The "I'd rather fight them there" logic
Bush Criticized for Linking 9/11 and Iraq - Yahoo! News: "McCain, R-Ariz., did defend Bush's call to stop terrorism abroad before it reaches the U.S. shore. Appearing on CNN's 'Larry King Live' program, McCain said that those spreading violence in Iraq 'are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win in Iraq.'"
I feel I've heard this claim/argument a number of times. What does it mean exactly? That we invaded a sovereign country so we could use their country to fight terrorists on their land instead of ours? Some in Iraq do think that's what it means and are upset about it:
"Why are the Americans drawing terrorism into Iraq?" asked Abdul Ridha al-Hafadhi, 58, head of a humanitarian aid group.
"Why don't they find another place to fight terrorism?" he asked. "I don't feel comforted by Bush's remarks; there must be a timetable for their departure."
Even if that's what it means, how is it true? Just because the US military is in Iraq this is supposed to mean that terrorists are less likely to hit the US mainland because we've provided a better target for them in their own neighborhood so they don't have to travel to get to us? Is that what the military believes their "job" is? To be a target for terrorism so US civilians don't have to be targets?
posted by Victor Laszlo @ 6/29/2005
3 comments
3 Comments:
I agree with both comments, but must offer one very different clarification. The average commute for a terrorist is quite short right now. According to the Bush team, we should support their needs for a shorter commute by sending thousands of targets to them so as to motivate them to focus on the easy targets and leave the harder ones alone. But remember, terrorists are a very generous lot and in return for your heart and mind, they are often willing to front all travel expenses to (but not from) a violent and tragic event. What you need to understand is that the current administration is sensitive to commuting costs around the world and would prefer to reduce terrorists reliance on fossil fuels by bringing the fight to them. Make sense now? Good.
Good point, Imp. I hadn't realized that the Bushies have adopted the policy of fighting terrorists in Iraq as a more pro-business alternative to reducing global warming than signing the Kyoto protocol. And all along I thought the whole "we're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them here" explanation was just to hide the real purposes: building military bases in the Middle East, gaining control over oil supplies, exploiting Americans' fear of terrorism to increase their political popularity, and providing lucrative contract opportunities to the Military Industrial Complex. Thanks for straightening me out.
An Inquirer editorial picks up the "soldiers as bait" idea:
Did Bush really not anticipate the possibility of an insurgency? If so, the President owed it to Americans on Tuesday night - 21/2 years after invading Iraq - to offer a strategy based on sounder pragmatic and moral principles than endlessly using U.S. soldiers as bait abroad to keep terrorists from attacking at home.
Bush's Iraq Speech Honesty Goes Begging June 30, 2005
Post a Comment
<< Home