In response to the President's speech last night, some Democrats are complaining that Bush falsely associated Iraq and the attack on September 11, 2001.
Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving a questionable link to the war in Iraq - a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.
Except, the President made no such link. He did not claim that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. What he did say is
Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Usama bin Laden: "This Third World War … is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
Given that many of the foreign fighters are from Saudi Arabia (the country of origin of most 9/11 attackers), and that Zarqawi (who was living in Iraq prior to 9/11) calls his organization al Qaeda in Iraq, there is no doubt that we are fighting in Iraq the very same enemies that attacked the World Trade Centers.
It is quite clear.
No doubt.
To not make the connection between 9/11 and the situation in Iraq today is simply ridiculous and denies the obvious reality of the situation.
After the speech last night, General Wesley Clark gave his views on the Fox News channel. He pointed out, as he has done before, that Iraq was an elective war by the President. And he is correct on this. Partly.
The President was determined to be proactive on the war against Islamic Fascism. In his State of the Union Address of 2002 he said
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
He was quite clear on this; no hidden agenda.
And he had a number of ways in which he could go about it after Afghanistan. He chose to take them on in Iraq (with the approval of Congress) for a number of excellent reasons, but he could have chose a different way. So in that sense it was elective. But as Sun Tzu would say, it is better to fight the enemy on the terrain of your choosing than on the terrain of their choosing.
If al Qaeda got a chance to vote, the terrain would have been America.
And as Andrew Sullivan wrote in The Sunday Times of London in 2003
I don't recall the precise conversation but I voiced some worries about what might happen if an occupied Iraq became a target for international terrorism. Wouldn't U.S. soldiers become sitting ducks? What was to stop al Qaeda using Iraq as a battleground in the war against the West? Or Hizbollah? Or even Hamas? Not to mention the Syrians and Iranians, who would persumably be terrified at the thought of an actual living, breathing democracy emerging in the monolithically repressive Arab world.
And what he said surprised me. If the terrorists leave us alone in Iraq, fine, he said. But if they come and get us, even better. Far more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than trying to defend civilians in New York or London. Think of it as a flytrap," he ventured. Iraq would not simply be a test-case for Muslim democracy; it would be the first stage in a real and aggressive war against the terrorists and their sponsors in Ryadh and Damascus and Tehran. Operation Flytrap had been born.
And now, it has become a do or die scenario for al Qaeda
The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So, they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.
So again, it is quite clear that September 11th and Iraq today are in fact connected. That we are fighting in Iraq the very same enemy as attacked us.
That is clear.
No doubt.
To not make the connection between 9/11 and the situation in Iraq today is simply ridiculous and denies the obvious reality of the situation.
Walking off the battlefield when you are engaged with the enemy, and you are killing the enemy in far greater numbers than is sustainable by them in the long term, simply because some in the Media and some political enemies want to embarrass the President, or make up for the election of 2000, or for whatever shortsighted petty reason, would not only be stupid but disastrous as well.
But Bush is not about to make that mistake. Nor is he stupid.
America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women … it demands the steadfastness of our allies … and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens — because we know what is at stake. We fight today, because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world — and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens — and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world — and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.
Let's roll
