« Home | MI5: 1/4 of Muslim population "sympathetic to viol... » | The Chavez-Chomsky love affair » | Iran sought nuclear weapon in 1988 » | Profiles » | What is a moderate? »

War in Iraq birthing terrorists

Recently George W. Bush has declassified four pages of the National Intelligence Estimate. Its full title is Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States. This was in response to the leak of classified information from the National Intelligence Estimate by anonymous sources to the New York Times. The New York Times developed its original story from, "More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts." The beginning of the article sums up their conclusions:
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
When Bush was forced to declassify four pages of this document, the summary remained the same. The New York Times furthered its original information with excerpts such as, "The Iraqi jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere." The report stated that there was "pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims" and that, "The Iraq conflict has become the ‘cause célèbre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

Despite the overall tone of the document denoucning the productivity of the war in Iraq, conservatives also capitalized on excerpts; "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." Thus the argument was made that leaving Iraq would be harmful and we should actually support the war. The reality is somewhere in between. Somewhere moderate.

To the dismay of many on the far-left, it's recognized even by liberal politicians that pulling out of Iraq would be harmful. It would make the insurgents believe that they have won, as well as allow them to pull Iraq further into civil war. The elected Iraqi government has requested US military presence, giving the United States a moral obligation to stay. But Bush's current war in Iraq is failing. Soldiers are poorly funded and badly supplied. There are far too few troops in Iraq to subdue it in any meaningful way. It is time for US military action in Iraq, but not the military action of Bush and Rumsfeld.

Many people confuse moderate with liberal. Try not to do that. A moderate approach would be to correctly fund the Iraq war, correctly supply our troops, and yes, even send more troops to Iraq. Moderates support necessary military action, and right now military action in Iraq is necessary. It wasn't necessary before we went in, but it is now. The war is failing because Bush has taken a conservative rather than a moderate approach when he tried to cut corners and save money on troop funding and deployment. If we 'stay the course' we will lose. If we 'cut and run' we've lost as well.

About me

  • Contact at AriRabin01@aim.com - Instant Message (AIM) at AriRabin01
My profile