My laughter still hasn't subsided from the last post. I told my research assistant, who happens to be an atheist, that many of his fellow non-believers were too dumb to recognize even the most blatant irony and satire. He refused to believe it, until he saw it with his own eyes. He's a believer now, at least in the fact that there are plenty of atheists who are as clueless as the most ignorant fundamentalist.
Now that I've established that beyond a reasonable doubt, it's time to move on to the latest political news. In his latest speech, Obama confidently declared that America's war in Iraq is a "distraction" from our involvement in Afghanistan.
Leave aside the problem that Obama's Iraq views and policy all seem formulated prior to actually finding out what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is scheduled to go to Iraq later this month on a "fact finding mission." He will also visit Afghanistan for the first time. Couldn't Obama's wisdom on Iraq and Afghanistan have waited for what he might find when he's over there?
Liberal Democrats like Obama keep saying Iraq is the "distraction" when, from the point of view of the Islamic radicals, Iraq is absolutely crucial. Al Qaeda has publicly stressed that Iraq is the global center of the war on terror, the staging ground for the beginning of World War III.
Why is Iraq so important to Bin Laden? Because since 1979 the radical Muslims have controlled only one major Muslim country, and that is Iran. They are desperate to get their hands on a second one. They have already said that if they get Iraq, they will focus next on Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
For America, Iraq is crucial for a reason regularly stressed by real estate agents: Location, location, location. Here are the names of Iraq's neighbors: Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Is there any doubt how important it is to have a pro-American Muslim government (or even better, a pro-American Muslim democracy) in that neighborhood?
By contrast, it is Afghanistan that is quite frankly a "distraction." Afghanistan was chosen as the launching pad for the 9/11 attacks because the Taliban government provided rent-free accommodations there for the Al Qaeda training camps. It was essential for the U.S. to get rid of the Taliban, and I'm glad the international community is keeping an eye on the place to prevent a return of those fanatics. Even so, anyone who thinks Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq needs his head examined.
If Obama's dismissal of Iraq seems like the unserious speculation of a novice, McCain has shown the prudent judgment of a real statesman. When almost everyone was against the surge, McCain pushed it. It wasn't that Bush talked McCain into supporting the surge. The truth is actually the opposite: McCain sold it to Bush.
It is the surge that seems to have changed the facts on the ground, and that is a testament to McCain's political bravery and strategic far-sightedness. Let's hope Obama finds out what is really going on before he issues more pearls of unwisdom.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 15)
1. Which political leader will you choose?
Will you choose the one who will CAUSE the most DEATHS in the WORLD and make it LESS SAFE for you and your family?
I choose the one who is the least of the evils AND I work to change the system to revoke governments powers to wage war and to bring war crimes charges against members of the government!
Peter at 1:39AM on Jul 16th 2008
2. If you vote for a politician and they kill people in your name you are responsible for those deaths just as they are. Thus if your politician kills in your name you will burn in your mythical hell.
Peter at 1:39AM on Jul 16th 2008
3. Dinesh D'Souza worked in the Regan White House and as such is likely a war criminal who supported the deaths and killings and murders that Regan Ordered while in office.
You're going to burn in the mythical hell for your crimes Dinesh D'Souza - according to the ethics of your bible.
Peter at 1:42AM on Jul 16th 2008
4. DD says; point of view of the Islamic radicals, Iraq is absolutely crucial. Al Qaeda has publicly stressed that Iraq is the global center of the war on terror, the staging ground for the beginning of World War III.
He makes fun of the people on thus blog for believing his BS, and now he believes Al Qaeds. go figure.
Jerry Brown at 1:44AM on Jul 16th 2008
5. McCain said today he knows how to win wars, and repeated he knows how to win wars.
John McCain and his phony credentials on terrorism, and foreign wars. I remember when Bill Clinton was taking care of Yugoslavia with just air power. Ever other day John McCain was leading the parade in calling for boots on the ground. McCain said over, and over we have to put boots on the ground. Clinton was able to bring the situation to a satisfactory conclusion including the Hague for Milosevic without losing any personal. If McCain had his way we would have been mired down in Yugoslavia, and have lost a lot of lives. John McCain has proven over time he knows little about running a war.
Jerry Brown at 1:49AM on Jul 16th 2008
6. Congrats, Dinesh, I was blinded by my loathing, and you used it against me. Should have seen it coming two installments ago, and didn't. You have earned my respect.
Well played, old man. Young Arnth has some work to do.
ex-christian at 1:50AM on Jul 16th 2008
7. Folks like Barrack Obama, who insist that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror live in a tiny little bumper-sticker fantasy world created by miserable hate-America-first leftists who would presume to tell our military that their mission and sacrifice in Iraq means nothing, that they've failed, that the surge isn't working in subduing, killing and capturing al Queda in Iraq and that these arm-chair critics know better than Osamma and the terrorists themselves exactly what Iraq's strategic value is.
Most of these folks have learned everything they think they need to know about Iraq by simply perusing left-wing blogs, watching CNN and talking to their liberal friends. These geniuses know (or think they know) exactly what's gone on in Iraq over the last few decades even though they've never been there.
