Thursday, December 08, 2005

Questioning the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (Part 1)

Questions about the executive summary of the recently released National Strategy for Victory in Iraq:

Short term: Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists
Medium term: Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists
Long term: Iraq is peaceful…and a full partner in the global war on

Okay, so when before the war did our executive administration ever tell us that we were going to war in Iraq to aid Iraqis in fighting terrorism? I heard weapons of mass destruction, removing a dictator, and the dissemination of democracy, but I never recall hearing that Iraq needed help fighting terrorism. Actually, I do believe that the terrorist attacks in Iraq, i.e. car bombs, roadside bombings, kidnappings an etc. did not begin until after U.S. military campaigns in Iraq began. Am I reading this correctly? Does this say that our goal in Iraq was to help fight something that didn’t exist until after we went there?


Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror.

Okay, why?

Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks
against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.

Oh you mean like Saudi Arabia, which is where just about all the 9/11 attackers came from and planned their mission from? What are we doing there? Oh yeah—nothing.

The fate of the greater Middle East – which will have a profound and lasting
impact on American security – hangs in the balance.

Is it just me, or does that imply an imperialist agenda to you, i.e. lets transform Iraq into a paradigm of Western ideology and then help it spread that ideology to the other countries in the region. After all, doesn’t this boil down to a culture war? Isn’t Bush really saying that the real problem is that our two cultures are helplessly irreconcilable; that as long as their culture exists then ours will be threatened by terrorism, so we are going to go in and wipe out their culture and insert ours?


The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for
American security and interests in the region.

Again, didn’t our military campaign in Iraq splinter the various sects within their Muslim communities? Hence, doesn’t that inadvertently admit that our military campaign has created a threat to our security, rather than to bolster our security? Seriously, if sectarian chaos has ”major consequences” for American security and our interests than why the hell didn’t we plan the war better so that we could avoid internally fragmenting the country?

more to come…

No comments: