I have once again heard Mr. Bush say in a speech that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in America. This is one of his weakest arguments for Iraq and I'd wish he'd stop. It insults the intelligence of the rest of the world and particularly Iraqis, and I suspect it is a dangerous thing to say. The argument is weak because:
1. It seems like a hell of a thing to say to the Iraqi people. On the one hand Bush says we are liberating Iraq, but on the other hand he says we are going to use their country as a battleground for the war on terror. Kind of an insult to the Iraqi people. It's kind of like the guy with the nice lawn who goes onto his neighbor's lawn to play soccer because he doesn't want his lawn ruined.
- Is Bush dumber than I thought? He seems all but encouraging terrorists to come to this country. His argument is that he is doing a good job in the war on terrorism because he is using the territory of Iraq as the battleground and no attacks are happening in America. That logic goes by the wayside real sudden if an attack were to occur in the United States, particularly if the attacker originates from Iraq. It's as if he is encouraging a terrorist to come here in order to embarrass him and ruin his argument. Kind of like when he said "Bring them on".
- It is an oversimplified argument that fails to address the complicated nature of Iraq. There is more than terrorism going on in Iraq. Admittedly, there is terrorism - and appears to be increasing, depending upon who you listen to - but there is also the beginnings of a struggle for the future of Iraq and possibly the war never ended. Who knows? We certainly don't and I doubt anyone really does, but its seems to me that it is a little more complicated than simple terrorism.
- There has never been any evidence of terrorism against American that originated in Iraq prior to our invasion/occupation/liberation. Bush's statement implies that the war is due to terrorists in Iraq who threatened America. There is no evidence of that.
- Bush's argument implies that if we did not invade Iraq terrorists would be able to come to America. It is true that terrorists have traveled to Iraq from other countries, but that does not preclude them from coming to America. Arguably, the number of terrorists has increased and therefore the chances of an attack in America has increased.
- Lastly, it evidences Mr. Bush's failed policy. As I see it, the Bush Doctrine has evolved into the following statement: After September 11, America reserves the right to invade any country under the guise of terrorism, provided we think they evince an ill-will towards us, while at the same time failing to aggressively capture the terrorist who killed 3,000 Americans because we are afraid to offend the country where the terrorist is reportedly living. Talk about a misguided policy. GO AFTER THE GUY WHO KILLED THE PEOPLE AND STOP WITH SILLY RATIONALES FOR THE STUPID MISTAKE IN IRAQ.
It seems to me that at this point the Administration is down to illogical arguments like that noted above as a means to convince us of their success. Who knows whether we will succeed in Iraq, but I doubt oversimplified, illogical, false arguments as a justification for the war and hopes that America's military might will eventually cause the insurgents/terrorists/Baathists/Sunnis/etc to quite is going to get it done.