Of course, this flies in the face of the 9/11 Commission Report, which concluded that we've seen no "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States", and President Bush, who said that we have "no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."
For a follow-up, maybe the Congressman from North Carolina will give us a little insight into those WMD stockpiles in Iraq. [sigh]
More importantly, however, he provides the best definition of the war we are actually fighting and how Iraq and 9/11 both factor into it:
we are engaged in a war against a sociopolitical paradigm—the confluence of Fundamentalist Islamist Jihadism and the powerful tyrannies that amplify the danger they present—which obtains predominantly in the Middle East, and can only be minimized to a relatively safe level by altering the fundamental nature of the States in the Middle East in order to disable the incentives that make Islamist terrorism seem worthwhile.
That is, to "win" the so-called War on Terror, we have to change the political landscape in the Middle East and minimize the dangers presented by the nexus of terrorism and Rogue States.
We might disagree on the utility of attacking Iraq for that reason, but that is the connection between the Iraq war and 9/11. It's not particularly hard to understand. (Emphasis in original -RR)
I would say, however, that it's not exactly obvious, at least not unless it is explained to you. In my case, it wasn't until a read a series of essays by the incomparable Steven Den Beste that I understood just why we are fighting this war, who our enemy is, why they really hate us, and what we will need to do to win. (Note to Steven should he, by some incredible miracle, ever read this: I know I speak for many of my fellow bloggers when I say thank you for all you've done. Your voice is sorely missed.)
No comments:
Post a Comment