Realities and fantasies
I love a good 'disconnected-from-reality' letter-to-the-editor every so often, and Christopher Walcott from Colbert was able to supply me with one for today.
I don't want to focus on it too much, seeing how a large portion of what he writes is so oddly distorted and lacks the appropriate context, but it's safe to say that Walcott's history lesson regarding al-Qaida is horrifically misleading.
While he is right in agreeing with the author of a previous letter than Osama bin Laden was a leader in the Afghan resistance, he misspeaks when he says simply that bin Laden 'broke away from the mujahedeen to form al-Qaida.' In reality, the mujahedeen evolved into al-Qaida in the weeks following Saddam's invasion of after the Saudia Arabia government refused to let bin Laden use the mujahedeen to repel the Iraqis. That, coupled with what he viewed as the desecration of Mecca as U.S. forces, women included, were allowed to take up residence in the country to free Kuwait.
And, truth be told, the U.S. did break off considerable financial support to the mujahedeen once the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan because, quite simply, there was no need to back an insurgency that had already triumphed. The original author might be too harsh in saying the U.S. 'dumped' bin Laden and the mujahedeen, but Walcott is equally as misleading in suggesting we didn't.
The terrorist bases which were discovered were uncovered in the Kurdish portions of the country, which were free from Saddam's oppressive rule. While it's true Iraq participated in some terrorist activities, these actions were few and far between and often poorly planned and executed (like the botched attempt on President George H.W. Bush's life).
The 9/11-Iraq connections Walcott attempts to discredit are almost too laughable for me to even address. There's considerable evidence of direct and indirect linking done by different members of the Bush Administration - see here, here and here.
I don't want to focus on it too much, seeing how a large portion of what he writes is so oddly distorted and lacks the appropriate context, but it's safe to say that Walcott's history lesson regarding al-Qaida is horrifically misleading.
While he is right in agreeing with the author of a previous letter than Osama bin Laden was a leader in the Afghan resistance, he misspeaks when he says simply that bin Laden 'broke away from the mujahedeen to form al-Qaida.' In reality, the mujahedeen evolved into al-Qaida in the weeks following Saddam's invasion of after the Saudia Arabia government refused to let bin Laden use the mujahedeen to repel the Iraqis. That, coupled with what he viewed as the desecration of Mecca as U.S. forces, women included, were allowed to take up residence in the country to free Kuwait.
And, truth be told, the U.S. did break off considerable financial support to the mujahedeen once the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan because, quite simply, there was no need to back an insurgency that had already triumphed. The original author might be too harsh in saying the U.S. 'dumped' bin Laden and the mujahedeen, but Walcott is equally as misleading in suggesting we didn't.
The terrorist bases which were discovered were uncovered in the Kurdish portions of the country, which were free from Saddam's oppressive rule. While it's true Iraq participated in some terrorist activities, these actions were few and far between and often poorly planned and executed (like the botched attempt on President George H.W. Bush's life).
The 9/11-Iraq connections Walcott attempts to discredit are almost too laughable for me to even address. There's considerable evidence of direct and indirect linking done by different members of the Bush Administration - see here, here and here.
posted by Jmac at 7:14 AM
9 Comments:
I don't know if that's necessarily true Corleone (BTW, welcome back around to these parts). Again, I don't think anyone is implying Saddam was harmless, but in relation to both Iran and North Korea - as well as the al-Qaida-backed genocide in Sudan - it's hard to argue he was more of a threat than those situations.
Part of my problem with the invasion of Iraq was not that Saddam wasn't a bad guy who shouldn't be dealt with (he surely was) but rather how he should be dealt with and was he as dangerous as a threat as the other countries.
I would have rather seen us take a stronger and more pro-active approach in dealing with North Korea. The invasion of Iraq, all the while with North Korea actively working on developing nuclear warheads and the weaponry which can deliver them to our shores, potentially diminished our bargaining power with the North Koreans.
