Iraq and the war on terror

[Samus]

In another thread...

corplinx: If you don't [know] what importance Iraq plays in the long-term war against terror then you are probably trying hard to keep the blinders in place.

I think this comment deserves some discussion in its own thread. Let me preface my comments by noting that my original position on Iraq was "let's trust the president and see where this goes." You can search the forum archives for verification if you so desire. That said...

I do not believe that Iraq played a significant role in the long-term war on terror. Instead, I submit that Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan should all have been higher priority targets of both diplomatic, and possibly military, action. North Korea, with its track record of not giving a hoot about what we say, and its nuclear weapons program, is also a threat, though I would hesitate to lump them in with other terror groups.

We did indeed depose the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. What we did not do is eliminate the Taliban regime. In fact, we gave about half the effort necessary to get the job done right. We gave the Taliban too long to decide whether to hand over Usama bin Laden, and we allowed too much time to pass between our selective bombings and actually putting boots on the ground. There is still a sizeable Taliban presence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and al Qaeda continues to prosper in that area despite our effort to exterminate it.

Saudi Arabia has a history of only gilded cooperation, and the leadership there has long suffered from intense political flack by allowing a U.S. presence. Removing the Iraqi regime has caused less stability to the region. If the regime we install fails, or is just ineffective, that could damage the kingdom and/or Iran.

Speaking of Iran, they have a pretty bad track record when it comes to cracking down on terrorists. I would hesitate to consider them an ally, though Tehran has stated in the past that the U.S. should address the root of terrorism. More on this shortly.

As we have recently been searching for top-tier al Qaeda operatives near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, it is no secret that Pakistan has its fair share of problems apropos to terrorism. There isn't much in the way of a unified government there, and if the Taliban/al Qaeda is able to influence leaders of that country, then we could have an unfriendly middle eastern nation with nuclear weapons on our hands. Say what you will about the war on terror, I think we can all agree that al Qaeda with nuclear weapons would be a very bad thing.

The problem with our war on terror approach is that it only addresses one facet of the issue: the people who are currently terrorists. We have not done much, to my knowledge, to change the way terrorism is viewed. In fact, our outright invasion of Iraq has only provided more fodder for the al Qaeda propaganda.

We need to stop the spread of terrorism by working with Islamic nations to offer an alternative to the minority interpretation of Islam and the Koran that has caused the rise of Islamic terror organizations. What they seek to create is called a "Caliphate", a network of governments that all implement a sort of 14th century literalist theocracy. We need to ensure that message is out-sold by a more moderate message. We're not doing that. We invaded Iraq instead.

 

[Segnosaur]

I do not believe that Iraq played a significant role in the long-term war on terror. Instead, I submit that Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan should all have been higher priority targets of both diplomatic, and possibly military, action.

I kind of have the opposite view. Iran and Saudi Arabia were (and are) much more involved in sponsoring terrorism than Iraq was. (Please note: that does not mean that Iraq had no terrorist ties, just that there were worse countries out there.)

However, the invasion of Iraq may help curtail terrorism; however, many of the benefits are long term:
- In the short term, it does eliminate its immediate terrorism support
- It serves as a warning for other countries in the world that the U.S. is willing to act. (We may have seen the effect of that with Libya and its recent conversion to an anti-terrorist nation. Of course, we'll have to wait and see whether they are dealing honestly with the west.)
- If the U.S. and its allies manage to install an actual democracy in the area, it may serve as an 'example state' to dictatorships in the region. People in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. may be much likely to support their own local dictators if they see people in the neighbouring country with a higher level of freedom and prosperity.

We need to stop the spread of terrorism by working with Islamic nations to offer an alternative to the minority interpretation of Islam and the Koran that has caused the rise of Islamic terror organizations.

But why would Islamic nations bother listening to us? Is there a reason why our interpretaton (which would be coming from an infidel) would be seen as more correct than theirs? And who would we negotiate with, the Islamic governments? Many of them have their own reasons for promoting fundamentalism. What if they don't want our help in giving them a new interpretation of Islam, or worse, pretend to accept our support while at the same time continuing to foster radical Islam (as the Saudis do)?

