This past week, newspapers reported that a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) had concluded that the Iraq War has created more terrorists and hence has contributed to endangering the United States.
Naturally, supporters of the war have doubted the claim, while opponents have largely trumpeted it. These positions, of course, are to be expected, but beyond them, a very serious objective question must be answered - is the report correct? If the Iraq war has indeed created more terrorists, then perhaps it's time to update our strategy there. If, on the other hand, the report erred, then our Armed Forces may be best off by continuing in their current direction. How can we properly evaluate the claim?
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer has reached an unexpected conclusion to this question in a recent essay. His answer: We don't know if the report is correct or not. But regardless, wars make us less safe, and the only way to restore that safety is through victory.
I agree with Mr. Krauthammer's contention. Taking his outcome further, in fact, I'd argue that the report's accuracy is irrelevant. Regardless of how many jihadists the Iraq war may or may not have created, the fact remains that they fight primarily in Iraq and not in America or anywhere else. The Iraq war, then, prevents terrorism nonetheless by forcing would-be perpetrators to fight our army as opposed to our civilian population elewhere. No matter the NIE report's accuracy, this principle clearly stands.
As a result, no matter how we view the report, we must for the sake of all Americans continue our Iraqi efforts. Ultimately, doing so should create not additonal terrorism, but victory and success.
In related news:
Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald believes in withdrawing from Iraq. As you can probably guess, I certainly disagree, but I'd like to present his essay due to the remainder of its content - speculation on how to divide and conquer our jihadist enemies. One suggestion: encouraging non-Arab Muslims to reclaim their pre-Islamic cultural identities. Here, I fully agree, and actually wrote an essay arguing this very point several months back. Not sure if Mr. Fitzgerald happened to see it, but it's great to see others on the same strategic page.
I think appeasement makes our country less safe. It didn’t work for Prime Minister Chamberlain and it isn’t working now.
Al Qaeda isn’t going to stop until they rule the entire world or they are destroyed. Since they don’t wear uniforms or have a central base they will be infinitely hard to eliminate. Appeasing them will just prolong the conflict.
Terrorist attacks against American troops are ineffective. They are primarily appealing to the Left when making these attacks.
That’s why they are known as USEFUL IDIOTS.
These attacks are made to convince us to withdraw. If they thought that liberals wouldn’t reciprocate then they would just fizzle out.
APPEASEMENT CREATES TERRORISM.
Posted by: Freedom N0w | October 06, 2006 at 09:54 AM
Totally agree with you!
Posted by: Solid Surfer | October 06, 2006 at 04:28 PM
The WHOLE NIE is reasonably correct. The pieces "leaked" to attack Bush and the Republicans made it sound way off base!!
Posted by: KuhnKat | October 06, 2006 at 08:33 PM
To me it seems a little bit obvious that an Iraq war would produce a reactionary response from Islamic extremists in which more of them become terrorists. It seems there are many extremists that had not yet acted on their beliefs, but the war has provided them a reason to do so. This is a short-run response and only natural for the Islamic extremists who view Iraq as their safe haven, to try to defend it and act out against the US. I think this was going to happen no matter how we decided to fight the War on Terror. This junction of the war is a difficult, rigorous, but neccessary step in winning the War on Terror.
Posted by: Mini Me | October 07, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Kuhnkat, that's a very good point. Of course the mainstream media won't publicize the other parts of the NIE, since it contradicts the leftist spin they've been trying to present over the past few years.
Posted by: Solid Surfer | October 09, 2006 at 12:55 PM
I wouldn't necessarily agree, though, that the Iraq war has created more terrorists. I think that whoever is a terrorist would have been so anyway, and all the Iraq war has done is to ensure that these terrorists have gone there, instead of to Western nations themselves.
For those skeptical of this reasoning, I think it compares very similarly to Nazi Germany - the Nazis called up more soldiers after the Allies fought back against them during World War II, but by no means did the Allies fighting back actually cause there to be more Nazis. Rather, the Nazis recruited those Germans who already supported their ideology, and had they not been fighting the Allies on their own territory, they would have fought for Nazism elsewhere (i.e. in Allied territory itself), which would have been far worse.
