John Callender at Lies writes that many advocates of the battle in Iraq see our invasion as a direct result of 9/11. This is true. He goes on to say, however, that because there as been little evidence of a direct relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda (he might say no evidence) that this reasoning cannot be used to justify the invasion.
However, there can be no denying two facts:
1. Saddam did have direct relations with other terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. He funded terrorist attacks within Israel, and facilitated these groups' operations all around the world.
2. Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people was a part of the vast swamp that encourages and contributes to the Arab Muslim terrorist mindset. If, as many leftists claim, such terrorism flourishes due to repressive dictators that the USA has propped up, eliminating one of those dictators directly addresses one of the "root causes" the leftists are so fond of.
Furthermore, don't forget that after the US entered WW2, our first step in Europe was to invade Morocco. Why would we do such a horrible thing? What did Morocco do to us? For strategic reasons, Morocco was a sensible place to start our counter-offensive against the Germans in North Africa. Similarly, Iraq was the low-hanging fruit among our enemies (and they were our avowed enemy); even if I concede a lack of direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, there's no shortage of indirect connections.
Even though different people had different motivations, they all led towards the same intent: topple Saddam Hussein. Some of those motivations may have been selfish, or logically flawed, or noble, or anything, but the cumulative effect of them was widespread and irresistable. Though different people may have had different reasons, everyone agreed on what had to be done, and so it was.
My own personal reasons are based on the overall War on Terror, and so I justify our battle in Iraq on those grounds. The liberation of the Iraqi people is an important step towards our victory in the greater war; not merely because I think everyone deserves to live free (although I do), but because until the Arab Muslim world is free we will continue to be in danger.
Update:
The post originally said "Monaco", but as SDB points out, I meant "Morocco". No wonder my Google search for the date we invaded Monaco turned up nothing.
He goes on to say, however, that because there as been little evidence of a direct relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda (he might say no evidence) that this reasoning cannot be used to justify the invasion.
Actually, I'm not aware of having said that in the linked-to item. I can understand your attributing that to me, since I've certainly said things like that any number of times in the past, but I don't think I actually said it in this particular case. To the extent I was pushing my own opinions in this item, it was more about the difficulties inherent in waging a war to make the whole of the Arab world more like us, as advocated by folks like Steven Den Beste.
On your numbered points, a couple of things jump out at me:
1. Saddam did have direct relations with other terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. He funded terrorist attacks within Israel, and facilitated these groups' operations all around the world.
This may well be true. I've seen it asserted by you, at least. But I'm curious why, if this is true, it didn't play a larger part in the administration's case for war on Iraq. In particular, I wonder if the administration might not have decided, as a matter of tactics, that many Americans might have balked at going to war on behalf of Israel, and so the choice was made to emphasize threats to the United States and its citizens instead.
Now, I realize that a reasonable person might very well conclude that a threat to Israel was sufficient to justify this invasion. But if that was the justification for sending US troops to Iraq, wouldn't it have been better for the President to have made that case explicitly?
2. Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people was a part of the vast swamp that encourages and contributes to the Arab Muslim terrorist mindset. If, as many leftists claim, such terrorism flourishes due to repressive dictators that the USA has propped up, eliminating one of those dictators directly addresses one of the "root causes" the leftists are so fond of.
I've noticed how much you like that "vast swamp" metaphor; that's at least three times I've seen you use it. I worry, though, that you might be letting a colorful metaphor get in the way of clear thinking about the realities involved.
Obviously, Arab Muslims are not a "low, wooded land that is seasonally flooded." Nor are they all terrorists, no matter how much it may look that way from the perspective of, say, American action-adventure movies. There are several hundred million people making up the Arab world. To make the kind of sweeping generalization about the "Arab mind" that Den Beste makes in the piece I linked to from my site, or that you seem to be willing to make in some of the comments I've seen you make, leaves me wondering if the person doing the generalizing is more interested in assembling facts to support an a priori opinion, rather than forming an opinion from an analysis of the facts themselves.
But that aside, on the issue of our removing an evil, repressive dictator that misguided leaders in this country previously created and equipped because they were more concerned with having a pro-US government there than in supporting the aspirations of the Iraqi people, yeah, I would be happy to applaud that... if I could bring myself to believe the current administration's assertions that it has a workable plan to bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to the Iraqi people, and that this war was an appropriate way to bring that about. Unfortunately, at this point I'd say the jury is still out on that point.
But yeah, this could end up being a good thing for the people of Iraq. If it does, I will count that in the Bush administration's favor. In all honesty, though, my leftist kumbaya-chanting internationalist leanings aside, I'm really more concerned about longterm US interests. And I think the jury's still out on whether this war will turn out to have enhanced those when all is said and done, too.
But anyway, apologies for rambling. Thanks for the link, and the comments. Oh, and thanks for getting rid of the black background on your pages. That was driving me nuts. :-)
Ah, the black background is only up at night. I suck at devising good color schemes though, so, ugh. Give me a better night-theme and I'll use it!
I do like the swamp metaphor. You do pretty much imply that you don't agree with those who use 9/11 as a reason for attacking Iraq.
Arabs aren't all terrorists, but the great majority of them seem to support terrorism, based on polls taken in their various countries. As long as the populace supports terrorism, terrorists are going to rise up from among them to threaten us.
Of course I agree that we have to set up a functional and stable government in Iraq, but that took a decade in Japan and Germany and there's no reason to get discombobulated because it's taken more than 3 months in this case.
As for long-term US interests, we tried the whole appeasement thing for 10 years, and the attacks kept escalating.
I believe you mean Morocco, not Monaco.
Man, I hate it when people nitpick like that :)