 

[Chaos]

Re: Re: Iraq and the war on terror

I kind of have the opposite view. Iran and Saudi Arabia were (and are) much more involved in sponsoring terrorism than Iraq was. (Please note: that does not mean that Iraq had no terrorist ties, just that there were worse countries out there.)

However, the invasion of Iraq may help curtail terrorism; however, many of the benefits are long term:
- In the short term, it does eliminate its immediate terrorism support
- It serves as a warning for other countries in the world that the U.S. is willing to act. (We may have seen the effect of that with Libya and its recent conversion to an anti-terrorist nation. Of course, we'll have to wait and see whether they are dealing honestly with the west.)
- If the U.S. and its allies manage to install an actual democracy in the area, it may serve as an 'example state' to dictatorships in the region. People in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. may be much likely to support their own local dictators if they see people in the neighbouring country with a higher level of freedom and prosperity.



But why would Islamic nations bother listening to us? Is there a reason why our interpretaton (which would be coming from an infidel) would be seen as more correct than theirs? And who would we negotiate with, the Islamic governments? Many of them have their own reasons for promoting fundamentalism. What if they don't want our help in giving them a new interpretation of Islam, or worse, pretend to accept our support while at the same time continuing to foster radical Islam (as the Saudis do)?

Bold face mine.

You forgot to mention the risk this strategy includes:

- if you attack a country that had nothing (or at least a LOT less than certain countries you consider your allies) to do with terrorism, it will send the message that you are not serious about fighting terrorism, but advancing a different agenda.
- any government you install (especially a dictator, should it come to this) will be viewed as exactly that: a government installed by the US - ergo, in the eyes of far too many people, a US puppet regime.

We´ll see how this works out.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Iraq and the war on terror

You forgot to mention the risk this strategy includes:

I agree, it is very risky, and there are so many ways it could fail (Islamic fachists gain power in voting, an election results in Kerry coming to power and he withdraws troops before they're stable, etc.)

However, I feel the risks are worth it. The previous case of a large portion of the world controlled by dictatorships, many of which supported terrorism while giving lip service to helping the west) was not a very good situation to be in, and there did not seem to be any end in sight. Even if there is a risk, of failure, I can't see the middle east getting much worse.

- if you attack a country that had nothing (or at least a LOT less than certain countries you consider your allies) to do with terrorism, it will send the message that you are not serious about fighting terrorism, but advancing a different agenda.

The thing is, there were many reasons to invade Iraq, of which terrorism was only one reason. Part of the 'agenda' the U.S. was promoting with the invasion was human rights and politcal freedom. (Ok, that's my take on things. I have no idea what was going through Bush's mind.)

You also have to decide whether you want to go after the immediate problem of terrorism, or take on the long term strategy of eliminating the lack freedom which actually helps lead to terrorism.

- any government you install (especially a dictator, should it come to this) will be viewed as exactly that: a government installed by the US - ergo, in the eyes of far too many people, a US puppet regime.

That's why its extremely important to install a democracy. Hopefully the U.S. will be able to do that and not take the easy way out.

 

[Samus]

I agree that having a democratic secular middle eastern nation is a good thing. However, if you are nation building and promoting other agendas under the auspices of a war on terrorism, I would say you are being misleading at best, bordering on deceptive and outright lying.

Under the strict guidelines of attempting to root out terrorism, invading and occupying a country that had little to do with terrorism isn't a good idea. Not only is it a hostile action, but it also detracts funds and people from doing other things that would have an effect on terrorism.

I am of the belief that there was an Iraq-al Qaeda link. I also think that link was fairly weak. I doubt Saddam made an effort to pursue and prosecute sleeper cells in his nation. I also doubt that the threat of Iraqi terrorism (or Iraqi-sponsored terrorism) was anywhere near the magnitude of the Taliban, or from Tehran, or Islamabad.

Segnosaur: But why would Islamic nations bother listening to us? Is there a reason why our interpretation (which would be coming from an infidel) would be seen as more correct than theirs? And who would we negotiate with, the Islamic governments?

