The American Spectator

Reader Mail

No Escaping Iraq

1.10.07 @ 12:01AM

COURSE CHECK
Re: William Tucker's Time to Change Course:

If William Tucker (and others) understood that ousting Saddam Hussein was absolutely necessary and not an act of American altruism would their attitude towards the proposed surge in Iraq be any different? One thinks so.

We are now discovering that not enough resources and effort went into fighting the Iraq war and that includes public diplomacy. The original reason for ousting Saddam was the belief that he was dangerous -- because of the proscribed weapons he appeared to retain and his involvement in terrorism. Indeed, this threat was already recognized by President Bill Clinton, who stated in 1998:

Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, however, there was enormous bureaucratic opposition to talking about Iraq's involvement in terrorism, because according to U.S. intelligence, there had been none. So the decision was made to emphasize Iraq's weapons programs.

That now appears to have been a mistake. Those familiar with the Iraqi documents captured by U.S. forces say they show extensive Iraqi involvement in terrorism going back many years. Indeed, the Washington Times' Bill Gertz reported already in November 1992, "Iraq is training international terrorists again at a secret base near Baghdad for the first time since the Persian Gulf war....The renewed training activity is viewed by some officials as an ominous sign that Iraq may be stepping up its support for global terrorism after a hiatus of nearly two years since the Gulf war."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra and Sen. Rick Santorum fought for the public release of the Iraqi documents, but met with only limited and temporary success. Yet as we surge in Baghdad, perhaps we need to surge at home as well, and do what it takes to explain why it was necessary to fight this war and why it is necessary to win it.
-- Laurie Mylroie
Adjunct Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
Washington, D.C.

I find myself somewhat where William Tucker is concerning our nation's war in Iraq. What adds to my vexation is the knowledge that, according to International Christian Concern, Iraq has now moved up to being the in the second worst place in the world for the persecution of Christians. If that is so, then Iraqi Christians were much better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now that we have "liberated" them.
-- Larry Wilson
Indianapolis, Indiana

Ted Kennedy (I think it was he) said that when you're arguing politics or policy, you first misstate your opponents views and then contradict the misstatement.

I loved your opening and the insight it provides into radical (left or right) politics. Congratulations for leaving the SDS!

With respect to your mind-reading of the idee fixe of President Bush, "neoconservative Jews," and "die-hard conservatives," however, I consider them "misstatements" and respectfully offer a different view.

Nine-eleven and events that followed 9/11established -- not sure of the order of importance -- (1) radical Islam's hatred of our country that is a "state hatred" equivalent to racism or "race-based hatred;" (2) the intelligence of the radical Islamists in learning and then capitalizing on (a) vulnerabilities to terrorism in the U.S., public transportation being a particularly serious vulnerability, (b) prevailing biases in mainstream print and TV reporting in the U.S., (c) manipulating 'political correctness' to advance terrorist capabilities in the U.S. and the world, (d) rapid response to information about U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities in both "hot" and "cold" wars -- including the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns -- most of which is provided by the mainstream media and explained as "letting America know what it's government is doing" and at least some of which undoubtedly impaired our ability to succeed militarily in those campaigns.

In the years since 9/11, the stateless Al Qaeda organization has achieved support from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, probably Egypt, and other continental African countries. One unifying hypothesis for this support that almost never appears in the media is pure racism against Jews. It is rampant in Islam. Hitler was by no means the only leader who wished every Jew to be gone from the planet.

To your idee fixe points that appear to me to be assertions without evidence: the notion that President Bush was primarily concerned with amending the legacy of his father not pursuing Saddam to Baghdad is spurious on its face. The coalition put together by George Herbert Walker Bush would never have agreed to such a move, and, if pursued, that action would have resulted in mass defections from the coalition and left the U.S. virtually alone and as a true "aggressor" in dismantling Saddam's regime. This notion also discounts the nobler stated purpose of President Bush that regime change in Iraq was necessary for U.S. security, elimination of a state supporting terrorism, and highly beneficial to foster democracy in the Middle East.

As for "neoconservative Jews" (sounds racist to me) wanting to "correct the mistakes of World War II," I am mystified by the use of the latter phrase as if it explains anything. Which "mistakes" of World War II? And, what is your source for such a belief? Please don't use "everybody knows what I'm talking about" as a response.

And we are to believe that "die-hard conservatives" (sounds like ad hominem arguing to me) have no more character, intelligence, love of country, love of freedom, love of life than to put our military in harm's way to "prove that America could project its military might any time and anywhere we chose?" From whence came this brilliant insight? What speeches, documents, analysis?

And now for your "So What Should We Do?" Well, one thing we can't do is place an impenetrable "force field" over the Middle East such that the region functions like a quarantined file in a computer -- it's there, but it can't hurt anything. And the problem with Islam isn't that it's a 1400-year old civil war, it's that the teachings of Islam are fundamentally flawed, contradict generally accepted human values, and are poorly understood by most of its followers. The latter follow radical leaders as mindlessly as your idee fixe SDS people who "don't [sic] mind slaughtering a few people" in order to achieve what the radical leaders define as the goals of Islam. So-called "moderate" Islamist leaders are simply people who understand the foregoing and have chosen to be rational in practicing their faith in a rational world.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Transportation, Education, Bill Clinton, Mainstream Media, Islam, Books, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, Africa, Communism, Immigration, Energy, Oil, Unions