First of all, we're already fighting them here, even though we're also fighting them over there at the same time. Secondly, if a terrorist really wanted to take the fight to us in our homeland, why would he go to Iraq where he'll face nothing but the most battle-hardened American troops on the alert for terrorists? He could instead come straight through our vast unprotected ports to our own soil where millions of lax Americans are in huge groups in unhardened locations to fight us.
The Iraq Study Group Report says that in Iraq, "most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency." They are "former elements of the Saddam Hussein regime, disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis, and common criminals," not terrorists. It goes on to say "most wish to restore Sunni Arab rule in the country. Some aim at winning local power and control."
Al Q'aeda, on the other hand, is just a "small portion of the violence in Iraq." Even at that, al Q'aeda in Iraq is now run by Iraqis, for the most part, and composed of Sunni Arabs. The Iraq Study Group found that "al Qaeda's goals include instigating a wider sectarian war between Iraq's Sunni and Shia, and driving the United States out of Iraq." These are not terrorists that would suddenly pack up and leave their homes in Iraq and come to a land as foreign to them as the USA is just because American troops leave Iraq -- driving the troops out of Iraq is precisely the stated goal of the insurgency.
Bush's foreign policy is, in fact, creating the opposite effect of fighting terrorism. The Iraq war has actually caused an increase in global terrorism. Meanwhile, thousands of miles of our remote borders are wide open to anyone who wants to cross them, it has been demonstrated that the Department of Homeland Security is very vulnerable to and unprepared for a major terrorist attack, and our National Guard is not protecting us on American soil because they're deployed in Iraq. Sadly, fighting "terrorists" in Iraq is actually exposing us to a greater risk of being attacked by them here in our homeland.
3 comments:
I couldn't agree more with this Blog. Hasn't the Iraq War has been the most significant diversion possible from fighting "terrorism"? Where is Bin Laden who planned and relished in 9/11? He is not in Iraq.
Thousands of lives, $400 billion and counting, not to fight terrorism on the terrorist's soil, but to seek revenge on a dictator and attempt to control the flow of oil to the US.
But alas, the damage is done, we're all paying the price, and hopefully the Hawks have learned. If not, it's time the American people and media teach them by dismissing this fallacy of 'fighting terrorists on their own soil'. And it's time we find the best way to support stability in the region and ultimately get our troops out.
Thanks for your research in support of this blog post.
Kevin
Finally the mainstream media has responded to this fallacy. The McClatchy Washington Bureau published an article that explores the question: Is there any truth to 'the enemy would follow us here?' The article soundly discounts this line of thought. It's about time a journalist questions the neocon line!
The concept of 'us fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here' is so ridiculous that even the comics can easily show how absurd it is. Doonesbury did a great job satirizing it in a series of comic strips. They're too big to display within the width of this column, so I'll hyperlink you to them. Check out the following Doonesbury comic strips and, when you're done with one, click the Back button on your browser to come back to this list and check out the next:
* If We Cut and Ran
* A Terrorist Has Followed Ray Home
* May, Calling the Terrorist Out
Post a Comment