That is exactly who we would negotiate with. Take for example, Pakistan. We could, economically and politically, make it worthwhile for Pakistan to promote a more moderate form of Islam. Part of that would be to fund secular public schools, where the teachings of radical fundamentalists are thoroughly expunged from the curriculum. Let's stop training the next generation of terrorists in schools.

If the U.S. extended their hand to other Muslim nations and said "we want to root out this radical fundamentalism, and we want to make it more worth your while to side with us", I'm willing to bet at least Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would fall in line, and possibly Syria. That would leave only Iran, and if their people were to see the benefits given to neighboring nations (better trade status, economic support, diplomatic intervention only), that they would demand the same of their own government. We've already invaded Afghanistan, so we would have to unfrock the mess over there as well.

These are not things that take days or months. This takes years. As it stands, al Qaeda's vision of Caliphate is spread out over the next 100 years; they have only just begun to fight, so to speak. But the cost, both in dollars and human lives, of winning friends and influencing people is far less than unilateral invasions and a "with us or against us" policy. When you treat people as though they are your enemy from the start, well, they might just live up to that expectation.

 

[Segnosaur]

I agree that having a democratic secular middle eastern nation is a good thing. However, if you are nation building and promoting other agendas under the auspices of a war on terrorism, I would say you are being misleading at best, bordering on deceptive and outright lying.

But I thought the Iraq war was all about WMD!!!!

Seriously, as I've stated before, I supported the invasion of Iraq for several reasons. I didn't view it simply as an action under the 'auspices of a war on terrorism', I also viewed it as fight against repressive dictatorships, a search for possible WMD, etc.

The invasion wasn't just presented as a fight against terrorism, neither by the Bush administration (who wrongly emphasized WMD), nor by people here. Why are you now assuming that it was motivated mainly for terrorism reasons?

Under the strict guidelines of attempting to root out terrorism, invading and occupying a country that had little to do with terrorism isn't a good idea. Not only is it a hostile action, but it also detracts funds and people from doing other things that would have an effect on terrorism.

But I already explained how the invasion of Iraq might have a great effect on terrorism. Do you disagree with my theory that a successful democracy in the Islamic middle east might cause people to not support terrorism?

I am of the belief that there was an Iraq-al Qaeda link. I also think that link was fairly weak. I doubt Saddam made an effort to pursue and prosecute sleeper cells in his nation. I also doubt that the threat of Iraqi terrorism (or Iraqi-sponsored terrorism) was anywhere near the magnitude of the Taliban, or from Tehran, or Islamabad.

I never claimed (nor did I expect) Iraq to have strong ties to al Quaeda. And I realize that the Saudis and Iran are much stronger supporters of terrorism. But that shouldn't mean that we totally ignore Iraq's contributions.

That is exactly who we would negotiate with. Take for example, Pakistan. We could, economically and politically, make it worthwhile for Pakistan to promote a more moderate form of Islam. Part of that would be to fund secular public schools, where the teachings of radical fundamentalists are thoroughly expunged from the curriculum. Let's stop training the next generation of terrorists in schools.

If the U.S. extended their hand to other Muslim nations and said "we want to root out this radical fundamentalism, and we want to make it more worth your while to side with us", I'm willing to bet at least Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would fall in line, and possibly Syria. That would leave only Iran, and if their people were to see the benefits given to neighboring nations (better trade status, economic support, diplomatic intervention only), that they would demand the same of their own government. We've already invaded Afghanistan, so we would have to unfrock the mess over there as well.

Again, why would these Muslim nations accept the west's help? If anything that would make the leaders appear weak to their own people, and probably cause even more problems.

And why do you think Saudi Arabia will fall in line? Pakistan might be willing to accept western help (and their president, although a dictator, does seem to be reasonable). However, the Saudis have oil reserves that can fund it for a significant length of time.

You seem to think we can just dangle the carrot of aid and intellectualism in front of the muslim nations and they will follow. Such activities don't work in places where the leaders are more than content to let thier people suffer in order to hold on to power.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am of the belief that there was an Iraq-al Qaeda link. I also think that link was fairly weak.

