As predictable and "sobering" as the results reported in the N.I.E. are, the spread of Jihad is not the main reason for opposing the War in Iraq. The main reason is that it is not a war with the Jihadifts, it was a war to bring about a "regime change" in Iraq – a war undertaken on false pretenses on two fronts. In the U.S. it was pitched as a War on Terror – not true. Abroad, it was advertised as a war of liberation, Operation Iraqi Freedom – also not true. It was justified by claiming Iraq was a danger to the U.S. – they were allied with terrorists and had weapons of mass destruction. Everywhere, it was implied that it was a response to the Terrorist attack on New York. The War in Iraq was none of those things.
First, it was a war clearly conceived before the attack on the Twin Trade Towers based on a foreign policy that was grandiose, archaic, and ill-conceived – the Bush Doctrine. Second, it was crazy – "We need to do something. Let’s do this!" – a flailing response to our rage and dispair. And finally, many suspect it was an attempt to secure the oil under Iraq.
Were we fighting the Jihadists directly and someone said, "Jihadism is spreading," that would be a call to fight harder. It wouldn’t be a call to fight less. The reason to oppose this war is that it is wrong on all counts – morally and strategically.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.