When they see, for instance, our tanks rolling through the Iraqi desert while they actively flaunt the international community by going back on their word and reconstituting their nuclear program, what's to deter them?
I'll also say, to give you some credit, the argument you make is considerably more convincing than the one offered by the Bush Administration in the days leading up to the war.
I still disagree with your assertion that we should have awakened on 9/12 and automatically assumed we had to attack Iraq just because he was a bad guy. There are lots of bad guys in the world, and they don't always think alike or act alike or pose the same threat.
After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it have made little sense to invade the Soviet Union despite our strong disagreements with them and concern over their plans for communist expansion. Our beef was with Nazi Germany and the other members of the Axis Powers. Sure, we knew we needed to deal with the Soviets, but 1941 wasn't the time to be doing it. There were more pressing concerns that had to be addressed, and when those were sorted out then we could move on to the Soviet Union.
Just for a bit of historical clarification, Nazi Germany was aligned with Japan and promptly declared war on the U.S. immediately after the U.S. declared war on Japan. Considering a state of war then existed between Nazi Germany and the U.S., deploying forces to assist those already fighting makes perfect sense, especially considering how diminished U.S. forces were in the Pacific in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.
There was a definitive link between Nazi Germany and Japan, one which isn't present between al-Qaida and Iraq. True, both were openly hostile to the U.S., but mutual hostility doesn't indicate a connection.
Sen. Vanderburg was foolish, then. Though I don't think that detracts from my analogy.
Regarding Iran, I'd side with Ned and say they're a larger threat than they were now, thanks in large part to U.S. military action in Iraq. But then again, the Iranians got to remove one of their most hated foes in Saddam without firing a shot, so there's that. Still, I wouldn't consider Iran an immediate threat since they are, literally, several years away from developing a nuclear weapon.
(I'm not saying we should ignore the situation, but military action is out of the question in my mind right now).
As you noted, there is a strong, progressive democratic movement underway in Iran and, though it's been slowed by the actions of the U.S. in the Middle East, it's still quite strong. This younger generation lives under a fairly oppressive regime, and is cultivating leaders to change that trend.
The offer to negotiate with the U.S., and the much-ridiculed letter sent by Iran's president to President Bush, are actually positive signs from a country which shunned outside contact with the world and should be greeted with a welcome sign. The Iranians still don't like us, that's clear, but at least now they are willing to talk with us. That wasn't the case 20 years ago.
And true, North Korea is prone to making bombastic statements. It's part of the governing culture of this country. However, they do possess a disdain for us dating back to our intervention in the Korean War, and I can't think of a more mentally unstable leader than Kim Jong-Il.
I reject the notion that we our invasion of Iraq is somehow the source of our current problems with terrorists.
We had no boots in Baghdad on 9/11.
Well, yes and no.
We had no boots in Baghdad on 9/11, but we had boots in Mecca in 1991. And that, along with the U.S. support of Israel, is one of the primary stated rationales (by its leaders) for al-Qaida's actions. I'm not saying we shouldn't have been in Saudi Arabia in 1991 - we should have been because one ally had been invaded and another was facing invasion - but that is one of the stated reasons for the jihad against the U.S. and the West.
So while our current actions in Iraq haven't caused the existing terrorist activity or hostile feelings from Islamic countries, it has stoked the fires of anti-Americanism.
You're kidding yourself if you don't see that.
"So while our current actions in Iraq haven't caused the existing terrorist activity or hostile feelings from Islamic countries, it has stoked the fires of anti-Americanism."
Yes, but I think Corleone's point is that those fires are always burning anyway, no matter what we do. We stoked those flames in 1991 by doing something you yourself admit we were right to do. So when it comes to arguing about the appropriateness of the War in Iraq, it seems like a non-starter to appeal to Middle Eastern anger that may be stoked by that war. Because we stoke such anger all the time, doing the kinds of things that we have to do. Middle Eastern Islamicists do not trust western "Christian" nations. That might change with a younger generation that presses for cultural and political reforms (as in Iran), but among the hard-line "old guard" there is precious little we can do to keep Islamicists from hating us.