Personally, I think the US actions have only served to increase the link between Iraq and Al Queda. Perhaps not in the government level (which may have been only weak before) but certainly within populations of Iraqis. Iraqis who had no interest in al Queda previously are probably far more willing to seek them out now.

I love this job more than I love taffy, and I'm a man who loves his taffy.

You should really cite a reference for this quote in your sig, btw. Adam West is so cool.

 

[Samus]

Segnosaur: But I thought the Iraq war was all about WMD!!!!

Well, you do bring up another dead horse that has been thoroughly beaten on these forums, but is nonetheless a valid point. The primary justification for invading Iraq has changed several times. Originally, we were just enforcing a U.N. resolution that authorized force if Iraq did not comply with WMD directives. Remember that? Fall 2002 or so, when the Bush machine was priming the pump for war? Then we were a liberating force, then we spoke of the dangers of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, now we're back to being liberators again.

Segnosaur: Seriously, as I've stated before, I supported the invasion of Iraq for several reasons. I didn't view it simply as an action under the 'auspices of a war on terrorism', I also viewed it as fight against repressive dictatorships, a search for possible WMD, etc.

Here again, we return to the issue of priorities. After the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., President Bush made it clear that deconstructing the terrorist network behind the attacks was priority #1. Not removing ruthless dictators, but stopping terrorism. I agree that a strong Iraq sans Saddam is not only a good idea, but also beneficial for the U.S. As beneficial as that might be, it doesn't give a direct benefit to countering terrorism.

Segnosaur: The invasion wasn't just presented as a fight against terrorism, neither by the Bush administration (who wrongly emphasized WMD), nor by people here. Why are you now assuming that it was motivated mainly for terrorism reasons?

Yes it was. Amongst the 'official' reasons for the invasion was the link between Hussein and al Qaeda. It has been for a long time, see here, here, and here, just as examples.

Segnosaur: But I already explained how the invasion of Iraq might have a great effect on terrorism. Do you disagree with my theory that a successful democracy in the Islamic middle east might cause people to not support terrorism?

No, I agree with you. I also think governments that promote, teach, and live by a more moderate, mainstream interpretation of Islam will also have a great effect on terrorism. And, it would allow them to continue to embrace their religion. Secular governments are the ideal in my book, but I'm willing to go one step at a time.

Segnosaur: I never claimed (nor did I expect) Iraq to have strong ties to al Quaeda. And I realize that the Saudis and Iran are much stronger supporters of terrorism. But that shouldn't mean that we totally ignore Iraq's contributions.

You are correct, we shouldn't ignore Iraq's contribution. However, should we ignore Iran and Saudi Arabia's admittedly greater contribution to go after an admittedly less important target?

Segnosaur: Again, why would these Muslim nations accept the west's help? If anything that would make the leaders appear weak to their own people, and probably cause even more problems.

Because there are moderates in positions of authority in those countries. Remember, my suggestions were entirely economic and diplomatic. Preferred trade status and other financial support is a strong motivator for those moderates to exercise the bully pulpit in their countries.

Segnosaur: Such activities don't work in places where the leaders are more than content to let thier people suffer in order to hold on to power.

True, however, not all Arab nations are like this. The Taliban was, but we deposed them. I agree that mine is a more passive approach, and it requires cooperation from other governments. If we offered assistance in rooting out the sleeper cells in these countries, and maybe threatened economic sanctions if it really became necessary to threaten, I submit that most would probably fall in line.

Of course, one wrinkle in this plan is that we are largely disliked for our position with Israel, and always trusting them even when they do stupid things. Good luck changing that, I well acknowledge it is a roadblock to good relations with Arab nation-states.

pgwenthold: Personally, I think the US actions have only served to increase the link between Iraq and Al Queda. Perhaps not in the government level (which may have been only weak before) but certainly within populations of Iraqis. Iraqis who had no interest in al Queda previously are probably far more willing to seek them out now.

