Wednesday, July 25, 2007

War on Terrorism & Iraq

President Bush recent speech on Iraq and war on terrorism:
    "Some note that al Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. invasion -- and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions. Iraq is not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us. We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. We were not in Iraq when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. And we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001."
Very well said. Islamic terrorism started 1400 years ago and the war in Iraq has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Indeed, good men and women of the United States are bleeding in Iraq to prevent Al-Qaeda from mounting an effective offense. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has had the bastard AQ on the run. Moreover, the revolution in Iran back in 1979 emboldened the radical muslims to wage their war against the civilized world more intensively. Wake up people, war in Iraq is part of the bigger picture.


Patrick Ross said...

Well, it should be noted that the U.S. was not in Iraq, this is true. However, they were exercising the Clinton doctrine of containment.

On the other hand, they were containing a country that Islamic terrorists had no great love for, and a president (Saddam Hussein, natch) whom was the subject of Osama Bin Laden's abject hatred (Bin Laden considered Hussein a socialist).

Conisder this: according to Black (2002) terrorism is never aimed at the individuals whose lives it claims. It is, according to Black, an act of reactionary social control, directed towards the larger society. It is the act of people who wish to control a society's behaviour, but have no access to or influence over its institutions.

One of Bin Laden's long-standing grievances is actually with the Saudi Royal family and its lack of support for reviving the Caliphate. He has allegedly viewed the United States as a negative influence on the Saudi monarchy.

According to this analysis, it's really more likely that, while Bin Laden launched his attacks on the United States, the true target of his terrorism was the Saudi Royal family. By attacking their most powerful ally he not only inconvenienced them diplomatically, but showed them that they, too, are vulnerable to attack.

As such, Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaida terrorists. In fact, Al Qaida's attacks on the US would actually be considered more the consequence of the nerve of the US in diplomatically interacting with Saudi Arabia.

...That is to say, they're attacking the US for conducting its most basic business. It's less than rational, but then again, so is terrorism.

Jungle Mom said...

winston, You are spot on. Patrick seems to be an apologist for terror. I find that to be irrational myself.

Patrick Ross said...

Who's apologizing for terrorism? I'm questioning whether or not affecting the United States is really the goal of Al Qaida's terrorism. According to the ideas presented by Black, that isn't necessarily the case.

There's certainly no defense of terrorism in that. In fact, one of the things that makes an act solidly a terrorist act is that it is indefensible as far as being a legitimate act.