Or something to that effect.
The fires may have been burning, but I'd still argue the current actions - right or wrong - are encouraging them.
So, yes, while it was the proper thing to defend Saudi Arabia and liberate Kuwait, it cemented a generation of resentment among some individuals. Of course, I'm boiling down a very complex matter to a very simplistic one, more or less, seeing how the struggle between the 'Christian West' and 'Islamic Middle East' dates back centuries.
My point, however, was that our primary enemy in this War on Terror is al-Qaida, and al-Qaida has publically stated that two of its primary reasons for hating us is the use of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia and Western support of Israel.
So, as someone who considers himself a liberal internationalist when it comes to foreign policy (more or less), I don't have a problem in engaging in foreign affairs when it's appropriate for our country and our allies, even if it angers some people. However, we shouldn't needlessly anger people, particularly those who we're trying to win over.
There's a difference in kicking up a fire in order to save someone caught in the flames and randomly jabbing a stick in the fire just to see it get stirred up.
I know that sounds incredibly confusing, as well as possibly inconsistent, but such is life of foreign policy. It's not a neat process and each scenario requires a different response based on a wide variety of variables.
I'd agree that much of the disagreement is partisan is nature, though I don't know if that necessarily is a bad thing. I mean we have two major competing political parties, and the ability of them to take distinctly different positions on the issues is a positive thing I think.
The problem with looking back at history regarding this particular incident is that there was considerable evidence to suggest that Saddam wasn't an immediate threat to the U.S., but many of the leaders who now oppose the war simply went along with the process because ...
1. They sincerely felt the threat was not to be ignored;
2. They were seeking political cover in the face of the upcoming elections.
The first option is a valid belief to hold on to, while the latter is unfortunate but a reality of the political circumstances. It isn't as if the Republicans have been immune in this game. A majority of Republicans did not support the Kosovo intervention, nor did they initially support the creation of a Homeland Security department.
Why do we get so stunned when politicians play politics?
And while you quote one of my favorite scenes from The West Wing, it's important to understand the context of how that quote was used. Toby was referring to Islamic extremists, not the invasion of a secular Middle Eastern country.
I take a hard-line, almost hawkish, position with regard to the overall War On Terror. However, it's difficult for me to connect Iraq with the struggle against Islamic extremism because pre-invasion Iraq was not exactly a hotbed of terrorist activity.
I agree, however, we just can't pick up and leave. I wouldn't attempt to make such an argument.
But you say there was no third option as if everything is an 'either/or' challenge. Is it possible that the 'take action' you subscribe to (i.e. invasion of Iraq) was the wrong action to take, but that action still should have been taken?
That is a ramping up of inspections and flooding the country with U.S.-led U.N. peacekeepers (which was a Russian/German/French counterplan, partially endorsed by the British)? We act as if there was only one way to take action when, quite simply, several possible options open to us.
I would argue something had to be done about Iraq, but I don't know if invasion was the appropriate response. It isn't as simply as saying 'they're a threat' or 'they're not a threat' ... the real question is what was the proper way to deal with said threat, particularly in light of other threats across the world.
I wasn't discounting the Oil-For-Food scandal (it was atrocious, to be sure), but I don't think that detracted anything from the validity of the plan offered by the Germans, French and Russians. Does Enron detract from the ability of the U.S. to engage in foreign policy?
And I don't know what you'd think my openness to discuss their alternative plan means I'd cede American security to them. That's ridiculous. You're absolutely right - American security is the responsibility of the American people, and our nation doesn't need permission to defend itself from attack.
But engaging with your allies about how to conduct a foreign policy which includes the international community is not ceding our security-making decisions to them.
Why is it, may I ask, that you only deal in absolutes in these types of discussions? Not that they're aren't absolutes - surely they are - but this most recent point we're discussing, as well as the 'no other options but war and cowardice' seem foolish to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home