Agreed. Although, I would say that our invasion caused far more Iraqis to dislike us, and al Qaeda just happened to be there to lure all those disenchanted citizens away. The al Qaeda cell in Iraq has most likely been strengthened by our occupation of their country.

pgwenthold: You should really cite a reference for this quote in your sig, btw. Adam West is so cool.

I think I got that quote from the TV show Family Guy. I don't really remember much about the episode, so it may have been Adam West who said that on the show, or elsewhere and it was just repeated on the show.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think I got that quote from the TV show Family Guy. I don't really remember much about the episode, so it may have been Adam West who said that on the show, or elsewhere and it was just repeated on the show.

No, it was Adam West. Specifically, Adam West as the Mayor (that's how he's indicated in the credits). It's an awesome line.

 

[a_unique_person]

Didn't you hear Dubya, "Bring 'em on". The chaos in Iraq is all part of his cleverly crafted plan.

 

[Samus]

pgwenthold: No, it was Adam West. Specifically, Adam West as the Mayor (that's how he's indicated in the credits). It's an awesome line.

I bow to your superior Family Guy knowledge. I have only my vast knowledge of The Simpsons to fall back on.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, you do bring up another dead horse that has been thoroughly beaten on these forums, but is nonetheless a valid point. The primary justification for invading Iraq has changed several times.

First of all, I want to remind you that my reasons for supporting the invasion may not be the same as those of the Bush administration.

And secondly, what makes you think the 'primary' justification has changed? Yes, different reasons have been emphasized at different times, but that doesn't mean that the other reasons have disappeared or changed in importance. Anyone arguing in favor of the invasion would have used current event, and if some evidence turns up which supports one point they would have mentioned it; however, it doesn't mean all other points were invalid. (For example, if they all of a sudden turn up massive amounts of nerve gas in Iraq, I will mention it; however, that doesn't mean that WMD were my primary reason for supporting the invasion.)

Originally, we were just enforcing a U.N. resolution that authorized force if Iraq did not comply with WMD directives. Remember that?

Actually, I just wanted to remind you... the U.N. resolution did not just cover WMD, it also had clauses related to human rights abuses, terrorism support, and outstanding issues over the invasion of Kuwait.

Here again, we return to the issue of priorities. After the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., President Bush made it clear that deconstructing the terrorist network behind the attacks was priority #1. Not removing ruthless dictators, but stopping terrorism. I agree that a strong Iraq sans Saddam is not only a good idea, but also beneficial for the U.S. As beneficial as that might be, it doesn't give a direct benefit to countering terrorism.

Well, here I don't understand. You say that removing Saddam is a good idea, and later you agree that democratic governments in the middle east would help curb terrorism. You also didn't object to my idea that a free Iraq would cause people in other countries to prefer pushing for their own democracies rather than supporting terrorism.

But then yousay it "doesn't give a direct benefit to countering terrorism".

So which is it?

Yes it was. Amongst the 'official' reasons for the invasion was the link between Hussein and al Qaeda. It has been for a long time, see here, here, and here, just as examples.

So? They've found some links between Iraq and al Qaeda. But that doesn't mean that the invasion was just about fighting terrorism, or that it was viewed as the main reason.

You can't just look at the latest newpaper article and say now that's their empasis. Like I said before, information given, or opinions stated, may simply be in response to the latest evidence discovered.

You are correct, we shouldn't ignore Iraq's contribution. However, should we ignore Iran and Saudi Arabia's admittedly greater contribution to go after an admittedly less important target?

Because, there was more than 1 reason to invade Iraq, and even though there may have been countries around which either had stronger terrorist ties, or worse human rights records, none had the particular combination of factors that Iraq had.

- some terrorist ties. Not as much as Iran/Saudi Arabia, but they were there
- bad human rights abuses, probably even worse than Saudi Arabia
- possible WMD, which aren't a problem with the Saudis
- An actual U.N. resolution against them. (Even though the invasion was not supported by the U.N., the resolution provided at least some justification. Saudi Arabia / Iran didn't have that)

Perhaps the best reason why Iraq was chosen though was because the possibillity of success. Iraq is a fairly well edcucated and secular society, and most of the problems stemmed from one man (Saddam). In Iran or Saudi Arabia, the govenrment doesn't seem to be focused on one man, and religious feelings go deeper.

