Thursday, June 15, 2006

Hypocrisy in Iraq

The Republican-led Congress is about to introduce a resolution stating that the war in Iraq is "the critical part of the global war on terrorism." The statement echoes the claim that the Bush Administration makes to justify the U.S. presence in Iraq.

As I have been arguing in this blog, this claim is classic hypocricy. Only after the Bush Administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003, did that country become a "critical part of the global war on terrorism." Until the invasion, there was no proof that Iraq's maniacal ruler, Saddam Hussein, was exporting terrorism. To remain in power, he was too busy terrorizing his domestic enemies and the country's oppressed Shiite population.

Indeed, Iraq, a secular nation, was then a bulwark against Iran, a Shiite theocracy that was the Iraqi Sunni rulers' traditional enemy. The Iranians were busily promoting terrorism in countries ranging from Lebanon to Argentina. In Argentina, evidence has shown that Iran was behind the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, in which more than 200 people were killed.

In Lebanon, the Iranian-supported Hezballah was responsible for the death of more than 200 U.S. marines who were in the country to halt a civil war between Muslims and Christians. The Hezballah has also been conducting terrorist action on Israel's northern border ever since the Israelis withdrew from southern Lebanon.

In short, the invasion of Iraq created a critical new front in the war against Islamist global terrorism where there wasn't one before 2003. The result is that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as a primary training ground for radical Islamic terrorists. As recent terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, and elsewhere have demonstrated, these new jihadists have actually committed or have been inspired by the Iraqi insurgents to bring their violent operations to new neighborhoods.

So far, the victor in the war in Iraq has been Iran. With the Iraqi Shiites now dominating the new Iraqi regime, Iran is already wielding influence it did not enjoy before. While the new regime's main leaders talk as if they are pro-American, recent battles between rival Shiite militias show that there are signficant blocs of anti-American Shiites who want the U.S. forces to get out.

I also think we should get out. So does Pennsylvania's Congressman John Murtha, a former Marine colonel, and other military experts who now believe the Iraq invasion was a tragic mistake.

Iraq now has a government and an American-trained army and police force. Unfortunately, both appear to be riddled with personnel from the sectarian militias, making a mockery of the question of whether the country can defend itself. Defend itself against whom?

No foreign enemy threatens Iraq. Instead, a civil war seems to be shaping up in which the rival militias would be battling each other. Playing referee in such an event is not the kind of role that the U.S. should assume while conducting a global war against terrorism. It is not a cause worthy of the killing of still more American troops.


Blogger goldenlucyd said...

I think I'm losing it. I was sure I left a comment on your previous post. In any case I very much enjoyed both the post and comments.

This post was spot-on as well. We certainly have no business playing referee in this lose-lose situation. We have more than enough on our plate here at home.

Sending you and your family wishes for a week of peace.

Friday, June 16, 2006 4:14:00 PM  
Blogger saz said...

Well said Mort! This post and your previous one clarify the huge problems we face as a nation from one poor decision after another.

Good to have you back and blogging.

Saturday, June 17, 2006 3:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Americans have always found war distastful...just read-up on the American Revolution,Civil War etc.large segments of the populations wanted to end the Civil War with a truce that would have left slavery in place!
Irag is right in the middle of the most volotile place in the world, the middle east. Our government and Britains believed they had we went in and drove out a murderous regime...then the insurgency began, which was not foreseen. It seems to me we need to win this conflict,complete our mission by making this country free from despots and terrorists!..better this terrible fighting is taking place In Irag then in our homeland.
Peace and Freedom have always cost us sacrifice and treasure.
We must stay the course and defeat this in-surgency!
Thank You

Saturday, June 17, 2006 12:33:00 PM  
Blogger Mortart said...

Fighting Iraqi insurgents does nothing to preserve American freedom. The argument that by continuing to fight in Iraq prevents the fighting from coming to our own shores is sheer nonsense.
If we have to fight despots and terrorists, we need to attack Iran, our allies Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states, and all the other tyrannies that exist in Africa and Asia.

Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:02:00 PM  
Blogger saz said...

Ernie - This administration chose to ignore all the evidence showing there were no WMDs in Iraq. They also chose to ignore advice that an insurgency would surely develop if we went into Iraq - just ask George Bush Sr. who could forsee that problem during the first Gulf War. Mort is painfully correct about Iraq and the legacy of this president.

I respectfully suggest to people who think this is a necessary war to enlist and go fight the insurgency in Iraq yourself. If you believe in it... encourage your children and grandchildren to enlist.

Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To keep the terrorists minds and energies bound up in Iraq isnt non-sense.Better they flood in from surrounding Islamic Fascists groups and fight in Iraq then in New York city or L.A. etc.

What is non-sense is your idea that the US and its allies should take-on the whole of the middle east wherever we find regimes we dont care for....Saudi Arabia may have its home-grown terrorists but its government and people have been assisting us in the war on terrorism!You certainly miss the finer points of diplomacy! Accepting the Saudi Royal family isnt the same as accepting Saddam Hussein.
Like most liberals, cut and run is the easy way out of difficult and complex international relations, but it seldom works. See Prime Minister Neville Chamberlains cutnrun at Munich with Herr Hitler!
Thank You

Sunday, June 18, 2006 10:55:00 AM  
Blogger saz said...

Ernie - I think you miss Mort's point about the Middle East...he's pointing out the hypocracy of this war when there are equally bad or worse dictators in other surrounding countries. He's not saying we should go after them. He's pointing out the logical conclusion of yours and the adminstration's argument.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:52:00 PM  
Blogger Peggy said...

Iraqis had NOTHING to do with terrorism inflicted on the US before we went in to get rid of weapons of mass destruction (that weren't there) and over throw Saddam Hussain (done that).

Our government's behaviour is what has caused us to be victims of terrorism. They weren't envious of our freedoms. Envy doesn't cause this sort of reaction in people, real hatred does. Why oh why do you think we became targets? The thing is, we just can't screen for hatred. There isn't a metal detector in any airport in the world that will detect hatred and the desire to kill. Who thought that box cutters would bring down the World Trade Centre? I sure didn't.

I'm not for backing out as you say, I'm for getting things right so that nobody else dies. If that means that we get our boys out of there (my son was there in Iraq in the Infantry when the whole thing started) to get some peace in the land, then let's get them home. Iraqis don't want this, we don't want this, lets see how we can put a stop to it all.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:11:00 PM  
Blogger Chancy said...

I always say that the best response to trolls is no response.

Mort, I agree 100% with your assesment of the war in Iraq.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 9:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Reichek,
I am a Vietnam vet and find it incredible that we have involved ourselves in a similar situation twice in my lifetime. This country need leadership of the kind provided by Eisenhower, Truman, and Wilson. The great sadness is that no one of that caliber is even on the horizon. For the sake of my 50,000 plus lost brothers and sisters, we deserve better.

Saturday, June 24, 2006 3:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Frank said...

War is always about, MONEY, POWER and KILLING PEOPLE. Congress can not give the President power to do anything. Congress and Public Enemy number 9 allow George W, to act as a dictator. I was at Attu, Kwajalein, Leyte and Okinawa with the 7th Infantry Div, in WW II. I also had 4 brothers in service. My younger Brother Clifford is buried in France.
Lakeview, Oregon

Thursday, July 06, 2006 12:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Terri said...

I don't want to add to the trolling here...but I did want to say I also agree with your assessment on the war 100%, Mort.

Friday, July 07, 2006 5:33:00 PM  
Anonymous PaydayLoans said...

5XJ0Pl You have a talant! Write more!

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Hydrocodone said...

sc6wDT The best blog you have!

Friday, November 02, 2007 6:40:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Blog Flux Suggest - Find and Search Blogs
Web Traffic Statistics Coupon