Bush is the savior of western civilation??

sorry--civilization.

Matt;
I didn't notice anywhere in your piece which branch of the military you were in, nor where you've served...?

"A stable, terrorist-free Iraq is key to the protection and survival of Western civilization. "

Okay, I'll bite....why? Can you elaborate on this claim.

Iraq, while definitely involved in state-sponsored support of terrorism (primarily in funding for suicide bombers in Israel) was mainly concerned with aggrandizing their regional power position, not with waging a relentless Jihad against Western cizilization. As an exporter of terror, Iraq was strictly a second or third string player on the world stage prior to the Iraq War.

The fact is that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has now become a lightening rod for Al Quada recruitment, a huge bonus for terrorism. The invasion has spawned significant extension of Al Quada's activities, the rise of related sub-affiliated groups and 'fellow travellers' around the globe.

As a methodology for fighting terror, the invasion of Iraq was a huge misstep.

"Al Quada, ruled by Shia clergy for 20 years, wants the Shia to lead the caliphate, and Iran, (a mostly Shia nation ruled by the Sunnis for centuries) want a Sunni-led caliphate."

Point of correction:

1). Al Quada is a Sunni organization not Shia.
2). Iran is Shia not Sunni and would not back a "sunni caliphate"

PS "two terrorist entities battling for control of a land from which to establish the caliphate.
"

This is a misleading and gross simplification of the current chaos in Iraq. This is a multi-sided civil that encompasses Iraqi nationalist groups, theologically-driven and ideologically-driven groups, as well as external parties with their own agendas.

I highly recommend at least reading the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/nie020207.pdf) prior to posting any more "analysis" of this type....

Can someone please help me out here?

Mike, are you referring to Al Qaeda or Al Quada or to both? If so, could you please distinguish Al Qaeda from Al Quada? And who is Al Queda in the last sentence of your article?

I got this quote from a Canadian Content Community. It read like the blind leading the blind...

"The Al Quada are made up of all types of people. They are mostly remanants of the mujahadeen forces that fought the soviets and were allies of the west against the soviets. The west supplied them with weapons, cash and training. After the fall of the soviets in Afghanistan they along with the taliban joined together. Others of the mujahadeen left and went home.

Osama was himself a CIA trained warrior. He formed the group because of his main greviences against the west - namely america for such things as supporting the Israelis against the Palestinians and for their support of corrupt harsh regimes in their homelands such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan."

I'm going on the bet that you needed to do a spell-check, but didn't, but if I'm wrong, please correct me.

By the way, Deano, Al Qaeda is not Sunni it is Wahhabi. And the Sunni have no use for the Wahhabi. Don't believe me. Check out the website of Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, an expert in these matters.

Ruvy,

My understanding is that Wahhabism is a movement / sect within Sunni Islam. So yes, you do need to differentiate between Sunni followers of Wahhabism and (for lack of a better term) "regular" Sunni, but Al Qaeda remains primarily a Sunni-based movement not a Shia one, which is the point I was raising with Matt's post.

Certainly it can be parsed down even more specifically, as you noted.

All the best,

Deano

"A stable, terrorist-free Iraq is key to the protection and survival of Western civilization. "

But Iraq was only stable under saddam! And he's dead! So Western Civilization is DOOMED!

How do I get out of here? Is there a train? An airplane? A rocketship?

I would much rather fight terrorists in Iraq than have the fight take place in my backyard. Liberals are idiots. They want us to pull out in September 2008. What they are REALLY saying to the troops is: "Risk your ass for a year and a half, and that guarantees you a ticket home." Whats the sense in being there if Liberals have such unrealistic expectations to take place in the next year and a half? You need to give it time.

Geez, I support the right of people to write whatever they want (within reason, and reason being the operative word), but it's also good to be well informed. With respect, there's a little bit more to it than this story would have you believe. And Ruvy: how about we call the bastards oil-Qaeda?

But Iraq was only stable under saddam! And he's dead! So Western Civilization is DOOMED!

Replacement Saddams are a dime a dozen if that's what we're looking for.

Dave

Re #9: "You can fool some of the people all of the time..."

So are Bush's.


Spread Democracy and Freedom through the world and we will have peace. Agreed.

Unfortunately Iraq is making it ridiculously evident how misguided Bush's implementation of 'Spread' was.

Can democracy be achieved in Iraq? Yes. Will it make Iraq a better place? Yes. Will it spread democracy throughout the region? No.

Since when do political ideologies spread from small-medium powers of a region to larger powers. Better put, why would the larger powers want change. They're already powerful!

The theocracies and the resulting side product of theocracies, radical Islamic terrorism, is not going to go away by democratizing Iraq. It will only be reduced to a socially acceptable level (see: KKK) when the larger powers, Iran-SA-Egypt, transition from their current power structures to legit democracies.


If you think that Democracy should be Spread to these larger states through a military strategy then you better buckle in for a 50 yr conflict and re-institute the draft.

Otherwise you will have to accept that the alternative strategy is to Spread democracy via economic dominance (see: USSR). When powerful countries become poor, the door for internally provoked political change is opened. History shows that a coup that is initiated by the people has a much higher short-term success rate than enforced change by external powers.


The only benefit of Iraq toward a long-term economic dominance strategy is capturing control of Iraq oil. A benefit that is minuscule compared to benefits which could have been achieved by spending 500 billion on 1) reducing energy consumption domestically, and 2) improving production from more lucrative energy resources already in western control (ex: Alberta tar sands).



For the supporters of the current war who disagree with my assesment, i'm curious to hear how you see the region 10 years from now once a Democratic Iraq has been solidly established? And what the shape of terrorism is at that point?

Ruvy and Deano,

Your bet wins. I errantly did not do a spell check, but I hope you know which group I'm talking about. Us Americans can never get the spelling correct, even with a good spell check.

Also, as I have had an ear infection this last week, and due to my haste to post the article and my foolishness to use the MT interface as a workspace to do it, I inadvertently crossed the Sunnis and Shias. But alas, it's too late to change it now, so please accept my humble apology.

My intention with the article was that we are basically in Iraq now to battle the Iranians and Al Qaeda (I believe is the correct spelling) who are battling to establish their base of operations. Regardless of why we went there in the first place.

IMNSHO, it is better we have a foothold in Iraq to deal with the Iranian threat. I doubt Hussein would have been of much help to us when the fertilizer hit the ventilator.

BTW, STM, that's why this is in the OPINION section, not the NEWS section.

Matt