Because there are moderates in positions of authority in those countries. Remember, my suggestions were entirely economic and diplomatic. Preferred trade status and other financial support is a strong motivator for those moderates to exercise the bully pulpit in their countries.

Actually there are very few moderates that have any power anywhere in the middle east.

- Iran? Well the 'moderates' regularly get smacked down by the religious leaders who are actually in control.
- Saudi Arabia? Well, they've been our 'friends' for years now, yet they are quite happy with their fundamentalist ways.
- Jordan? Well, they aren't really a terrorist supporting state
- Syria? Might work a bit on them, but their support for terrorism was about on the level of Iraq's
- Egypt? They receive billions of dollars of U.S. aid a year and have been for years, yet they are quite happy to do things like broadcast documentaries on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as if it were fact. (And remember, there are still many Egyptians involved with terrorism.)

So which country has moderates in power that are ready to sweep the radicals out of power?

True, however, not all Arab nations are like this. The Taliban was, but we deposed them. I agree that mine is a more passive approach, and it requires cooperation from other governments. If we offered assistance in rooting out the sleeper cells in these countries, and maybe threatened economic sanctions if it really became necessary to threaten, I submit that most would probably fall in line.

Again, what do you base that on? Dictators usually don't care about economic sanctions; in most cases, they love them because it helps them maintain power.

We have Saudi Arabia (supposed allies, yet it has strong fundamentaliest roots), Egypt (recipient of aid, yet many Egyptians are also involved in al Qaeda), and North Korea (not in the middle east, however they received much western assistance; however that did not stop them from pursuing nuclear plans) which all show that being 'nice' doesn't work.

Of course, one wrinkle in this plan is that we are largely disliked for our position with Israel, and always trusting them even when they do stupid things. Good luck changing that, I well acknowledge it is a roadblock to good relations with Arab nation-states.

Curious.... they may do 'stupid things', but even the dumb things it does is very minor when compaired to the abuses of Islamic nations. I find it strange that a country that is a democracy and long time ally might end up criticized more than a country that abuses its citizens a lot more, just because we think they might change.

I also wonder, if we follow your plan, and it doesn't work, and the countries remain dictatorships, in 10 years are the next generation of "antiwar" people going to criticize the U.S. and other western countries of "supporting dictatorships" because of their aid? (Just look at the number of people who claim that we supported Saddam.)

 

[Samus]

Segnosaur: First of all, I want to remind you that my reasons for supporting the invasion may not be the same as those of the Bush administration.

Duly noted. I will make a distinction when I cite a reason from the administration versus your own reason.

Segnosaur: And secondly, what makes you think the 'primary' justification has changed?

I understand that WMD are not necessarily your primary reason, or even a reason at all, for supporting the actions against Iraq. I am stating that the Bush Administration made its case, in late 2002 and in the 2003 State of the Union address, that Iraq was hiding banned weapons and that would require more than just U.N. weapons inspections to fix. WMD were exactly his primary reason for targeting Iraq. The attempt to forge an al Qaeda connection came along after the WMD reasoning was put forth.

Segnosaur: You say that removing Saddam is a good idea, and later you agree that democratic governments in the middle east would help curb terrorism. You also didn't object to my idea that a free Iraq would cause people in other countries to prefer pushing for their own democracies rather than supporting terrorism.

But then yousay it "doesn't give a direct benefit to countering terrorism".

So which is it?

Both. I agree that a post-Saddam Iraq has the potential to be better for its citizens, a better ally to the U.S., and an example of a democracy in the middle east. In the mean time, we are creating divisions between us and other Arab nations for the way in which we removed Hussein from power. We are acting like we know what is best for Iraq, and subsequently have made enemies where we didn't need to. Stopping terrorism requires cooperation from nation-states that currently don't support us, and probably won't after our unilateral actions.

Segnosaur: So? They've found some links between Iraq and al Qaeda. But that doesn't mean that the invasion was just about fighting terrorism, or that it was viewed as the main reason.