And I guess there must have been some sort of magical force-field in Iraq to keep al Queda out while Saddam was in power. That's right. Al Queda was in dozens of countries, including America, but not in Iraq under Saddam. Make sense?
Who cares if Saddam and Osamma "liked" each other or not? That's irrelevant. They had every reason to work together at some level because they had a common enemy who they hated more. America.
Dave at 2:07AM on Jul 16th 2008
8. Dinesh, you should still be ashamed. But you have no soul, do you? It's all a glib game to you.
You win. I salute you, a symbol of American success.
You have a natural advantage. A lack of morality can go far when coupled with ridiculous egotism and cunning. (Either cunning or good looks) (With you, it's cunning)
In today's America, either combination PAYS.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:08AM on Jul 16th 2008
9. DD says; By contrast, it is Afghanistan that is quite frankly a "distraction." Afghanistan was chosen as the launching pad for the 9/11 attacks because the Taliban government provided rent-free accommodations there for the Al Qaeda training camps. It was essential for the U.S. to get rid of the Taliban, and I'm glad the international community is keeping an eye on the place to prevent a return of those fanatics
There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush decided that we go over there. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, and is still there. The Taliban is killing more of our service people in Afghanistan than is dying in Iraq every day, and you say it is not important. Whose side are you on????
Jerry Brown at 2:15AM on Jul 16th 2008
10. Yeah, I heard some righty the other day on the news saying how Bin Ladin himself has said that Iraq is the central front on terror... And I thought "Gee, if I were smart, I wouldn't believe Bin Ladin about anything..." Since when is his word golden around here? I mean, if I were him, that's what I would say! We're bleeding out there as he hoped we would, and he loves it. The more, the merrier. Hey, at least we're not concentrating on Afghanistan or Pakistan! No way Bin Ladin would tell us that THEY'RE the central front on terror. Would you if you WERE HIDING OUT THERE AS HE IS?
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Wake up, people. Of course he doesn't want us at his doorstep.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:16AM on Jul 16th 2008
11. You know, if I were Bin Ladin I'd consider George Bush a belssing straight from Allah. And I'd want to keep him in office. By that, I mean McCain of course. How would I go about it? Think about it. Think about the nature of the public in this country.
I'd endorse Obama.
I hope he doesn't. 'Cause that'd probably work, we're so stupid.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:20AM on Jul 16th 2008
12. And I mean, c'mon! GWB's family did business with the Bin Ladin family before 9-11! It's a matter of public record, not some "nutcase liberal theory!" You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to see a connection here! C'mon, people!
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:23AM on Jul 16th 2008
13.
Must not forget Afghanistan is also strategic due to its border with Iran and Pakistan. How stable is Pakistan sharing a porous border with Afghanistan, a government that does not control the countryside, and a nuclear arsenal that could be used if the government is destabilized?
JefFlyingV at 3:09AM on Jul 16th 2008
14. How about a nut job theory?
We can leave Iraq, could have done it awhile ago. Let's play to our strength. We are not nation builders, we are not the world police. You know what we do well? Shock and awe. We had an established government on the run in a matter of months. Do you think we couldn't do it again? It is what our military was built for.
Let them put whatever government they want just make it clear that if they screw it up we will be back. If they screw it up again we wil come back again. No need to hang around and be targets for assholes. It'll be hard to rally the troops against us if we're somewhere else. Let Al Queda take over if they are foolish enough to try. They are easy targets sitting in palaces than hiding in caves.
It's really not that different form the policy we have in in Afganistan right now.
No it's not perfect but what is. the philosphy behind is very sound,
'find what you don't do well and don't do that thing' - TMIMA
tmo at 3:14AM on Jul 16th 2008
15. You fail to mention the fact, that Iraq wouldn't have the significance it does, without the power vacuum WE created.
As it stood pre-war, Iraq was the "wild card." Saddam was the balance; All of the Islamic nations had to worry about the real and distinct possibility of his dangerousness. A great deal of their resources were reserved in the case of his expansionist agenda. The region was locked in a stalemate.
By Islamic standards, Iraq was relatively secular. Having the large amount of oil, it was fairly prosperous. Saddam used the oil wealth to modernize Iraq.
When Saddam invaded Iran, he surmised that the chaos of the Islamic revolution would give him the edge, but within 2 years, Iran had regained all lost ground. The Reagan administration sold weapons to both sides, until caught - but continued to supply Saddam with conventional and chemical weapons.
Wnen Saddam invaded Kuwait, he sent an envoy DAYS before he invaded. It's not a coincidence, he announced his intentions. After the first Gulf War, he was seriously weakened, but not to the point where he could be could be written off. One could conclude that weakening led to the strength of radical Islam.
Then, come's the sequel. An obvious possible doubling of the radical Shia movement, as Iraq is largely the same sect as Iran. You need to question the rationale for removing a secular dictator, when a "democratic" Iraq would naturally ally itself with it's "evil" neighbor. That rationale changed several times, when the original rationale proved to be lies. WMD's, connections to Al-Queda, "Saddam was a really bad guy," Building "democracy."
ex-christian at 3:22AM on Jul 16th 2008