at this point, there is that ideological connection. The particular root causes--or even proximate causes--of the anti-American feeling may well be different, though.
Besides, this ideological connection fails as a justification for invasion in at least two regards beyond your look at the American public's response. First, it's an ex post facto justification. Second, looking prospectively, it's much too broad. If we were justified in invading every place that hated us or harbored people that hated us, there'd be no limit as to where we could legally invade. Our allies, neutral powers, even ourself--they'd all be legitimate targets. This just doesn't fly.
Just to clarify--I wasn't arguing that hatred of the United States, however virulent, could ever justify an armed invasion.
I'm not sure that the administration thinks it's too broad, though--look at the Axis of Evil. What if the occupation of Iraq had been wildly successful, but Iran hadn't been reined in?
Post a Comment