You can't just look at the latest newpaper article and say now that's their empasis. Like I said before, information given, or opinions stated, may simply be in response to the latest evidence discovered.

Check the datelines. The news articles I linked to were from February, March and December of 2003 -- hardly to be considered the latest news. Rather, it points to a recurring reason given by the U.S. and the U.K.

I definitely agree that the invasion of Iraq was about more than just terrorism. Strategically, removing the Hussein regime provided several benefits to the U.S., to include: a base of operations for other middle east efforts, allowing us to pull out of Saudi Arabia, access to oil, and an ally in an area where we don't have many.

That said, when one goes about declaring a war on terror, it is a good idea to strike targets that are actually directly relevant to terrorism. To defeat al Qaeda, we need to first understand it, then we need to de-construct it. We need not go off and invade another country, even if we really want to, and distract ourselves from the stated objective.

Segnosaur: Because, there was more than 1 reason to invade Iraq, and even though there may have been countries around which either had stronger terrorist ties, or worse human rights records, none had the particular combination of factors that Iraq had.

My assertion in the opening post of this thread is that Iraq did not serve as a significant victory in the war on terror. I agree that there were good reasons to depose Hussein, I am merely stating that it shouldn't have been as high of a priority relative to rooting out terrorist organizations.

Segnosaur: Perhaps the best reason why Iraq was chosen though was because the possibillity of success. Iraq is a fairly well edcucated and secular society, and most of the problems stemmed from one man (Saddam). In Iran or Saudi Arabia, the govenrment doesn't seem to be focused on one man, and religious feelings go deeper.

Another good reason. Hussein also have us plenty of headaches over the years, including an assassination attempt on former President Bush, and a long-standing "up yours" attitude towards U.N. demands. I don't disagree that the man was trouble, I disagree with our timing, and our methods.

Segnosaur: So which country has moderates in power that are ready to sweep the radicals out of power?

Pakistan, Syria, maybe even Uzbekistan for good measure. You and I agree on Iran; they're not about to jump up and support us. In that case, I would suggest bettering Iran's neighbors, to the point where the moderates in Iran don't want to be the red-headed stepchild anymore. And, of course, offering U.S. assistance to crush cells would help too.

Segnosaur: Curious.... they may do 'stupid things', but even the dumb things it does is very minor when compaired to the abuses of Islamic nations. I find it strange that a country that is a democracy and long time ally might end up criticized more than a country that abuses its citizens a lot more, just because we think they might change.

Yep. This doesn't change the fact that our support for Israel has caused friction with Muslim regimes. I was merely pointing to it as a roadblock, not making any editorial comments about Israel's bad behavior versus that of other nations (us included).

Segnosaur: I also wonder, if we follow your plan, and it doesn't work, and the countries remain dictatorships, in 10 years are the next generation of "antiwar" people going to criticize the U.S. and other western countries of "supporting dictatorships" because of their aid? (Just look at the number of people who claim that we supported Saddam.)

Well, we did support Saddam. Not with direct military support, but we did help to keep his oil reserves safe during the Iraq-Iran war.

What happens if my plan doesn't work? Then we use force. We should not invade first, then ask questions later. While we're playing nice, we would also be freezing terrorist assets, taking out al Qaeda leadership, and improving our homeland defense mechanisms to get sleeper cells out of the U.S.

Al Qaeda is a sophisticated network, and it will require a creative and multifaceted approach to destroy it. What we have done thus far hasn't even bordered on creative: an ineffective campaign in Afghanistan that failed to thoroughly disable the Taliban or al Qaeda, a homeland security department that is too big and too disorganized to be effective, and now we have to re-build Iraq with the hope that the people will not elect someone who will turn against us and start this whole process again.

Saddam being gone: good. Unilateral action against a nation resulting in other nations turning against us, while concurrently moving resources away from much better avenues for ridding of terrorism: not good.

Either the war on terror is the top priority, or it is not. Invading Iraq, while trying to claim that the war on terror is still the top priority, is bad reasoning in my opinion.