|
"We will take the battle to the terrorists so we donât have to fight them on our shores."
President Bush, defending the U.S. occupation of Iraq, on Tuesday vowed to pursue the war against terrorism which he said had in part had prompted the U.S. action against Baghdad. "Our war on terror continues," Bush told about 600 supporters at a lunch in Minnesota that raised $1.2 million for his 2004 re-election bid. He likened the ousted Iraqi government to that in Afghanistan which had given haven to al Qaedaâs Osama bin Laden, calling both "terror regimes.." "Those regimes chose defiance, and those regimes are no more," he said. Here I would agree with Bush in that both Afghanistan and Iraq are "terror regimes". However, both regimes still exist and are possibly strengthening. But, hereâs where he really loses me: White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said that in his speech in St Louis to the American Legion, a war veterans group, the president would say that "we will take the battle to the terrorists so we donât have to fight them on our shores." This is the new argument; that we will fight terrorism on the battlefield of our choosing. This is a dangerous mis-conception that only serves the narrow administration view that Saddam Hussien was a primary orchestrator of the worldwide muslim terror offensive against the US and its allies. Whatever proliferation of weapons that may have occurred in Iraq would appear to have been exacerbated by our invasion as any WMDâs that might have existed were probably dispersed, perhaps to Syria or Iran. What is the value in using Iraq as a terror magnet? Apart from the daily attacks on our soldiers by Iraqi resistance - possibly aided by some outside terror network, possibly no more than remnants of the Republican Guard or the like- alot of the devastating bombings of late have taken place in countries away from the Iraqi battlefield. What is it about our operation in Iraq that would support the argument that we wonât have to fight them (terrorists)on our shores? Most observers predict another devastating attack in the US is inevitable if not imminent. Further, by likening Iraq to the worldwide muslim terror offensive the president does what Hussien could not; he binds Iraqis to the Muslim resistance, practically inviting them to join the battle there and ally with the forces that threaten our soldiers daily. This will create, not a democratic wedge against Muslim extremism in the region, but sadly, American targets in Iraq whose lives are no less important than ours here in the states. To be fair to Bush, he hasnât really spelled out just what he means by this. Maybe someone here can. Posted by: fullwood@returningsoldiers.us 2003-08-27 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=18040 |