Posted by: Solid Surfer | October 09, 2006 at 01:02 PM
Solid Surfer,
I agree with you 100%, I don't think I clearly stated my stance. I think the war has prompted many extremists to act now in a "terrorist" manner. I think they were going to either now or later, however the war has resulted in many choosing "now" rather than "later". I think it would have been silly for anyone to expect that while we are in Iraq, that islamic extremists would not react in anyway.
Posted by: Mini Me | October 09, 2006 at 01:49 PM
Hi Mini Me,
Glad to have you back on the site! I see what you're saying about Iraq; when I mentioned anyone who might be skeptical of what I wrote, I meant it in general and not specifically in reference to your post.
Posted by: Solid Surfer | October 09, 2006 at 03:04 PM
I have no problem with the idea that our attacking Afghanistan and Iraq would "CREATE" jihadis. Of course, our attacking drug organisations "CREATE" cop killers also!!!
If you want to allow homicidal maniacs to run around doing as they please you won't CONCENTRATE them in a particular place and time. You ALLOW them to create their OWN place and time.
One of the REAL reasons for the war was to create a war zone OUTSIDE of the US. This has been a magnificent success. al-Qaeda themselves announced that over 4000 foreign fighters have been killed in Iraq. I don't have numbers handy on how many were killed in Afghanistan. There have also been numerous Jihadis killed and rounded up around the world.
Basically, as long as we are not taking LARGE losses in Iraq, and the foreign fighters continue to present themselves to be martyred, it is good training for our troops and a reduction in the enemy forces. Not to mention a draining of their resources.
Finally we have also realised that Ramadan is their preferred time for attacks. The US, allied, and Iraqi forces are running 3 anti-insurgent operations in Baghdad and 2 other
hot spots right now and kicking terrorist BUTT!!! In Afghanistan NATO has been doing a good job of kicking Talibun and al-Qaeda BUTT!!!
Ever notice how the LEFTARDS scream the loudest when we are doing the best job of WINNING?!?!?!?!?!??!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: KuhnKat | October 09, 2006 at 08:38 PM
The media only reported the parts of the NIE that were unfavorable to Bush and the Republicans. They took certain parts of the text and used it out of context.
Posted by: Alex | October 11, 2006 at 07:40 AM
Not many people are astute enough to realize that the Iraq war has made Afghanistan SAFER!!!!!
By taking the pressure off of Afghanistan ,Al Qaeda and the Taliban are left with only enough resources to fight over rocks and caves in the remote eastern provinces.
Al Qaeda has stretched themselves thin because their lines of communication are blocked by Iran. Although, Iran is not overtly hostile to them, they are Shiite and the Sunni Al Qaeda organization is responsible for murderous campaigns against the Shia in Pakistan and Iraq. So Iran doesnt want them to have free passage through their country.
All the cards are stacked against these Al Qaeda clowns and its their own fault.
Posted by: Freedom Now | October 11, 2006 at 01:36 PM
That's true about Afghanistan too. I think Al Qaeda is near done. America's primary challenge, as I see it, now extends beyond them and onto the enablers of Islamic terrorism in general, such as Saudi Arabian oil money. We need to do our best to shut their funding down.
Posted by: Solid Surfer | October 13, 2006 at 12:08 AM
Surfer said:
"We need to do our best to shut their funding down."
Yeah, and the LEFTARDS in Florida and California (my home) won't drill off shore!!! Damn, how can people be SO STUPID!!
Have you seen the ludicrous things on the ballot here in Californicators??? It just keeps getting WORSE!!! And Ahhhhhnuld just keeps swinging LEFT to get votes.
Posted by: KuhnKat | October 14, 2006 at 12:37 AM
The main reason they won't drill for the oil is because leftists keep on ridiculously saying that it will hurt the environment.
Of course, the facts show otherwise, as the oil companies have drilled in plenty of other places without incurring damage. But the environmentalists don't care; this is the same crowd that banned DDT even though it saved millions from getting malaria.
Posted by: Solid Surfer | October 15, 2006 at 08:54 PM