Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Why invading Iraq was (and is) critical in the war on terror

I often come up with interesting possibilities late at night, after the meds kick in.

In my travels across teh intarnets, I've read many a comment about how we had no business in Iraq, Osama was never in Iraq, we should be hunting the REAL terrorists in Afghanistan, etc. For a long time, I pondered the Afghanistan question myself.

If one were to only watch the TV news, or read newspapers, you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find ANY news stories about Afghanistan. (Unless, of course, you were looking fort he US body count.) The 'stan is a forgotten war, much like Korea. Politically, it isn't an issue, the left focuses on "getting out of Iraq (never mentioning the other war) and no one ever seems to mention that "defense spending bills" actually cover BOTH places.

So why do this? Remember folks: the a-rab world is all about respect, face, and honor. NOT making OBL priority numero-uno takes away some of his credibility, believe it or not. Saying Saddam is a bigger, more urgent threat than OBL actually minimizes OBL's stature in the arab world. It's an insult to him, and to al-queda. Basically, it says that he's less important, that we don't view him as the biggest threat, that we have other bridges to burn before we get around to him.

And people think GWB is dumb.


No comments: